|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference
Frank Krygowski wrote:
It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and certified for only 14 mph impacts. Â*It's not just my opinion. If you would do more reading, you would understand the difference. And it's your opinion that since it's tested for a 14mph impact it is useless in most actual cases where there's an impact to the head. Actually, I don't believe I've ever said "useless." So, what is your opinion? Â*Useless or not? I think "useless" implies absolute zero protection, and I don't think bike helmets (or ski helmets) provide absolute zero protection. They're not totally useless, since as many of us have said, they obviously prevent certain minor bumps and scrapes, if nothing else. But that's not how they're sold, so to speak. They're touted (or mandated) because of claims they prevent lots of fatalities or truly serious brain injuries. Yet data clearly shows otherwise. Based on that, and based on the available data showing low risk of serious injury while cycling, my opinion is that bike helmets aren't necessary for safety, and they don't significantly increase safety. I find surprizing how many people ask "but were you wearing a helmet" when they hear of various injuries I sustained from bicycling, like a broken hip, broken ribs, nad broken thumb, among others. It's been more than 70 years of bicycling and I expect to see that there were hazards. Bike helmets are an ineffective solution to an imaginary problem. .... A crutch for the impractical riders... or non riders. -- Jobst Brandt |
Ads |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference
On Jan 4, 10:53 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 4, 10:21 am, Jay Beattie wrote: No, I was not risk compensating, unless riding home at night on a bad road or riding on unexpectedly icy pavement amounts to risk compensating. If you want to understand whether you were risk compensating, just ask yourself: "What would I have done if I were not wearing a helmet?" If you would have been more careful in any way, then you were indeed risk compensating. Understand, this is an absolutely normal thing to do; humans do it all the time. And it's not necessarily a problem. The problem comes, I believe, from risk _over_ compensating. In other words, if a protective device causes you to assume additional risk that is greater than justified by the level of protection, that's a problem. If the additional risk assumed is smaller than the level of protection, so to speak, then all is well. I think over-compensation is likely when there are excessive claims for the protective device. Only for people who can't think for themselves and swallow someone else's assessment of their own risk (kind of like what you're trying to shove down everyone else's throat by applying statisitics as definitive of actual risk). When people see repeated implications that head injuries are almost the only thing that ever kills a cyclist (claims that actually read "75% of cycling fatalities involve a head injury"), and people see claims that helmets prevent almost all head injuries ("85%"), then it's easy for some people to be duped into thinking they're bulletproof in a plastic hat. Are we denizens of RPT being so duped? But the "involve a head injury" claim is not the same as saying "preventing that head injury would have prevented a death." (Anyway, I've got a paper here on pedestrian deaths that points out that 73% of pedestrian deaths also "involved a head injury.") So what?! And of course, the "85%" claim was from a study that has never been corroborated anywhere, one with extremely poor control, and where almost all the injuries were indeed minor ones. It never came close to claiming that bike helmets would prevent 85% of fatal head injuries. But that doesn't prevent fans from using that disproven 1989 number to sell bike helmets, while ignoring much more robust national data from later years. Flay that dead horse much? People interested in risk compensation theory and examples of risk compensation in action should read _Risk_ by John Adams. It's not just about bike helmets, not at all. I found it to be educational and entertaining. We all are interested in not doing something stupid that might get us hurt, but don't always need a book to teach us how to think. I think you are interested in risk compensation because you are obsessed with anything that may reflect negatively on bicycle helmets. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference
On Jan 4, 11:35 am, Dan O wrote:
On Jan 4, 10:53 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: snip ... it's easy for some people to be duped into thinking they're bulletproof in a plastic hat. Are we denizens of RPT being so duped? (typo - not sure what the 'P' stands for :-) snip |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference
Jay Beattie wrote:
