Helmets

Having done a bit of package design and gotten a rudimentry education in
what foam does, I think that the breaking strength of the skull is a poor
metric in a discussion of how a helmet protects you. I believe the purpose
of a helmet is to decrease the g loading on the brain by absorbing energy so
that the grey stuff doesn't slam into the skull case which is the thing that
causes damage. Ian has an opinion and I have an opinion. His previous points
in helmets discussions dealt with statistical relavency of the necessity of
a helmet, and such nonsense as does a helmet protect your thumbs. I have
crashed and crushed a large portion of the foam liner in my helmet and did
not suffer any concussive injury. Did my helmet play a part in that. i
believe it did. you don't have to agree, but I will wear a helmet when I
ride a bike and hope that I never crash and need to test its efficacy again.
You may dissagree and not wear a helmet. I don't care.
"Ian Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:51:55 -0700, Ben Goren
wrote:

This past fall, I was clipped by a car that passed me. I have no
memory of the crash itself,

Quick recap - you have no idea what actually happened, but you're
certain that the helmet saved your life. Is that rational? How do
you know what effect the helmet had if you don't even know what
happened?

There's no reason whatsoever to doubt that I'd have at least
fractured my skull without the helmet.

Not even the reason that skulls take five times the energy to fracture
than helmets can absorb?

I know, the plural of ``anecdote'' is not data, and all that. But I
was the unwilling subject of an experiment that directly
contradicts their claims.

No, you were not. Please specify one single claim that is
contradicted by the accident you don't remember anything about.

And the thrust of their claims is that helmets only protect against
some kinds of injuries, not all;

You dispute that, do you?
Your helmet is effective against (say) broken thumbs, is it?

Not a one of those arguments carries the slightest bit of weight
with me.

Apparently so. Curiouser and curiouser.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ian Smith wrote:

Ben Goren wrote:

This past fall, I was clipped by a car that passed me. I have
no memory of the crash itself,

Quick recap - you have no idea what actually happened, but
you're certain that the helmet saved your life. Is that
rational? How do you know what effect the helmet had if you
don't even know what happened?

Just because I don't remember the moment of impact doesn't
mean that I don't know what happened. There is overwhelming
circumstantial evidence, supported by some very fuzzy memories of
my own moments before and waking afterwards, that I fell to my
left with full force, slowed only by whatever it takes to break an
elbow. My elbow, cheeks, and the helmet alone were enough proof of
that. Not to mention the bruised left hip that's still a bit numb.

There's no reason whatsoever to doubt that I'd have at least
fractured my skull without the helmet.

Not even the reason that skulls take five times the energy to
fracture than helmets can absorb?

For the sake of argument, let's say that it would not have cracked
my skull. I still would have had a massive goose egg (to match the
bruise on my hip) and lost a good bit of scalp due to road
rash. And if a hematoma like that would happen on the outside of
the skull, just think of what goes on inside.

I know, the plural of ``anecdote'' is not data, and all
that. But I was the unwilling subject of an experiment that
directly contradicts their claims.

No, you were not. Please specify one single claim that is
contradicted by the accident you don't remember anything about.

Let's turn this around. You know even less about this accident
than I do. What do you suppose the result would have been had I
/not/ been wearing a helmet? Would I somehow have managed to
escape the trip to the trauma ER, complete with lights, siren, and
escort from the fire department? I'd love to hear your theory.

And the thrust of their claims is that helmets only protect
against some kinds of injuries, not all;

You dispute that, do you? Your helmet is effective against
(say) broken thumbs, is it?

But of course. Neither thumb sustained any injury. It's also
effective at keeping the tigers from eating me.

Not a one of those arguments carries the slightest bit of
weight with me.

Apparently so. Curiouser and curiouser.

Obviously, they all carry weight with you. So, I propose a deal:
you don't wear a helmet, and I will. Sound fair?

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

gotbent wrote:

Having done a bit of package design and gotten a rudimentry
education in what foam does, I think that the breaking strength
of the skull is a poor metric in a discussion of how a helmet
protects you. I believe the purpose of a helmet is to decrease
the g loading on the brain by absorbing energy so that the grey
stuff doesn't slam into the skull case which is the thing that
causes damage.

Obviously. And, equally obviously, the skull is much, much more
structurally sound than the helmets -- that's the entire point.
It's why modern cars accordion if you look at them worng.

And, also obviously, it's not all that hard to overwhelm even
the most overprotective full-face high-speed motorcycle racing
helmet. If you go head-first into the grill of a Mack truck coming
at you at 75 mph, you're dead, helmet or no.

Helmets are especially effective in the kinds of crashes they were
designed to protect against, which is exactly the crash I had. And
mine did its job perfectly. If I had been out in the middle of
nowhere when the hit-and-run driver hit me, assuming I came to
before I got run over, I could have walked home. Maybe. Hitched a
ride, certainly.

Ian has an opinion and I have an opinion. His previous points in
helmets discussions dealt with statistical relavency of the
necessity of a helmet, and such nonsense as does a helmet
protect your thumbs. I have crashed and crushed a large portion
of the foam liner in my helmet and did not suffer any concussive
injury.

I didn't escape the concussion, but it was mild. No signs of it
after a few hours, or to this day.

Did my helmet play a part in that. i believe it did.

I have no doubt that I would be much, much unhappier today if it
were not for my helmet. At the very least, I'd have an ugly bald
spot on the side of my head.

you don't have to agree, but I will wear a helmet when I ride a
bike and hope that I never crash and need to test its efficacy
again. You may dissagree and not wear a helmet. I don't care.

