published helmet research - not troll

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Steven Bornfeld wrote:


Safety measures shouldn't be discarded because they are not 100%
effective.


Perhaps that's true.

But safety measures shouldn't be strongly promoted unless their benefits
are proven in large populations.

They shouldn't even be considered for mandating unless it's proven that
the resulting benefits outweigh the detriments - including the important
benefit of personal freedom, for one's self and one's family.

And they shouldn't receive the lion's share of promotion unless other
measures are much less effective.


Unfortunately, bike helmets seem to look relatively useless in large
population studies (as opposed to limited case-control studies with
self-selected subjects).

Mandating, and perhaps even strong promotion, of bike helmets tends to
drive people away from cycling, by making it seem extraordinarily
dangerous. And promoters have successfully convinced the public that
cycling is, indeed, dangerous - despite data to the contrary.

And it's still true that often, the ONLY thing people hear about bike
safety is "Always wear a helmet!!!!" Nothing about rules of the road,
lights at night, maintaining the machine, etc.

I've seen enough helmeted families riding facing traffic, or riding at
night without lights, to know that the emphasis needs to be changed.


Recently, a member of my extended family was in for some minor medical
care - interestingly, related to being hit by a car while walking. The
physician heard mention of bicycling, and asked "Do you always wear a
helmet?" When the answer was "No," there was some scolding.

Think about that. Nothing about "Do you follow the rules of the road?
do you ride on the right? Do you use lights at night? Is your bike
mechanically sound?" And of course, nothing about "Do you wear a helmet
when crossing the street?" _despite_ the recent car impact!

Clearly, the emphasis is mistaken.

Feel free to start another thread. My advocacy of helmets does not in
any way make me irresponsible regarding these other issues. Do you
believe it does?

Steve

Erik Freitag writes:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:21:50 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:

This is not true. Children do not ride less due to helmet laws,
particularly in California, where the helmet laws are not enforced (or
rarely enforced.) If you tell a young teen to start using a helmet when
he previously didn't want to, you can expect a negative reaction (natural
rebelliousness.) Kids who started using helmets when they started riding
bicycles don't have that reaction.

I think this is another evidence-free (in the statistical sense)
assertion. I offer a counter-anecdote - my kids, 11 & 13 won't ride to
school because they don't want to wear their helmets because helmets make
them look like geeks, like their dad. Dad won't let them ride without one
because there's a law ...

See if you can prove otherwise. I've seen the police drive by an
unhelmeted kid riding a bicycle numerous times. I've never seen
an officer stop a child.

If they don't cite anyone, the law won't have any effect. In fact,
I doubt if most parents are even aware of the law.

BTW, your kids may be just using that as an excuse. If you told them
they couldn't use a helmet, they might insist on using one, just to
be rebellious. You konw, 13 years old ...


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Steven Bornfeld wrote:



Frank Krygowski wrote:

Meyer Hillman, a rather famous researcher for the British Medical
Association, has computed that the years of life gained due to
cycling outnumber the years of life lost by a 20 to 1 ratio.

From what I've seen, the speculation in this discussion has come
from you! "Common sense" indeed!



Yeah, yeah. I'll bet he hates helmets too.


:-) The intellectual level of the discussion seems to be falling like a
stone.

He did study the issue of benefits versus detriments of cycling when he
was researching the helmet issue, true. And it's partly for that reason
that he is strongly against mandating helmets, and very cautious about
even promoting them.

Give the guy credit for doing study and research before forming his
opinion, please.

Like I said. I'd be happy to seek out the study. Can you post a
reference?

Steve

Steven Bornfeld wrote:


Frank Krygowski wrote:

Meyer Hillman, a rather famous researcher for the British Medical
Association, has computed that the years of life gained due to cycling
outnumber the years of life lost by a 20 to 1 ratio.

From what I've seen, the speculation in this discussion has come from
you! "Common sense" indeed!


Yeah, yeah. I'll bet he hates helmets too.

:-) The intellectual level of the discussion seems to be falling like a
stone.

He did study the issue of benefits versus detriments of cycling when he
was researching the helmet issue, true. And it's partly for that reason
that he is strongly against mandating helmets, and very cautious about
even promoting them.

Give the guy credit for doing study and research before forming his
opinion, please.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Bill Z. wrote:

Erik Freitag writes:


On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:21:50 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:


This is not true. Children do not ride less due to helmet laws,
particularly in California, where the helmet laws are not enforced (or
rarely enforced.) If you tell a young teen to start using a helmet when
he previously didn't want to, you can expect a negative reaction (natural
rebelliousness.) Kids who started using helmets when they started riding
bicycles don't have that reaction.

I think this is another evidence-free (in the statistical sense)
assertion. I offer a counter-anecdote - my kids, 11 & 13 won't ride to
school because they don't want to wear their helmets because helmets make
them look like geeks, like their dad. Dad won't let them ride without one
because there's a law ...


See if you can prove otherwise. I've seen the police drive by an
unhelmeted kid riding a bicycle numerous times. I've never seen
an officer stop a child.

If they don't cite anyone, the law won't have any effect. In fact,
I doubt if most parents are even aware of the law.

There are other ways in which laws can be enforced and have effects.

My bike commute in the SF East Bay area took me past an elementary
school, a middle school, and a high school. Although there are far
fewer kids cycling to school now than before the helmet law, I still see
a reasonable number. Almost all of them have a helmet, but about 80% of
those helmets are hanging from their handlebars. Maybe this is just a
new fashion statement, but I think there's another reason - the kids
really don't want to wear the helmets but the law is enforced at the
schoolyard (and possibly at home). As soon as they are off the school
property the helmets come off their heads and get tied to the bars.

