Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

On 1/4/2011 11:50 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

snip

ssibly. For example, you may try some of the links at this page:
http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/cdcbikeorganize.shtml

Thanks, that's a good list of references.

First of course is the Thompson, Rivara, & Thompson study which has
become the holy grail, since it was conducted in such a statistically
and scientifically sound manner (which is of course why the AHZs despise
it!).

However as has been stated numerous times, that study only looked at
helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists that actually sought treatment.
While it would have been inappropriate for them to make guesses of the
number of medical visits that didn't take place at all due to the
cyclist's helmet reducing or completely preventing injuries, we all know
that that's almost certainly what happened in a significant number of cases.

On Jan 4, 11:49*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jan 4, 7:44 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Jan 4, 9:43 pm, Dan O wrote:

...Yet
someone with a perspective that may once have been positive seems to
have an agenda long gone off the rails, and appears compelled to put
down any consideration (with extreme prejudice) any notion that
bicycle helmets may be beneficial, and very predictably criticizes us
personally as "wrong" (and more!) *It can be very exasperating.

Dan, wear a helmet if you like. *Nobody is trying to forbid that
choice. *Nobody is trying to pass mandatory no-helmet laws. *And Lord
knows, there are plenty of people applauding that choice, and urging
everyone to make that same choice.

But regarding right vs. "wrong": I'm sorry, but there is a difference!
And there are accepted ways of telling the difference. *When someone
here states something that is wrong, it tends to get corrected.

It's not just helmets. *When someone says "I think my new
SooperTourist Mark IV bike is really comfortable," most posters will
say "Congratulations on the new bike." *But if they completed that
sentence by saying "...because the green rubber in the tires absorbs
that frequency of vibration that would otherwise pass through the
spokes to my butt," they'd get some strong disputes. *Bull**** gets
called, no matter how sincerely it's believed.

You want to wear a fancy plastic multicolored chapeau? *Fine. *Enjoy.
But if you tell me you want to wear it because bicycling causes so
many serious head injuries, or because such chapeaus are so
wonderfully protective of serious head injuries, or that such a cap
has saved your life several times, or that brain injury wards are full
of cyclists who chose otherwise, or that bare-headed cyclists are dumb
organ donors - all of which have been posted here - I'll say you're
wrong. *And I'll produce data to prove it.

Please cite where I've ever said any of the above.

First cite where I claimed you did.

Alternately, find someone to explain the meaning of "If."

Once again, **** you!

That's what a person says when they realize they're no good at logic.

- Frank Krygowski

On Jan 5, 10:12*am, "Barry" wrote:
For example, you may try some of the links at this page:
http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/cdcbikeorganize.shtml

The very first reference given on that site

http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/cdcbikerefs.shtml

is the Thompson, Rivara, & Thompson "85%" article, which I believe is
hopelessly flawed. *This indicates to me that the people at neuroskills..com
haven't studied the issue carefully, and therefore I wouldn't consider it a
credible source of information.

Furthermore, you can check their page on epidemiology of brain injury:
http://www.neuroskills.com/epidemiology.shtml
Note the complete lack of mention of bicycling as a source.

And that's how it goes, almost always. Any unbiased ranking of
important sources of serious brain injury does not mention cycling,
since cycling causes at most 1% to 2% of the problem. But because of
years of carefully developed propaganda, sites like that still feel a
need to deliver special cautions about our extremely safe activity.

Seriously, if (as they say) "The leading causes of TBI are motor
vehicle crashes, violence, and falls," why are they not recommending
helmets for motorists? Obviously, air bags aren't working well
enough, and car helmets would be cheap.

And why do the people posting here who worry about bike head injuries
not worry as much about car head injuries?

- Frank Krygowski

On Jan 5, 11:08*am, SMS wrote:
On 1/4/2011 11:50 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

snip

ssibly. For example, you may try some of the links at this page:

http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/cdcbikeorganize.shtml

Thanks, that's a good list of references.

First of course is the Thompson, Rivara, & Thompson study which has
become the holy grail, since it was conducted in such a statistically
and scientifically sound manner (which is of course why the AHZs despise
it!).

However as has been stated numerous times, that study only looked at
helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists that actually sought treatment.

Actually, it was dominated by kids whose _parents_ sought treatment
for their kids. In most cases, it wasn't the kid cyclists who made
the decision.

And based on contemporary surveys of helmet use in that city, parents
were roughly seven times more likely to seek treatment (or actually,
examination) of their kids following a crash if the kid wore a
helmet. At the time of the study, roughly 3% of kids wore helmets
when biking. But about 21% of the kids brought in had been wearing
helmets.

One way to interpret that is that wearing a helmet makes one seven
times more likely to go to the ER. But a more realistic way is this:
If parents were, in the late 1980s, so fearful as to buy then-unusual
bike helmets, then they were also so fearful as to rush their darling
to ER each time the kid fell off a bike.

It's a variant of Helicopter Parenting, and Thompson & Rivara (and
Bell Sports) used it to their advantage.

- Frank Krygowski

On 1/5/2011 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Once again, **** you!

That's what a person says when they realize they're no good at logic.

You seem to encounter an inordinate amount of people that are no good at
logic.

On 1/5/2011 11:08 AM, SMS wrote:
On 1/4/2011 11:50 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

snip

ssibly. For example, you may try some of the links at this page:
http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/cdcbikeorganize.shtml

Thanks, that's a good list of references.

First of course is the Thompson, Rivara, & Thompson study which has
become the holy grail, since it was conducted in such a statistically
and scientifically sound manner (which is of course why the AHZs despise
it!).

I just used that link as an example of the many groups that seem to
disagree with the AHZs.


However as has been stated numerous times, that study only looked at
helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists that actually sought treatment.
While it would have been inappropriate for them to make guesses of the
number of medical visits that didn't take place at all due to the
cyclist's helmet reducing or completely preventing injuries, we all know
that that's almost certainly what happened in a significant number of
cases.

Yep.

On Jan 5, 11:51*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/5/2011 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Once again, **** you!

That's what a person says when they realize they're no good at logic.

You seem to encounter an inordinate amount of people that are no good at
logic.

There are just a few who post a lot.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:

And why do the people posting here who worry about bike head injuries
not worry as much about car head injuries?

I have never been injured in a car accident.

I have been injured multiple times in cycling accidents.

Ask Jay also.

JS.

"Tºm Shermªn™ °_°" " wrote in message
...
On 1/4/2011 10:02 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
I've tried banning poutine and my son revolted. It's a nationalist thing.

Poutine is the president of Canada.

That one went over my head...

On 1/5/2011 8:06 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/4/2011 7:20 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 1/4/2011 8:56 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

In Canada, the government supplies the health care (FWIW) and is
interested in anything that will reduce those costs. As long as
the medical community is convinced that helmets reduce serious
injuries, there is going to be a push to at least educate cyclists.

Too bad the medical community is not better informed.

That could be one possibility.

[...]
They (mostly the vehicular cycling enthusiasts) say the same thing about
facilities being more dangerous and reducing cycling.[...]

Only the first part is correct. More correct would be to say that
competent, experienced vehicular cyclists generally avoid facilities in
preference to the safer and faster streets and roads.


Forester says that facilities are more dangerous.

No disagreement there, but did Forester or any other vehicular cycling
proponent claim that farcililties (sic) reduce cycling?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.