It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and certified for only 14 mph impacts. Â*It's not just my opinion. If you would do more reading, you would understand the difference. And it's your opinion that since it's tested for a 14mph impact it is useless in most actual cases where there's an impact to the head. Actually, I don't believe I've ever said "useless." So, what is your opinion? Â*Useless or not? I think "useless" implies absolute zero protection, and I don't think bike helmets (or ski helmets) provide absolute zero protection. They're not totally useless, since as many of us have said, they obviously prevent certain minor bumps and scrapes, if nothing else. Minor bumps and scrapes like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eprescott/376804073/ or this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chadvonnau/4302945156/ How about this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/twolaw/781335417/ I don't know about you, but if wearing a helmet means avoiding "minor bumps and scrapes" that land me in the ER, I'll wear a helmet. I don't like getting stitched up, and tetanus boosters make my shoulder really sore. I don't care for your horror stories and implication that blood is bad. Don't play football! That's a large "but if" with which you start to develop your "the fact that" begging the question. Stop sullying RBT! -- Jobst Brandt |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference
On 1/4/2011 2:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:41 pm, Duane wrote: On 1/4/2011 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Jan 4, 10:04 am, wrote: I have seen claims of a reduction in cycling following MHLs but calling the statistics they were based on "studies" is a real stretch. When you intentionally avoid counting some riders with a lame justification, it just shows that you're looking for a certain outcome and will do whatever it takes to get it. We've discussed Scharf's objections before. Specifically, one particular survey in one particular location on one particular day was messed up because hundreds of cyclists in a bike rally happened to pass through a counting station. Helmet law proponents used that bad count to say "Look, there hasn't been a drop in cycling after all!" It's kind of like determining the number of people who ride bikes for transportation by counting bikes on the Tour de France route during the race. But there's _plenty_ of other data that gives results Scharf won't like. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2024.pdf shows just a little. Any that aren't from cyclehelmets.org ? How about from the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention? Or Injury Prevention? The Policy Studies Institute of London? British Medical Association? The journal Pediatrics? The Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine? The European Cyclists' Federation? I mean, if I give full citations, what will you actually read? Possibly. For example, you may try some of the links at this page: http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/cdcbikeorganize.shtml There's a resource guide listed the American Academy of Pediatrics Publications Department 141 Northwest Point Boulevard Box 927 Elk Grove Village, IL 60009-0927 (800) 433-9016 Materials include Physician's Resource Guide for Bicycle Safety Education; " Bicycle Safety Camp," which is a videotape for elementary school students concerning the importance of wearing helmets and other safety issues while riding bicycles; and bicycle safety sheets from The Injury Prevention Program. The safety sheets cover such topics as encouraging children to wear helmets, myths and facts about bicycle safety, choosing the right size bicycle for a child, and child passengers on adults' bicycles. If you're just going to show me stats then I'm probably not going to bother. I know that the probability of a fatal head injury while cycling is low. I'm not sure if that enters into it when I decide whether or not to wear a helmet. I'm more likely to pay attention to my physician who has a PHD in medicine, years of experience working in a trauma center and tells me that I should wear a helmet when cycling. And even in her case, it's going to depend on how I feel that day, where I'm riding, who I'm with, etc. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference
