First Helmet : jury is out.

David Kerber wrote:
In article , r15757
@aol.com says...

...

I got nothin'. Thanks for the citation. What really jumps out there
is that .34 for peds as opposed to .17 for motor vehicles. I would
be interested to see how Robinson gathered his numbers. Do you know?
The suggestion that walking around is twice as likely as driving to
result in a head injury _death_ I find far-fetched.

I don't. Have you ever looked at the numbers of pedestrians in major
cities who cut in and out of traffic, hoping it will stop for them?
Especially kids.

Which points to the problem with the quoted data.

To suggest that all pedestrians fall into the .34 group is a gross
distortion. The risk groups are (in no particualr order) chidren, elderly,
drunks and idiots. To lump these in with the sensible pedestrians who do not
cut in and out of traffic (redefine them as road users on foot??) gives a
distorted picture of risk.

Extract those from the data and compare "sane and sensible cyclists" with
"sane and sensible pedestrians" (ie each following the law not doing stupid
things which expose them to excess risk) and and my guess is the risk rates
would be very different from those quoted. If i walk 15 minutes to the local
shop on the pavement (sidewalk) obeying the law and crossing the road only
at approved points and following "good practice" am I at more or less risk
than cycling the same road for 15 minutes? the very fact that as a cyclist
i'm closer to the 1 tonne moving lumps of metal some driven by people who do
not see or consider cyclists tells me that i'm at more risk on a bike.

pk

pk

I am at a loss as to why so many are against helments. I have bee
wearing one for years and find that they are comfortable and in n
way limit my hearing or vision. Admittedly i always spend good mone
on a helmet (my last one cost $250 Australia). I have had two case
where i have been forced to replace my helmet due to damage and i
both these cases the damage that would have been done to my hea
would have been serious

I have also had the unfortunate experence of having to help a cyclis
who was knock down by a car who was not wearing a helmet, even thoug
they are compulsory here. Having spoken to the paramedic and th
doctor at the hospital both belived that although his other injury
were serious (broken bones, etc.) it was the head injurys whic
worried them the most

The end result was a fellow cyclist who is now permanently brain damage
and can not care for himself

So my vote is pro helme


-

Frank K wrote in part:

Um... yes, we apparently agree, although I had no idea that was your
point. Seems to me your point is that riding bikes is unusually dangerous.

We may be able to close this thread quickly. If you _don't_ think
cycling is unusually dangerous, say so! We can shake hands and have a
figurative beer together.

I'm always up for a beer but I'm quite certain we do not
agree about the nature of riding in traffic. I do not
think cycling is "unusually dangerous," I don't even
know what that means. Cycling in traffic is dangerous,
and walking in traffic is dangerous, and driving is
dangerous. Few people have any appreciation of the
dangers they face every day in traffic before that
danger comes clear in a shocking instant.


Fatality stats form a useful proxy for serious injury stats.

That is such a load of dung. According to the NEISS,
the rate of serious injury in cycling is more than 1,000
times the fatality rate. Chew on that.

It's not impossible to get a serious injury -
either by cycling, or by walking in a crosswalk - but it's not likely to
happen to any particular cyclist (or walker) in the next couple hundred
years, statistically speaking.

Ok so now you're saying that the LAW stats you
previously (mis-)quoted [1] and the CTC stats and
other stats cited by Forester are bull****?

To avoid such injuries, what a person needs to do is cycle lawfully and
reasonably. It's easy to learn. A child can do it - literally.

So all you've got to do to avoid such injuries is to ride
lawfully and reasonably, eh? Try to imagine how
ridiculous that might sound to someone who suffered a
serious accident/injury while riding lawfully. Or to
someone who has read the damn statistics.

In fact, among serious car-bike collisions involving
_experienced_ cyclists--a very small subset of the
total number of cycling-related accidents and injuries,
but it is frankly the subset I must concern myself with
every day--most occur when the cyclist is RIDING
LAWFULLY, but is hit by a car turning left, turning
right, or restarting from a stop-sign.

Frank should know this if he is the guru of stats.

In fact riding lawfully is not the magic talisman you
claim it is. Safety in traffic comes from awareness,
not rule-following.

I see that you are enthusiastically dedicated to this overstating. You
can't find numbers to back you up, so you rely on horror stories.

It is clear that the numbers support my position just
as much as yours. The only thing you have there that
is different and would be in your corner is the alleged
article proclaiming that most ER visits are
unnecessary. I haven't seen that, I'll have to look it up.
What methodology was used? Was it the same
methodology used in the Failure Analysis Associates
chart?