I agree. I won't sit on the bike without a helmet. I'm glad that
you won't either; our society is more productive, and therefore
I'm a little bit richer, when everybody is as healthy as possible.

I doubt Mr. Smith will change his opinion, but it'd sure be nice
if he did, for the same reason.

The way I see it, the bike is itself the cheapest health insurance
available to me (coupled, of course, with a good diet with lots of
fresh veggies, complex carbohydrates, and healthy meats), and the
helmet is the cheapest accident insurance I can get for the
bike. The helmet is by no means the /only/ accident insurance;
I've got a mirror, I just bought an HID light that I'll be running
during the day (with matching taillight), I'll soon have a lime
green aerotrunk on the back, and I'm working on more visibility
aids. I follow all traffic rules, and I'm not afraid to take the
whole lane. And, of course, most importantly, I assume that I'm
/still/ invisible to everybody on the road.

Defense in depth is crucial, as everybody should know. A helmet is
a vital part of a cyclist's defenses, but it's just one part.

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

wrote:

Ben Goren wrote:

It's mostly from the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute at:

http://www.helmets.org/

In particular, be sure to check out their recommendations for
the 2007 season.

Impressive! I was trying to be funny rhyming Bell,but that was
such good info; I ****will**** get a Bell :-) - thanks for the
link.

Well, don't just take my word for it; for something as important
as a helmet, it behooves you to do your full due diligence. And be
sure to try the helmet on your head before buying it! It's useless
if it doesn't fit properly.

But I am generally impressed with what I've learned about the
Citi, enough that the fit test is about the only one left that'll
sway me one way or the other.

Unless, of course, I discover something even better. Frankly, I'm
almost wondering if some of those helmets that meet /both/ skating
and cycling standards might not make even more sense....

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, gotbent wrote:

Having done a bit of package design and gotten a rudimentry
education in what foam does, I think that the breaking strength of
the skull is a poor metric in a discussion of how a helmet protects
you.

You were the one that introduced fractured skull into the discussion.
Now, faced with even rudimentary facts, you decide best not.

a helmet, and such nonsense as does a helmet protect your thumbs.

You were the one that disagreed with the assertion that a helmet does
not protect against all injuries.

crashed and crushed a large portion of the foam liner in my helmet
and did not suffer any concussive injury.

You suffered brain injury.

Recap:
You crashed.
You suffered a brain injury.
You can't remember what happened, but you're sure the helmet saved your
life.

By all means wear a helmet.

However, you also made stupid assertions about how your experience
contradicts the findings of the website referenced (an assertion
you've singularly failed to even attempt to support when challenged).

So don't pretend it's a rational or coherent decision.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007, Ben Goren wrote:

Helmets are especially effective in the kinds of crashes they were
designed to protect against, which is exactly the crash I had.

No, they are designed for a fall from a little below head-height when
stationary. Your crashed was outside test spec.

mine did its job perfectly.

Eh? You suffered brain injury, yet you think your helmet did its job
of protecting your brain?

I doubt Mr. Smith will change his opinion, but it'd sure be nice
if he did, for the same reason.

I have changed my opinion. I used to think helmets were obviously the
right thing. Then I looked at the actual facts.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007, Ben Goren wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:

I know, the plural of ``anecdote'' is not data, and all
that. But I was the unwilling subject of an experiment that
directly contradicts their claims.

No, you were not. Please specify one single claim that is
contradicted by the accident you don't remember anything about.

Let's turn this around. You know even less about this accident
than I do. What do you suppose the result would have been had I
/not/ been wearing a helmet?

I don't know, but you'll note that I'm not the one making dumb
assertions about the definite outcome had you not been wearing a
helmet. That's the point. You are making the assertions, you defend
them. I'm not making specific assertions and claiming them as fact

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 05 Feb 2007 07:11:39 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, gotbent wrote:

Having done a bit of package design and gotten a rudimentry
education in what foam does, I think that the breaking strength of
the skull is a poor metric in a discussion of how a helmet protects
you.

You were the one that introduced fractured skull into the discussion.

Sorry, realised it wasn't you, it was Ben Goren. You'll need to
substitute something like "He's the one that..." in the rest of the
message for it to make sense.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ben Goren wrote:

Well, don't just take my word for it; for something as important
as a helmet, it behooves you to do your full due diligence.

Look at the data for places where helmet wearing practically doubled
overnight with mandatory helmet laws: no discernible effect on serious
head injuries.

No discernible effect means not actually important.

I used to think they were a no-brainer and diligently wore one every
trip for over a decade. I even had a "saved me a fractured skull!"
anecdote, but then I went back to read the data and AFAICT as a trained
science professional with a medical research library just down the
corridor they really are irrelevant to your basic chances of a serious
injury. Wear one if you want, but don't fool yourself (or try to fool
anyone else) you need one.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Ben Goren wrote:
snip
There's no reason whatsoever to doubt that I'd have at least
fractured my skull without the helmet.

So it's a safe assumption that anyone getting a concussion-worthy hit is
practically /bound/ to fracture their skull? That's a *very* big
assumption, and not one born out by one hell of a lot of falls.

I know, the plural of ``anecdote'' is not data, and all that. But
I was the unwilling subject of an experiment that directly
contradicts their claims.

No it doesn't contradict their claims. It says "Yet there is no
evidence that helmets save lives or prevent serious injury at all across
cyclists as a whole", and even if yours *did* save your life then your
admission that it is a single anecdote, combined with the clear
qualification "across cyclists as a whole" still does not render it wrong.

Serious head injury rates have been unimproved by increasing wearing
rates of helmets anywhere you look at the data is what the above means,
not that a helmet never did a single person any good (instances of good
can be balanced by instances of bad, of course).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/