On Jan 4, 11:27*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:47*pm, Jay Beattie wrote: On Jan 4, 10:07*am, Frank Krygowski wrote: snip But seriously - are you pretending that such injuries happen only while cycling? *Are you that willing to disregard the vast bulk of national data regarding head injuries? Let's review. *First, since fatality data is far stronger than injury data: *What percentage of US head injury fatalities are cyclists? *Do you guess 50%? *or 35%? *20%? *10%? *5%? My simple point (perhaps too simple): helmets actually prevent certain types of scalp injuries -- exactly the types shown in the pictures (all of which were in areas covered by helmets). Right. *They could prevent those sorts of injuries no matter what activity causes the injuries. *And way over 95% of such injuries have nothing to do with bikes. Do people have to wear helmets? *No, that is a personal choice. * Which is fine by me. *Similarly, I actually do know a cyclist who always rides with a St. Christopher medal. *I would never try to talk her out of it. On the other hand, if she should try to explain to me why it's so valuable, especially in a public discussion, I would probably disagree. *She'd know better than to try that, though, since she's aware her position isn't logically defensible. And as far as knee guards go, no, I don't wear them because a scraped knee is no big deal to me, and they would interfere with pedalling, unlike a helmet. All you're saying, Jay, is that the market has not yet jumped on the opportunity to develop articulated, stylish, well-ventilated, garishly- colored, oddly-contoured knee protectors to save us from the horror of knee injuries. No. *There is no giant knee guard conspiracy because there is no perception that knee injuries will prove fatal or even serious. Seriously, there is an inherent difference. *If you read on the psychology of fear, you'll learn that there are psychological factors that influence people's dread of a particular event. *People claim they would prefer to die of a heart attack than a shark attack, for example, maybe because it's visualized as involving less gore. *I think there's a vaguely similar reaction to a cut on the head vs. one on the knee - an inborn psychological reaction. But if you scour bicycling literature in the pre-helmet days, it's damned hard to find anything like the modern fixation on head injuries. *For example, the book _The Best of Bicycling!_ published in 1970 has no index entry for head injury at all. *In fact, I can find no mention of "safety" and no warnings about crashes. *Other books from the same period are similar. *Very little "safety" talk except instructions on how to ride properly, no fear mongering at all, and certainly no emphasis on head injuries. After Bell's big push in the early to mid 1970s, things began to change. *Now it's as hard to find a bicycling book that doesn't imply that riding without a helmet is riding to the morgue, or worse. How on earth did all those cyclists get by before 1975? *I do not rely on "averages" when deciding what protective measures to take -- no more than I would rely on the average temperature of the United States in deciding what jacket to wear on my morning commute in PDX. Data has to be interpreted with intelligence. *Saying "I'm different than the average American because I ride a bike a lot" may have some validity, depending on the interpretation, and we can discuss that. OTOH, saying "I'm different than the average dedicated bicycle commuter" is a lot shakier, IMO. *And we've got decent data that those bike commuters ride over 30,000 miles between even relatively minor injuries. *I don't know of any data showing that number got better once bike helmets came on the scene. I doubt that the average dedicated commuter in San Diego rode in to work this morning over sheet ice, or any ice. Forecast tomorrow: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40907968...blication_id=0 Wearing my helmet! What does your data say about the national weather picture? Will it be dry on average? I don't need to interpret data. I just look out the window -- or at my personal experience, as the case may be. -- Jay Beattie. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference
On 1/4/2011 3:06 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:27 am, Frank wrote: On Jan 4, 1:47 pm, Jay wrote: On Jan 4, 10:07 am, Frank wrote: snip But seriously - are you pretending that such injuries happen only while cycling? Are you that willing to disregard the vast bulk of national data regarding head injuries? Let's review. First, since fatality data is far stronger than injury data: What percentage of US head injury fatalities are cyclists? Do you guess 50%? or 35%? 20%? 10%? 5%? My simple point (perhaps too simple): helmets actually prevent certain types of scalp injuries -- exactly the types shown in the pictures (all of which were in areas covered by helmets). Right. They could prevent those sorts of injuries no matter what activity causes the injuries. And way over 95% of such injuries have nothing to do with bikes. Do people have to wear helmets? No, that is a personal choice. Which is fine by me. Similarly, I actually do know a cyclist who always rides with a St. Christopher medal. I would never try to talk her out of it. On the other hand, if she should try to explain to me why it's so valuable, especially in a public discussion, I would probably disagree. She'd know better than to try that, though, since she's aware her position isn't logically defensible. And as far as knee guards go, no, I don't wear them