Another Helmet Thread

On 6/19/2013 6:47 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/19/2013 7:31 AM, Duane wrote:

I was referring to the quoted link that said that there were increased
cycling rates whether there was a MHL or not. But yeah, I don't think
that there has been any causal relationship proven that shows cycling
rates declining with MHL. Not that I'm for them. I'm not sure about
that.

All the evidence proves that MHLs haven't resulted in lower cycling
levels in the countries or provinces where they've been implemented.

However it should be pointed out that the increase in cycling levels
in countries that have implemented MHLs probably cannot be attributed
to the MHL. Cycling levels change for all sorts of reasons, including
changes in cycling facilities, fuel prices, weather patterns, economic
changes, etc.. It's certainly possible that without an MHL cycling
levels might have increased even faster, but it's also possible that
the MHL made some cyclists more comfortable with wearing a helmet and
not being seen as some sort of a nerd or outcast.

But I can tell you that my son has been under a MHL instituted by his
mom and me since he started riding a bike and it doesn't bother him at
all. Nor his friends.

I think that many parents like the MHL for 18 because they can just
say "you have to wear a helmet, it's the law," and the kids will
comply rather than argue.




My son wore a helmet from the first time that he rode a bike. By the
time that he was old enough to argue with me, wearing a helmet was not
something that he even thought to argue about. He's 15 now and doesn't
ride without one.

On 6/19/2013 10:42 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/18/2013 11:11 PM, James wrote:

snip

You are not the only one, but Frank seems to think anyone who wears a
helmet, for whatever reason, also agrees with and wants mandatory helmet
laws. It's one of his *things*. Then he likes to argue against, even
though you never mentioned it.

Precisely. No one here (well almost no one) has ever promoted MHLs.
What infuriates Frank is that even though we are not in favor of MHLs
we accept the myriad studies and statistical evidence that support the
fact that helmeted cyclists do better in head-impact crashes than
non-helmeted cyclists.


I guess I accept the myriad studies and statistical evidence. But I
mostly accept the empirical evidence. Helmet dented. Head not dented.


Of course he never forgets his schtick about how he used to be pro
helmet until he examined some studies. If only he actually examined
peer-reviewed, statistically sound, scientifically sound, studies
instead of relying on the junk science that he feels compelled to use.
Of course it's the only way to justify his position because there are
no actual studies that support his position.

On 20/06/2013 03:42, sms wrote:
On 6/18/2013 11:11 PM, James wrote:

snip

You are not the only one, but Frank seems to think anyone who wears a
helmet, for whatever reason, also agrees with and wants mandatory helmet
laws. It's one of his *things*. Then he likes to argue against, even
though you never mentioned it.

Precisely. No one here (well almost no one) has ever promoted MHLs. What
infuriates Frank is that even though we are not in favor of MHLs we
accept the myriad studies and statistical evidence that support the fact
that helmeted cyclists do better in head-impact crashes than
non-helmeted cyclists.

Of course he never forgets his schtick about how he used to be pro
helmet until he examined some studies.

Some people are natural believers. The don't like to accept uncertainty
so they move from being pro to anti or vice-versa rather than accept
that they just don't know. This is ok but they have a tendency to over
egg the pudding and then we descend into insults when people point this
out. Its not just helmets its also cycle infrastructure, vehicular
cycling etc.

There are some very annoying MHL proponents but as you say they don't
seem to post much to cycling forums and often appear to be non cyclists.
It would help if people addressed the actual points being made here
rather than arguments made elsewhere.

Finally it is worth making the point that the statistical evidence is
not that strong either way. The misrepresentation/misinterpretation of
statistical data in these threads is phenomenal. However there are still
good physics reasons to believe helmets should offer benefits in many
types of accidents. People should be allowed to decide for themselves if
this potential benefit is enough to justify the cost and unpleasantness
of wearing one.

Jay Beattie writes:

On Jun 18, 11:15*am, Radey Shouman wrote:
Jay Beattie writes:
On Jun 17, 9:30*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 17, 6:24*pm, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Monday, June 17, 2013 12:38:49 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 17, 11:13*am, Duane wrote:

On 6/17/2013 10:13 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from

yesterday's news:

http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/h...njures-bicycli...