When my daughter was starting high school I asked her why none of her
friends rode their bikes anymore. She asked them and the main reason
given was the 'helmet hair' issue. Now we may not think that's a very
good reason, but it really doesn't matter if it keeps kids from riding.
Fewer kids riding is likely to mean fewer adults riding later.

Steven Bornfeld wrote:



Frank Krygowski wrote:

Steven Bornfeld wrote:



Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Tough to run a controlled
study of this type in real-life conditions.



It would be tough if there weren't such things as mandatory helmet
laws (MHLs). Or even better, _enforced_ MHLs. When you've got a step
increase in the percentage of cyclists in helmets for a whole country,
it's not a bad test of "real-life conditions." All you have to do is
remember to account for the decrease in cycling those laws have
caused. (Pro-helmet papers have been known to ignore a 35% cycling
drop, and count the 30% HI drop as a good sign!)



I don't know how you can call this a real test with any control.
In your response to Jay, you just said:

"Other pro-helmet studies from Australia have done things like ignore
the drop in cycling, ignore the concurrent installation of speed cameras
and stiff drunk driving enforcement, etc. to maximize the supposed
helmet benefit. Still, this is the first time I recall any study but
T&R's coming anywhere close to 85%. Despite the fudging, other
pro-helmet studies come out much lower. I'd like to check the original
paper."


If there were confounding factors in the prior example, you can't
come back and now say these can be ignored.

Do you understand that we're talking about multiple papers?

And do you understand that if the confounding factors all would tend to
decrease cyclist injuries, it's disingenuous to attribute all reduced
injuries to just one factor, the helmets?


I am suggesting that antihelmet
partisans can be depended upon to parse the data out there selectively.

.... whereas pro-helmet partisans ...???

Incidentally, the word "antihelmet" is rather imprecise.
"Anticompulsion" would be more accurate for many. "Anti-over-promotion"
would fit others. "Anti-fearmongering" still others. But I must say, I
can't recall anyone ever wanting to make helmets illegal.

Of course, it may be that the Church of the Helmet requires absolute
belief in _all_ pro-helmet dogma. If so, then there really are lots of
anti-helmet people.


I've heard the same arguments from people who don't wear
seatbelts in cars. I thought they made what could be valid
points--until I spent a year covering head/neck trauma during my
residency.


So tell us about your head trauma experience. Since we're talking
about saving lives, what percentage of the head trauma fatalities you
saw were cyclists?


They don't usually call the dentist on the head trauma fatalities.
I was called on facial injuries. There were a substantial number of
cycling accidents. Most weren't wearing helmets, but then this was 28
years ago.

Oh, a dentist.

IOW, you know something about teeth. You know relatively little about
head trauma. I should have guessed.



You probably realize that nationally, cyclists are less than 1% of
that problem, right?

If it's you, you're 100% dead.

.... and, apparently, you know relatively little about evaluating
relative risk.



--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Steven Bornfeld wrote:



Frank Krygowski wrote:

...
And it's still true that often, the ONLY thing people hear about bike
safety is "Always wear a helmet!!!!" Nothing about rules of the road,
lights at night, maintaining the machine, etc.

I've seen enough helmeted families riding facing traffic, or riding at
night without lights, to know that the emphasis needs to be changed.

Feel free to start another thread. My advocacy of helmets does not
in any way make me irresponsible regarding these other issues. Do you
believe it does?

Well, not if your real objective is to sell helmets.

If your real objective is to improve bicycle safety, or (as you alluded
to) reduce the amount of your taxes spent on others' injuries, then yes,
your helmet advocacy is irresponsible.

Ignoring more effective measures, speaking only about helmets, and doing
so from a position of ignorance is somewhat irresponsible.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Steven Bornfeld wrote:


Like I said. I'd be happy to seek out the study. Can you post a
reference?

_Cycle Helmets - The Case For and Against_ , Hillman, M., Policy Studies
Institute, London, 1993 ISBN 0 85374 602 8

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

:-) The intellectual level of the discussion seems to be falling like
a stone.

Frank. I haven't even entered this discussion.

However there is a certain academic quality to your posts that just
naturally tends to alienate the average reader.

:-)

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
in.edu__________

The discussion also reminds me of a class where everyone has a strong
opinion, but nobody does the homework! ;-)

I was always accused of ruining the curve...

It's when you argue for _others_ to wear helmets, or start promoting
their effectiveness, that people will disagree.

I don't think I've argued anywhere that helmets should be mandatory.
And I completely agree with Kunich, you and others that you have the
right to choose. I don't agree with making kids wear helmets.

I'm just pointing out that arguing for helmets based on fatalities alone,
is poor justification for their use. Anyway, I don't think helmets are
designed for car/bike accidents, or to prevent fatalities. IMHO, They're
designed to reduce severe injuries and trauma.

I can think of one situation off hand where a friend of mine was
riding home from fishing, when we were kids, he got his fishing pole
caught up in his front wheel, and crashed. The end of his handlebar
went into his temple and took out a core sample of his brain.
Yes, he ended up with brain damage. Would a helmet have helped, well
who knows... that's the point.

If you have't seen a helmets benefit in preventing brain injuries, maybe
you just haven't been riding long enough, hard enough or fast enough?