because a scraped knee is no big deal to me, and they would interfere with pedalling, unlike a helmet. All you're saying, Jay, is that the market has not yet jumped on the opportunity to develop articulated, stylish, well-ventilated, garishly- colored, oddly-contoured knee protectors to save us from the horror of knee injuries. No. There is no giant knee guard conspiracy because there is no perception that knee injuries will prove fatal or even serious. Seriously, there is an inherent difference. If you read on the psychology of fear, you'll learn that there are psychological factors that influence people's dread of a particular event. People claim they would prefer to die of a heart attack than a shark attack, for example, maybe because it's visualized as involving less gore. I think there's a vaguely similar reaction to a cut on the head vs. one on the knee - an inborn psychological reaction. But if you scour bicycling literature in the pre-helmet days, it's damned hard to find anything like the modern fixation on head injuries. For example, the book _The Best of Bicycling!_ published in 1970 has no index entry for head injury at all. In fact, I can find no mention of "safety" and no warnings about crashes. Other books from the same period are similar. Very little "safety" talk except instructions on how to ride properly, no fear mongering at all, and certainly no emphasis on head injuries. After Bell's big push in the early to mid 1970s, things began to change. Now it's as hard to find a bicycling book that doesn't imply that riding without a helmet is riding to the morgue, or worse. How on earth did all those cyclists get by before 1975? I do not rely on "averages" when deciding what protective measures to take -- no more than I would rely on the average temperature of the United States in deciding what jacket to wear on my morning commute in PDX. Data has to be interpreted with intelligence. Saying "I'm different than the average American because I ride a bike a lot" may have some validity, depending on the interpretation, and we can discuss that. OTOH, saying "I'm different than the average dedicated bicycle commuter" is a lot shakier, IMO. And we've got decent data that those bike commuters ride over 30,000 miles between even relatively minor injuries. I don't know of any data showing that number got better once bike helmets came on the scene. I doubt that the average dedicated commuter in San Diego rode in to work this morning over sheet ice, or any ice. Forecast tomorrow: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40907968...blication_id=0 Wearing my helmet! What does your data say about the national weather picture? Will it be dry on average? I don't need to interpret data. I just look out the window -- or at my personal experience, as the case may be. -- Jay Beattie. I think that what gets most people at odds with Frank is his insistence that the data trumps personal experience. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference
On Jan 4, 11:46*am, wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote: It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and certified for only 14 mph impacts. *It's not just my opinion. If you would do more reading, you would understand the difference. And it's your opinion that since it's tested for a 14mph impact it is useless in most actual cases where there's an impact to the head.. Actually, I don't believe I've ever said "useless." So, what is your opinion? *Useless or not? I think "useless" implies absolute zero protection, and I don't think bike helmets (or ski helmets) provide absolute zero protection. They're not totally useless, since as many of us have said, they obviously prevent certain minor bumps and scrapes, if nothing else. Minor bumps and scrapes like this: *http://www.flickr.com/photos/eprescott/376804073/ or this: *http://www.flickr.com/photos/chadvonnau/4302945156/ How about this: *http://www.flickr.com/photos/twolaw/781335417/ I don't know about you, but if wearing a helmet means avoiding "minor bumps and scrapes" that land me in the ER, I'll wear a helmet. *I don't like getting stitched up, and tetanus boosters make my shoulder really sore. I don't care for your horror stories and implication that blood is bad. *Don't play football! *That's a large "but if" with which you start to develop your "the fact that" begging the question. *Stop sullying RBT! I'm not implying that blood is bad. I love blood and have about five litres of my own, which I try to keep inside my body -- particularly now that I am on blood thinners. All I am saying is that helmets prevent scalp lacerations, which can result in the unintended release of blood from one's body and significant medical expenses. If you are at risk for scalp laceration, wear a helmet. If not, don't. Very simple choice that anyone can make -- well, anyone over the age of 16 in Oregon. Only on this NG is that simple choice turned in to a religious war. You would think we were discussing abortion or proper tire patching. -- Jay Beattie. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference
