Another Helmet Thread

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:46:44 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 18, 3:22*pm, wrote:

As someone who has suffered badly from a head injury I can tell you it's no fun.


I don't doubt that. And yet, the vast majority of serious brain

injuries (let's distinguish those from "head injuries," OK?) have

absolutely nothing to do with bicycling.

1. Any head injury could be "no fun", not only brain injuries. And it is especially head injuries that helmets are help to prevent. That's precisely why we want to discuss head injuries, see, Franki-boy? The reason you're so keen not to discuss head injuries is that we already know head injuries to cyclists are reduced by wearing helmets.

2. It is irrelevant that "the vast majority of serious brain injuries have absolutely nothing to do with bicycling." We're not interested in brain injuries that happen outside bicycling, which you, Franki-boy, constantly use as an excuse not to discuss brain injuries that happen to bicyclists. The reason you're so keen not to discuss brain injuries is that we already know brain injuries to cyclists are reduced by wearing helmets.

Stop blowing smoke, Franki-boy, and discuss the matters of interest to us as cyclists, head and brain injuries to "cyclists", and how helmets can help to prevent them, or **** off.

Andre Jute
Tired of Kreepy Krygowski's ducking and weaving and weaseling

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:54:04 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:49:07 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:27:03 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:



On Jun 18, 1:02*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip



Prevention of skull fracture, scalp injury and focal brain injury --







risks not generally associated with boxing.







But all those injuries, and more, _are_ associated with pedestrians and with motor vehicle occupants. In fact, they are much more common, and on average more serious, than among bicyclists.





The bare fact is that cycling, at least in any ordinary way, is a low risk activity, with risk lower even than walking. How can it then be logical to strongly recommend or even mandate head protection for a lower risk activity, but to ignore it for an activity that's much more common and much more risky? That strategy can't be justified based on either relative risk to the individual or cost to society.



Who is talking about mandatory helmet laws, mandating helmets, etc., etc? Not me.



True. Most cyclists are never hitting their head in any way.



Most cyclists who don't race, ride trails, ride in inclement weather including ice and snow. I've crashed and had my face sewn up and ruined helmets. I know from my injury distribution that if I hadn't been wearing a helmet, I would have at least lacerated my scalp. I don't know if the concussion would have been worsened without a helmet.





Using your logic, statistically speaking, none of the 4000 or so







pedestrians who die every year should need to wear a helmet. *Neither







should any of the 35,000 or so motorists. *Yet most of both camps did







die of brain injury. (And we really should stop conflating the terms







"head injury" and "brain injury." *They are not the same, and the







conflation is often a deliberate attempt to "dangerize" bicycling.)















I've previously posted links to the Philips Report on brain injury in







Ireland, which treated four groups in detail: *Motorists,







motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists. *So which group had the







fewest and the mildest brain injuries of the four? *Bicyclists, of







course. *It wasn't even close.















I've also linked to Pucher's data showing that the per-mile fatality







rate for U.S. pedestrians is more than triple that for bicyclists.







And a greater percentage of those pedestrian fatalities are due to







brain injury than for cyclists.















In response to this, you proclaim that comparing the groups is







"idiotic." *I'd say that's a quick, easy, and transparently







unsuccessful argument. *It' amounts to saying "Just because!!!"















You may be feeling frustrated that you can't come up with a truly







logical way to justify your discriminatory attitude against cyclists,







but that shouldn't lead you to simple minded insults. *If you can't







explain why the activity with far less risk requires protection, yet







the activities with far more risk don't require protection, it may be







best to explain to yourself that your position is at least weak, if







not untenable.















I'm not insulting you -- I'm insulting the whole MHL-paranoid cabal







that keeps tying bicycling to walking, gardening, showering, etc.,







etc.







