Canadian Medical Association Journal Publishes Another Helmet Study

Dare I ask the bleeding obvious question: if you were about to forcefully contact a solid object with your head, would you rather be wearing a helmet than not?
Just curious.
Nigel Grinter

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:49:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Dare I ask the bleeding obvious question: if you were about to forcefully contact a solid object with your head, would you rather be wearing a helmet than not?

Just curious.

Nigel Grinter

That question's a bit hypothetical. Even in the activities that actually generate large numbers of forceful contacts between solid objects and heads, it would take a skilled soothsayer to notify you that you were about to make such contact. At least, if such notification were to come early enough to strap on a helmet.

But yes, if I knew I were going to be in a crash that would slam my head against my car's side window; or going to stumble and fall down the basement stairs in my house; or otherwise trip around the house; then it would be nice to have a helmet on. Although it's much further down the list of causes of significant head injuries, the same would apply to traveling as a pedestrian.

Bicycling, of course, is way further down the list, so that soothsayer would have to be even more skilled to predict such an event.

Here's a bit of data on TBI counts and sources.
http://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininj...actsheet-a.pdf
Note the 52,000 TBI fatalities per year. Consider that the most recently available data was 630 bike fatalities per year, for _all_ specific medical causes. Obviously, not all of those bike fatalities were caused by TBI. (One source estimated that fewer than half were.)

So perhaps 315 bike TBI fatalities out of 52,000 total TBI fatalities. Bikes are about 0.6% of the problem. Other activities are 99.4% of the problem.

How will you choose which activities deserve a helmet?

- Frank Krygowski

On 26/10/12 06:38, wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:49:02 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
Dare I ask the bleeding obvious question: if you were about to
forcefully contact a solid object with your head, would you rather
be wearing a helmet than not?

Just curious.

But yes, if I knew I were going to be in a crash that would slam my
head against my car's side window;

snip

then it would be nice to have a helmet on.

Wow.

--
JS

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:49:00 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Dare I ask the bleeding obvious question: if you were about to forcefully contact a solid object with your head, would you rather be wearing a helmet than not?
Just curious.
Nigel Grinter


Your logic is irrefutable. By the same token engaging in an activity
that is 2.4, 11.5 or 5.6 times more dangerous then an auto (depending
on your criteria) seems to be a stupid activity and should be
legislated against.

On Oct 25, 1:38*pm, wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:49:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Dare I ask the bleeding obvious question: if you were about to forcefully contact a solid object with your head, would you rather be wearing a helmet than not?

Just curious.

Nigel Grinter

That question's a bit hypothetical. *Even in the activities that actually generate large numbers of forceful contacts between solid objects and heads, it would take a skilled soothsayer to notify you that you were about to make such contact. *At least, if such notification were to come early enough to strap on a helmet.

But yes, if I knew I were going to be in a crash that would slam my head against my car's side window; or going to stumble and fall down the basement stairs in my house; or otherwise trip around the house; then it would be nice to have a helmet on. *Although it's much further down the list of causes of significant head injuries, the same would apply to traveling as a pedestrian.

Bicycling, of course, is way further down the list, so that soothsayer would have to be even more skilled to predict such an event.

Here's a bit of data on TBI counts and sources. *http://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininj...actsheet-a.pdf
Note the 52,000 TBI fatalities per year. *Consider that the most recently available data was 630 bike fatalities per year, for _all_ specific medical causes. *Obviously, not all of those bike fatalities were caused by TBI. *(One source estimated that fewer than half were.)

So perhaps 315 bike TBI fatalities out of 52,000 total TBI fatalities. *Bikes are about 0.6% of the problem. *Other activities are 99.4% of the problem.

How will you choose which activities deserve a helmet?

- Frank Krygowski

It's a shame you have much difficulty with clear language in a simple
question. With comprehension as poor as yours, it is no wonder you
have do so much reading and why you still lack in understanding.
DR

On 10/25/2012 5:23 PM, F.K. wrote:

snip

Your logic is irrefutable. By the same token engaging in an activity
that is 2.4, 11.5 or 5.6 times more dangerous then an auto (depending
on your criteria) seems to be a stupid activity and should be
legislated against.

Let's pass more laws to make everything safe for everyone.

(I first saw this line in the National Lampoon Sunday newspaper parody).

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:39:31 -0700, SMS
wrote:

On 10/25/2012 5:23 PM, F.K. wrote:

snip

Your logic is irrefutable. By the same token engaging in an activity
that is 2.4, 11.5 or 5.6 times more dangerous then an auto (depending
on your criteria) seems to be a stupid activity and should be
legislated against.

Let's pass more laws to make everything safe for everyone.

There is no question that you are correct and that the loud cries in
favor of bike helmets are simply the front runner in the strategy to
make a safer world.

Phil W Lee wrote:
F.K. considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:23:36
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:49:00 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Dare I ask the bleeding obvious question: if you were about to
forcefully contact a solid object with your head, would you rather be
wearing a helmet than not?
Just curious.
Nigel Grinter


Your logic is irrefutable. By the same token engaging in an activity
that is 2.4, 11.5 or 5.6 times more dangerous then an auto (depending
on your criteria) seems to be a stupid activity and should be
legislated against.

Well, the obvious target for legislation would be the largest cause of
traumatic injury of the 20th century, and so far, the 21st as well.
One that kills and maims more people than wars, divides communities,
and leads to social isolation.

Is that politics or religion you're referring to?