And on top of that the guy was hit from behind. *Another "favorite" of

the take the lane crowd.

Why are you assuming he was taking the lane? *The photos show what

seems to be a narrow bike lane. *I can't tell (from debris, etc.)

where the impact occurred, but I'd bet he was to the right of the

magic, all-protective white line.

Do any other reports mention whether or not he had a taillight?

Lights were not mentioned, but even a very ordinary taillight is far

more effective than the reflective jacket that was mentioned.

And of course, there is a possibility that the helmet did save his

life. *There seem to be perhaps 35000 "my helmet saved my life"

stories annually in the U.S. *Some of them may actually be true.

Of course, there are only about 750 annual bike deaths in the U.S.

What does it mean when the number of lives "saved" greatly exceeds the

record number of deaths? *That if the person did not wear a helmet,

ten people around him would have died with him? *Just wondering.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank.

I know that you are vehemently anti-helmet but...

Take a melon and strap a helmet to it and then drop that helmeted melon from eight feet or so in such a way that it hits the ground helmet side down. You'll notice there is very little damage to that melon. Now take the same melon or another one of comparable size and drop it from the same height but without the helmet covering it. Notice that the unprotected helmet suffers a LOT MORE damage.

A helmet won't protect from every impact but they can help a lot.

I understand your faith.

But do you have an explanation for the fact (noted in the recent
Bicycling magazine article) that bicyclist concussions have increased
tremendously since helmets became popular?

Do you have an explanation for the fact that pedestrian fatalities
have dropped far faster than bicyclist fatalities since bike helmets
became popular?

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.

Tracking the two groups makes pretty good sense to me, but I've been
called an idiot before.

It's easy to get the impression that no one in r.b.t actually walks
anywhere for transportation. *I do, and have easily had more close calls
when walking than when bicycling -- granted that I have never competed
in a cycling (or walking) competition, nor am likely to.

The most significant risk is the same for both cyclists and pedestrians:
drivers who don't see them, and run them over. *Pedestrians do mix in
traffic, at closely spaced intersections in urban areas, and by the
sides of roadways in rural and suburban areas. *When you're actually
walking to get somewhere, crossing traffic happens all the time.

3 or 20+ mph? *What difference does it make if you're run over by
someone doing 75?

As someone said above, the two primary accident modes for bicycles are
(1) getting hit by something, and (2) falling. I have not been hit by
a car for a long time, but I have fallen -- and fall much more
(although usually harmlessly) when trail riding. I've hit pot holes
at night in poorly lit areas while using a good headlight and gone
OTB; I've gone down in ice and on unexpectedly slick pavement on
twisting descents and spring races. Speed had an effect on the
severity of the injury and my ability to avoid falling. Had I been
walking, I might have stumbled momentarily or perhaps twisted my
ankle.

It may never happen to you, but people do regularly fall and injure
themselves when walking. Some are dealing with age and infirmity,
inebriation, ice or other walkway hazards, or all three. Some cyclists
have similar problems.

But the point was in comparing the trends in pedestrian and cyclist
death rates. If you believe in transportation progress, you might say
that the attention paid to "vulnerable road users" should tend to help
both categories. I'm not sure I believe it, but "idiotic" is going a
bit far. One factor that does affect both is improved emergency medical
care; this should act to reduce death rates for cyclists and
pedestrians, after falls, collisions, and encounters with vicious dogs
by the roadside. It would be a mistake to credit helmets with the
effect of progress in emergency care, and comparing pedestrian and
cyclist death rates is a useful check.

I have also been hit between five and ten times -- most seriously
descending from Mt. Hamilton down in to San Jose and a car left hooked
me. I hit the front right quarter panel, went flying and got knocked
out. Had I been walking, nothing would have happened. I've been
right hooked while riding at 20-25mph probably three times in the last
40 years -- all involved me hitting the front quarter panel, getting
popped in to the air or rolled across the hood. None of these
incidents would have occurred while walking. Pedestrians do get hit,
but their own speed is usually irrelevant in terms of enhancing the
injury.