It's still a simple minded insult, Jay. I (and many others) have provided indicators of relative risk, data showing that cycling is not unusually dangerous regarding brain injury. You and some others persist in saying, in effect, "It doesn't matter if bicycling is very safe, you must still wear protection!" or perhaps "I don't believe the professionally collected data, and I don't have any data that counters it; I just believe what I already believe!" How are those attitudes logical?



You persist in arguing averages and statistics in response to arguments regarding the protective effect of helmets and personal risk patterns. I don't care about averages. I'm not making public health decisions or advocating MHLs. The fact is that in a car, I have seat belts, airbags, safety glass, collapsing steering columns, reinforced pillars, etc., etc. On a bike, I've got gloves and a helmet. While walking, I'm not mixed in with fast moving traffic or moving fast myself. Your arguments are offensive and assume that I am utterly unfamiliar with my own risk patterns, as is everyone else on this NG.



snip



From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets help prevent injury.







http://tinyurl.com/lwbjt2e







Yes, that's been discussed in other forums. Apparently nobody discussing it has seen the full paper yet (and that journal isn't available in my academic library system) so there's much speculation going on. But comments that have been made are that the impact surface does not appear to have anything close to the characteristics of asphalt. Also, there does not seem to be any comparison with the real-world alternative target, which would be a smaller diameter bare head, armed with evolutionary reflexes to protect it from any impact; and with that head being naturally protected from angular acceleration by a low-friction head of hair plus a loosely attached scalp, "designed" to tear and expose even lower friction (albeit very messy) tissue beneath.



Smaller target? You pile drive in to the ground when you go OTB, and your head snaps to the right or left. It's not like you're going to miss the ground.



Hair is not low friction -- it gets stuck in asphalt and tears, along with the scalp. And yes, your scalp rips open or separates from the skull and has to be stapled back. All of this can be avoided by wearing a helmet.







If all I did was roll around on some 'fiet on the bike roads in







Amsterdam, I wouldn't bother with a helmet. Regrettably, I am exposed







to additional dangers and have made the decision to wear a helmet,







particularly since it has prevented injuries in the past.







Of course, I've ridden many of the places you ride, although obviously not nearly as often. But somehow, somehow, I've survived. Go figure!



You have ridden them in the snow or ice? In the dark? In a rainstorm and standing water a foot deep? How about three feet? http://tinyurl.com/lrc6syy I routinely ride 45-50mph down the street next to my house. My house is a mile from a trail system that is nothing but root pots, bushes and rocks. This road is like a sled run during the winter, and its a common part of my commute. http://tinyurl.com/m5gc2rc

Weekends involve fast riding with others. My riding patterns are considerably different from yours.



I don't care if you wear a helmet. I'm going to, except when I'm rolling to the store or puttering around a resort.



-- Jay Beattie.

Hi Jay.

My conclusion is that frank us steadfastly anti-helmet no matter what evidence anyone has that a helmet was beneficial to them. Back in 2010 I nade a post in this group about an accident that I had and that my head struck the paement very hard. I also stated that at the time of that accident I was very glad that I was wearing a helmet. Frank who was nowhere near the scene of that accident stated that I was "obviously" overstating things. Frank also stated that had I not been wearing the helmet that most likely my head would not have hit the pavement. Frank also stated that i would not be able to accurately determine if the force that my head struck the pavement with would have been sufficient to damage my head had I not been wearing a helmet. All that despite the fact that I'd said that it was my temple that would have struck the pavement HARD. Frank also went into the spiel of mandatory helmet laws which was something I'd never advocated is any of my posts at any time.

Cheers

On 6/18/2013 10:22 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/18/2013 6:55 PM, Dan wrote:

snip

LOL. No it's not.

http://www.occup-med.com/content/7/1/9

The conclusion certainly seems to state there there is a benefit to
helmet usage.

In fact there is not a single peer reviewed study in existence that
does not conclude that helmets are effective in reducing the severity
of head injuries in head impact crashes, and not even the most
virulent AHZ disagrees with this. Their position is based on a
collection of fallacies, myths, and junk science, but they don't deny
that helmeted cyclists fare better in head impact crashes than
non-helmeted cyclists.