On 1/4/2011 3:23 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:46 am, wrote: Jay Beattie wrote: It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and certified for only 14 mph impacts. It's not just my opinion. If you would do more reading, you would understand the difference. And it's your opinion that since it's tested for a 14mph impact it is useless in most actual cases where there's an impact to the head. Actually, I don't believe I've ever said "useless." So, what is your opinion? Useless or not? I think "useless" implies absolute zero protection, and I don't think bike helmets (or ski helmets) provide absolute zero protection. They're not totally useless, since as many of us have said, they obviously prevent certain minor bumps and scrapes, if nothing else. Minor bumps and scrapes like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eprescott/376804073/ or this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chadvonnau/4302945156/ How about this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/twolaw/781335417/ I don't know about you, but if wearing a helmet means avoiding "minor bumps and scrapes" that land me in the ER, I'll wear a helmet. I don't like getting stitched up, and tetanus boosters make my shoulder really sore. I don't care for your horror stories and implication that blood is bad. Don't play football! That's a large "but if" with which you start to develop your "the fact that" begging the question. Stop sullying RBT! I'm not implying that blood is bad. I love blood and have about five litres of my own, which I try to keep inside my body -- particularly now that I am on blood thinners. All I am saying is that helmets prevent scalp lacerations, which can result in the unintended release of blood from one's body and significant medical expenses. If you are at risk for scalp laceration, wear a helmet. If not, don't. Very simple choice that anyone can make -- well, anyone over the age of 16 in Oregon. Only on this NG is that simple choice turned in to a religious war. You would think we were discussing abortion or proper tire patching. -- Jay Beattie. I can't argue with Jobst's plea to stop sulleying RBT though. Most of the bandwidth here is wasted on this nonsense. I'm as guilty as anyone so I will try to take his advice. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 3, 9:27 pm, James wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On Jan 3, 12:30 pm, Duane H bert wrote: On 1/3/2011 11:13 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and certified for only 14 mph impacts. It's not just my opinion. If you would do more reading, you would understand the difference. And it's your opinion that since it's tested for a 14mph impact it is useless in most actual cases where there's an impact to the head. Actually, I don't believe I've ever said "useless." So, what is your opinion? Useless or not? I think "useless" implies absolute zero protection, and I don't think bike helmets (or ski helmets) provide absolute zero protection. They're not totally useless, since as many of us have said, they obviously prevent certain minor bumps and scrapes, if nothing else. That's a start. Bike helmets are an ineffective solution to an imaginary problem. Right, if you don't like me saying that in a race I'm constantly accelerating (even though I proved that it is true with changes in both speed and direction), I cannot let you get away with saying that there is an imaginary problem. If it was imaginary it would not exist - at all. Zero, ziltch, zip. However cyclists do occasionally suffer head injuries, therefore the problem cannot be imaginary. You should say, given your belief system, that bicycle helmets are an ineffective solution to the prevention of head injuries when the impact speed greatly exceeds their rated test impact speed. I use the word "greatly" intentionally to be inaccurate, because we do not know at what speed precisely above 14mph a helmet becomes completely ineffective. Furthermore, the study that Andre often has spoken about, I believe demonstrates that bicycle helmets do have a positive impact/effect (excuse the pun, and it's not the place to use affect) on preventing serious head injuries. (Don't argue Andre's conclusions with me though, contest them with him.) JS. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fall Tahoe Mt. Bike Conference | rickhopkins | Mountain Biking | 0 | July 30th 10 12:00 AM |
Contador press conference Fri | Dan Connelly | Racing | 19 | August 11th 07 06:19 AM |
Skater style helmet vs. Bike style helmet | ivan | Unicycling | 8 | September 11th 06 05:11 AM |
FA: Giro Pneumo Road Bike Cycling Bike Helmet S/M Exec Used | Alan257 | Marketplace | 1 | September 30th 05 10:21 PM |
Phonak Press Conference? | B. Lafferty | Racing | 0 | November 30th 04 08:21 PM |