Fine. But I repeat, I really do wish you'd find a different hobby to
treat this way. You do cycling, and cyclists, no good.

I completely disagree.

You are the hobbyist--you might listen to those for
whom cycling is more than a hobby. Or not. I'm
guessing not.

One of these days Frank you will wake up--hopefully
not in a hospital room--and you will realize that I know
what I'm talking about.

I wish you many more years of injury-free cycling.

Apologies to Sheldon Brown for the quote below:

"When anyone asks me how I can best describe my
experience in nearly 40 years at sea, I merely say,
"uneventful." Of course, there have been many gales
and storms and fog and the like. But in all my
experience, I have never been in any accident of any
sort worth speaking about. I have never seen but one
vessel in distress in all my years at sea. I never saw a
wreck and never have been wrecked, nor was I ever in
any predicament that threatened to end in disaster of
any sort." --E. J. Smith, Captain, RMS Titanic

[1] Frank K misquoted the 1976 Kaplan study of LAW
cyclists' accidents. He said they suffered an injury or
bike damage more than 50$ (no small amount in '76)
about every 15,000 miles or every seven years. In
fact Kaplan found that LAW cyclists rode 2400 miles
per year on average and hurt themselves every 4
years/10.000 miles. It was S.M. Watkins' survey of
British CTC members which revealed similar incidents
every 7 years, but the CTC members' average annual
mileage was a bit lower. Forester, Bicycling
Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling Transportation
Engineers (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994), pp. 41-2. It's
telling that Forester was still quoting stats from 1976
(and beyond) when he wrote the third edition of that
book in '94.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:19:17 GMT, jcjordan
wrote:

I am at a loss as to why so many are against helments. I have been
wearing one for years and find that they are comfortable and in no
way limit my hearing or vision. Admittedly i always spend good money
on a helmet (my last one cost $250 Australia). I have had two cases
where i have been forced to replace my helmet due to damage and in
both these cases the damage that would have been done to my head
would have been serious.

I have also had the unfortunate experence of having to help a cyclist
who was knock down by a car who was not wearing a helmet, even though
they are compulsory here. Having spoken to the paramedic and the
doctor at the hospital both belived that although his other injurys
were serious (broken bones, etc.) it was the head injurys which
worried them the most.

The end result was a fellow cyclist who is now permanently brain damaged
and can not care for himself.

So my vote is pro helmet

It's not that anyone is -against- helmets.

Two or three simple issues:

o One does not want helmets mandated by gubmits. It should be a choice.
o One does not want biking perceived, or labeled as a 'dangerous' activity.
o A helmet may not be fitted correctly and may not do the job expected, and
may protect only against a narrow range of specific head trauma, and may
exacerbate neck trauma. It's not clear.

I'm a helmet wearer and I urge my loved ones to do so, but I can't disagree
with the above reasons, either. As a result of the threads, I can say that
I've tightened my helmet so it doesn't slide back on my forehead! g

I might be persuaded that it's a justifiable choice or very young riders
(children), who by defo might still be getting their co-ordination, or very
old riders, who may be losing their co-ordination; however could not the
older rider make an informed choice on their own?

In a perfect analysis, say by magic, if everyone wore the helmets, and the
rate and type of head injury remained exactly the same as with no helmets,
and was a very, very small number of total riders, would you still be in
favor of mandating for adults? Probably most would say, given this 'magic
analysis: "ok, we have now learned that cycling is a very safe activity"

The manufacturers of helmets would probably still make the same number of
helmets and the same numbers of ppl would still wear them, or not. After
all we have to have something to put our mirrors on, or our viking horns!
g

-B

On 21 May 2004 08:55:49 GMT, (R15757) wrote:

One of these days Frank you will wake up--hopefully
not in a hospital room--and you will realize that I know
what I'm talking about.

I wish you many more years of injury-free cycling.

This disingenuous statement is uncool. I'd like to think it was beneath you
to say such a thing.

Shame on you!

-B

jcjordan wrote:

I have also had the unfortunate experence of having to help a cyclist
who was knock down by a car who was not wearing a helmet, even though
they are compulsory here. Having spoken to the paramedic and the
doctor at the hospital both belived that although his other injurys
were serious (broken bones, etc.) it was the head injurys which
worried them the most.

Why are you only concerned with head injuries from possible bike
crashes? Aren't head injuries possible while walking, driving a
car, etc? Is a head injury from bicycling somehow especially
more tragic than from other forms of accident?