And, at least for Canada, it seems that increased helmet use does not
coincide with lower cycling counts whether the helmet use is mandatory
or not. Sort of coincides with what I can see for myself.

On 6/18/2013 7:09 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/18/2013 10:08 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Decreased pedestrians and increased bicyclists? Better pedestrian
facilities? Bicyclists dying due to injuries other than head
injuries? Who knows. Tracking the two groups together is idiotic
since they are exposed to far different risks, except possibly while
crossing traffic -- and assuming that most pedestrians are not walking
at 20+ mph mixed in traffic.

Actually that whole pedestrian helmet, gardening helmet, showering
helmet, etc. schtick, along with trying to compare groups that have no
connection, is rather useful _because_ it's idiotic as you so eloquently
stated. It immediately conveys the message that the person making those
arguments has given up on creating a coherent case for their position
and has descended to the depths of despair.


I disagree. They usually haven't falling into the depths of despair.
They usually believe this crap completely as a basis for the one true
religion. Theirs. Desperate people deserve pity. Religious zealots do
not.

On 6/19/2013 12:54 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
snip
Smaller target? You pile drive in to the ground when you go OTB, and your head snaps to the right or left. It's not like you're going to miss the ground.


Went down on my side last night. Head snapped to the right but I was not
going down hard enough to prevent me from stopping it. I will report
that the helmet did NOT cause me to hit my head. I would also say that
I wish my shoulder was wearing a helmet. That smarted.


snip snip

On 6/19/2013 5:49 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:46:44 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 18, 3:22 pm, wrote:

As someone who has suffered badly from a head injury I can tell you it's no fun.


I don't doubt that. And yet, the vast majority of serious brain

injuries (let's distinguish those from "head injuries," OK?) have

absolutely nothing to do with bicycling.

1. Any head injury could be "no fun", not only brain injuries. And it is especially head injuries that helmets are help to prevent. That's precisely why we want to discuss head injuries, see, Franki-boy? The reason you're so keen not to discuss head injuries is that we already know head injuries to cyclists are reduced by wearing helmets.

2. It is irrelevant that "the vast majority of serious brain injuries have absolutely nothing to do with bicycling." We're not interested in brain injuries that happen outside bicycling, which you, Franki-boy, constantly use as an excuse not to discuss brain injuries that happen to bicyclists. The reason you're so keen not to discuss brain injuries is that we already know brain injuries to cyclists are reduced by wearing helmets.

Stop blowing smoke, Franki-boy, and discuss the matters of interest to us as cyclists, head and brain injuries to "cyclists", and how helmets can help to prevent them, or **** off.


Sadly I wish that helmets helped prevent concussions. As a hockey fan
and a father of a son that plays hockey, it would make me happy if they
did. But cracked skulls can kill you. Or at least mess up a lovely day.
And helmets do help prevent those. That's why he's on about concussions
now. Just as he's always on about cycling fatalities which are not
indicative of general cycling injuries.

Andre Jute
Tired of Kreepy Krygowski's ducking and weaving and weaseling

Tired of him in general.

On 6/19/2013 6:40 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:54:04 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:49:07 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:27:03 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:



On Jun 18, 1:02 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip



Prevention of skull fracture, scalp injury and focal brain injury --







risks not generally associated with boxing.







But all those injuries, and more, _are_ associated with pedestrians and with motor vehicle occupants. In fact, they are much more common, and on average more serious, than among bicyclists.





The bare fact is that cycling, at least in any ordinary way, is a low risk activity, with risk lower even than walking. How can it then be logical to strongly recommend or even mandate head protection for a lower risk activity, but to ignore it for an activity that's much more common and much more risky? That strategy can't be justified based on either relative risk to the individual or cost to society.



Who is talking about mandatory helmet laws, mandating helmets, etc., etc? Not me.