The bottom line is *expectation* of injury. You apparently feel
you will more likely end up with a crushed head while bicycling
than from driving. Statistics vary somewhat on the realities of
these expectations, but most that I've heard of seem to point to
a car crash as a more likely source of a head injury than a bike.

If you feel your car seatbelt or airbag will protect you from
head injury, you might be wrong. Most cars still don't have side
impact air bags, where driver or passenger head slam into windows,
door or windshield pillars. The air bags themselves can cause
head injury.

If a helmet is so easy to wear, so inexpensive, and so effective
in preventing head injury, why do you [likely] forsake wearing
one in your car?

Probably because you simply don't *expect* to have a head injury
in a car crash. It's probability is low enough that it's as effective
as wearing a helmet around the house where a brain damaging fall
could occur.

Unfortunately, it may not be such an unlikely event, in comparison
with bicycle usage. You might want to slap on a helmet when hopping
into your car for your next drive to prevent injury to your noggin'.
What harm could it do?


SMH

On 21 May 2004 02:12:59 GMT, (R15757) wrote:

I also posted additional USCPSC
numbers that show outpatient visits are roughly equal to ER visits.

Since I haven't read the data), just a question of clarification. Are
the outpatient visit incidents specifically separate incidents from
the ER visits, largely overlapping related visits (the norm for people
with insurance - first the ER, then the outpatient visit in the
immediate future), or an unknown mix?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Badger_South wrote:

(R15757) wrote:

One of these days Frank you will wake up--hopefully
not in a hospital room--and you will realize that I know
what I'm talking about.

I wish you many more years of injury-free cycling.

This disingenuous statement is uncool. I'd like to think it was beneath you
to say such a thing.

Shame on you!



I was not being disingenuous when I wrote that. Sorry if it came out that way.

Robert

PK wrote:


To suggest that all pedestrians fall into the .34 group is a gross
distortion. The risk groups are (in no particualr order) chidren, elderly,
drunks and idiots. To lump these in with the sensible pedestrians who do not
cut in and out of traffic (redefine them as road users on foot??) gives a
distorted picture of risk.

Extract those from the data and compare "sane and sensible cyclists" with
"sane and sensible pedestrians" (ie each following the law not doing stupid
things which expose them to excess risk) and and my guess is the risk rates
would be very different from those quoted. If i walk 15 minutes to the local
shop on the pavement (sidewalk) obeying the law and crossing the road only
at approved points and following "good practice" am I at more or less risk
than cycling the same road for 15 minutes? the very fact that as a cyclist
i'm closer to the 1 tonne moving lumps of metal some driven by people who do
not see or consider cyclists tells me that i'm at more risk on a bike.

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is: Most of the
pedestrians hit by cars are irresponsible lowlifes. Most of the
bicyclists hit by cars are sane and sensible. Therefore, despite having
worse numbers, walking is safe; despite having better numbers, bicycling
is dangerous.

ISTR that the great majority of fatally injured pedestrians in New York
City are killed while crossing legally within crosswalks. This would
seem to belie your first point. I suppose I can try to track down that
citation, if you like.

And IIRC, roughly half of seriously injured cyclists are at fault in the
crashes. This would seem to belie your second point.

I understand that you _believe_ you're at a greater risk on a bike. But
stating your belief does not prove it correct.

At this point, perhaps I should ask: Are you a cyclist? If so, why do
you continue in an activity you argue against?

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

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

A few quick points:

1) I don't advocate compulsory helmet use. I don't even particularl
advocate helmet use. I've said that it should be the cyclist
personal choice. If the passion with which people approach this i
based in the belief that there's a big new law a-comin', it isn'
coming from me. We agree on that. It shouldn't create such a
adversarial atmosphere

2) I do think it's important that--if the sole reasons that people d
not wear helmets are issues like

..minor discomfort ..extra cost item ..one more item to carry/secur

...that those reasons be clearly laid out. If most of us feel tha
helmets are the only smart choice for MTB riders, I would suggest tha
we state that, too

Again, we can argue the statistics all day long (I won't. I don't thin
it's productive). What I think is important is that a newbie understan
the cost (inconvenience) and the benefit (however minor those may be
associated with helmet use

3) It's a "Logic 101" red herring to

..a) shift the conversation from " The pro's and cons of wearing
cycling helmet" to the potential dangers of driving cars, or of being
pedestrian

..b) accuse people of disparaging the sport or calling it dangerou
simply because they question the wisdom of not wearing a helmet

. . . and as for me: my Cannondale beckons. Outta' here....

Nei


-