True. Most cyclists are never hitting their head in any way.



Most cyclists who don't race, ride trails, ride in inclement weather including ice and snow. I've crashed and had my face sewn up and ruined helmets. I know from my injury distribution that if I hadn't been wearing a helmet, I would have at least lacerated my scalp. I don't know if the concussion would have been worsened without a helmet.





Using your logic, statistically speaking, none of the 4000 or so







pedestrians who die every year should need to wear a helmet. Neither







should any of the 35,000 or so motorists. Yet most of both camps did







die of brain injury. (And we really should stop conflating the terms







"head injury" and "brain injury." They are not the same, and the







conflation is often a deliberate attempt to "dangerize" bicycling.)















I've previously posted links to the Philips Report on brain injury in







Ireland, which treated four groups in detail: Motorists,







motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists. So which group had the







fewest and the mildest brain injuries of the four? Bicyclists, of







course. It wasn't even close.















I've also linked to Pucher's data showing that the per-mile fatality







rate for U.S. pedestrians is more than triple that for bicyclists.







And a greater percentage of those pedestrian fatalities are due to







brain injury than for cyclists.















In response to this, you proclaim that comparing the groups is







"idiotic." I'd say that's a quick, easy, and transparently







unsuccessful argument. It' amounts to saying "Just because!!!"















You may be feeling frustrated that you can't come up with a truly







logical way to justify your discriminatory attitude against cyclists,







but that shouldn't lead you to simple minded insults. If you can't







explain why the activity with far less risk requires protection, yet







the activities with far more risk don't require protection, it may be







best to explain to yourself that your position is at least weak, if







not untenable.















I'm not insulting you -- I'm insulting the whole MHL-paranoid cabal







that keeps tying bicycling to walking, gardening, showering, etc.,







etc.







It's still a simple minded insult, Jay. I (and many others) have provided indicators of relative risk, data showing that cycling is not unusually dangerous regarding brain injury. You and some others persist in saying, in effect, "It doesn't matter if bicycling is very safe, you must still wear protection!" or perhaps "I don't believe the professionally collected data, and I don't have any data that counters it; I just believe what I already believe!" How are those attitudes logical?



You persist in arguing averages and statistics in response to arguments regarding the protective effect of helmets and personal risk patterns. I don't care about averages. I'm not making public health decisions or advocating MHLs. The fact is that in a car, I have seat belts, airbags, safety glass, collapsing steering columns, reinforced pillars, etc., etc. On a bike, I've got gloves and a helmet. While walking, I'm not mixed in with fast moving traffic or moving fast myself. Your arguments are offensive and assume that I am utterly unfamiliar with my own risk patterns, as is everyone else on this NG.



snip



From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets help prevent injury.







http://tinyurl.com/lwbjt2e







Yes, that's been discussed in other forums. Apparently nobody discussing it has seen the full paper yet (and that journal isn't available in my academic library system) so there's much speculation going on. But comments that have been made are that the impact surface does not appear to have anything close to the characteristics of asphalt. Also, there does not seem to be any comparison with the real-world alternative target, which would be a smaller diameter bare head, armed with evolutionary reflexes to protect it from any impact; and with that head being naturally protected from angular acceleration by a low-friction head of hair plus a loosely attached scalp, "designed" to tear and expose even lower friction (albeit very messy) tissue beneath.



Smaller target? You pile drive in to the ground when you go OTB, and your head snaps to the right or left. It's not like you're going to miss the ground.



Hair is not low friction -- it gets stuck in asphalt and tears, along with the scalp. And yes, your scalp rips open or separates from the skull and has to be stapled back. All of this can be avoided by wearing a helmet.







If all I did was roll around on some 'fiet on the bike roads in







Amsterdam, I wouldn't bother with a helmet. Regrettably, I am exposed







to additional dangers and have made the decision to wear a helmet,







particularly since it has prevented injuries in the past.







Of course, I've ridden many of the places you ride, although obviously not nearly as often. But somehow, somehow, I've survived. Go figure!



You have ridden them in the snow or ice? In the dark? In a rainstorm and standing water a foot deep? How about three feet? http://tinyurl.com/lrc6syy I routinely ride 45-50mph down the street next to my house. My house is a mile from a trail system that is nothing but root pots, bushes and rocks. This road is like a sled run during the winter, and its a common part of my commute. http://tinyurl.com/m5gc2rc

Weekends involve fast riding with others. My riding patterns are considerably different from yours.



I don't care if you wear a helmet. I'm going to, except when I'm rolling to the store or puttering around a resort.



-- Jay Beattie.

Hi Jay.

My conclusion is that frank us steadfastly anti-helmet no matter what evidence anyone has that a helmet was beneficial to them. Back in 2010 I nade a post in this group about an accident that I had and that my head struck the paement very hard. I also stated that at the time of that accident I was very glad that I was wearing a helmet. Frank who was nowhere near the scene of that accident stated that I was "obviously" overstating things. Frank also stated that had I not been wearing the helmet that most likely my head would not have hit the pavement. Frank also stated that i would not be able to accurately determine if the force that my head struck the pavement with would have been sufficient to damage my head had I not been wearing a helmet. All that despite the fact that I'd said that it was my temple that would have struck the pavement HARD. Frank also went into the spiel of mandatory helmet laws which was something I'd never advocated is any of my posts at any time.


Curiously my initial contact with Frank was almost exactly the same as
yours. I had fallen and cracked my helmet. I said that I was glad that
the helmet cracked and not my head. Then came the onslaught from Frank
who was not there either using the same hyperbole and innuendo.

I wonder if there was a poll here how many would have the same experience.
Of course I've seen him run off new posters so that may not work.

On 6/19/2013 3:40 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Hi Jay.

My conclusion is that frank us steadfastly anti-helmet no matter what evidence anyone has that a helmet was beneficial to them. Back in 2010 I nade a post in this group about an accident that I had and that my head struck the paement very hard. I also stated that at the time of that accident I was very glad that I was wearing a helmet. Frank who was nowhere near the scene of that accident stated that I was "obviously" overstating things. Frank also stated that had I not been wearing the helmet that most likely my head would not have hit the pavement. Frank also stated that i would not be able to accurately determine if the force that my head struck the pavement with would have been sufficient to damage my head had I not been wearing a helmet. All that despite the fact that I'd said that it was my temple that would have struck the pavement HARD. Frank also went into the spiel of mandatory helmet laws which was something I'd never advocated is any of my posts at any time.

"When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

On 6/19/2013 4:14 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

And, at least for Canada, it seems that increased helmet use does not
coincide with lower cycling counts whether the helmet use is mandatory
or not. Sort of coincides with what I can see for myself.

The "helmet laws reduce cycling levels" is one of the favorite false
premises of the AHZs, then they talk about all sorts of terrible things
that result from the non-existent reduction in cycling levels.

In fact, cycling levels vary for a number of reasons, and perhaps
helmets laws are contributing to the increase and perhaps without helmet
laws the increases would be even larger.

It reminds me of the Tea Partiers in the U.S. that were told by their
handlers that voting by illegal aliens is a huge problem and that laws
need to be passed to prevent it. In fact it is a virtually non-existent
problem, and the laws that were passed were intended to prevent legal
citizens, that were more likely to vote Democratic, from voting. The
U.S. Supreme Court just invalidated one of those laws a couple of days ago.

On 6/19/2013 5:12 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

I disagree. They usually haven't falling into the depths of despair.
They usually believe this crap completely as a basis for the one true
religion. Theirs. Desperate people deserve pity. Religious zealots do
not.

I disagree. They don't relieve believe the crap. They're told by their
handlers what to say and they say it because it justifies their own
actions. They're much like the Tea Party people in the U.S..