The analagous case for pedestrians would be being run over by a right
turning driver while in the crosswalk. This may look different to you,
but to the driver it's much the same: He was just driving along, minding
his own business, making a right turn (what could be simpler?) when,
bam, there was this [cyclist/pedestrian] right there, *in the
road*. What can you do? The pedestrian might say, had I only been on a
bicycle, traveling 20 mph or so, I would have cleared the intersection
before being run into. But if you have enough drivers making right
turns without due care to yield the right of way to non-automobiles,
eventually something bad is going to happen.

This may not apply to you, but I suspect that in most serious bicycle
collisions the cyclist's speed really doesn't have that much to do with
the severity of his injuries, it's more the speed of whatever massive
object hits him.

Now, I agree with Frank that head injury is rare even in these types
of incidents -- and based on my own personal experience, it is more
likely to happen going OTB or in a simple fall, but those are the
accidents that I am most likely to see riding where I do. I then
consider the downside of helmet wearing for me . . . there is none.
My helmet is lightweight and relatively cool, plus it rarely gets
above 90F here, when a helmet may become oppressive. The only real
downside is a sweatband that may leak sal****er in to my eyes.

I'm not saying that you should or shouldn't wear a helmet, just
objecting to the idea that comparing cyclist and pedestrian injuries is
"idiotic".

The calculus may be different population wide, and mandating helmets
is Draconian in light of the risk of head injury to the average
rider. That's why no one seriously advocates MHLs on this NG, but
Frank doesn't seem to understand that. He gets everyone so ****ed off,
pretty soon we're all advocating for iron buckets with chain chin
straps for all. The anit-MHL agenda takes ten steps backwards.

-- Jay Beattie.

--

On 6/19/2013 9:21 PM, Dan O wrote:

Statistics can be abused.

And so often are.


I would go so far as to say *usually* are.

What usually happens is that the statistics are valid but meaningless,
or they are used to "prove" something that is unrelated.

That's why you have to laugh when you see claims that someone was pro
helmet until they examined the statistics and studies. It's unclear if
they intentionally misinterpreted the statistics and studies or if they
lacked the critical thinking skills to understand that they were being
misled. And of course once they get this idea into their head, they feel
to spread the misinformation and get their panties in a knot when anyone
patiently explains to them that they don't know what they are talking about.

On 6/20/2013 3:47 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

I've fallen a few times. Hit my head once. Was glad that there was a
helmet on it at the time.

I think that the spiel is that if you do hit your head wearing a helmet
it's beause of the extra inch or whatever of width and without it your
head miraculously stops before impact.

I haven't seen the statistics on the number of head impacts that would
have been prevented by that extra inch, but I'm sure that the AHZs must
have made some up.

On 6/20/2013 4:42 AM, Nick wrote:
On 20/06/2013 03:42, sms wrote:
On 6/18/2013 11:11 PM, James wrote:

snip

You are not the only one, but Frank seems to think anyone who wears a
helmet, for whatever reason, also agrees with and wants mandatory helmet
laws. It's one of his *things*. Then he likes to argue against, even
though you never mentioned it.

Precisely. No one here (well almost no one) has ever promoted MHLs. What
infuriates Frank is that even though we are not in favor of MHLs we
accept the myriad studies and statistical evidence that support the fact
that helmeted cyclists do better in head-impact crashes than
non-helmeted cyclists.

Of course he never forgets his schtick about how he used to be pro
helmet until he examined some studies.

Some people are natural believers. The don't like to accept uncertainty
so they move from being pro to anti or vice-versa rather than accept
that they just don't know. This is ok but they have a tendency to over
egg the pudding and then we descend into insults when people point this
out. Its not just helmets its also cycle infrastructure, vehicular
cycling etc.

Very true. It's not just enough for them to be wrong, everyone else has
to be wrong too.

There are some very annoying MHL proponents but as you say they don't
seem to post much to cycling forums and often appear to be non cyclists.
It would help if people addressed the actual points being made here
rather than arguments made elsewhere.

LOL, then Frank would have nothing to argue about.

Finally it is worth making the point that the statistical evidence is
not that strong either way.

This is what it boils down to:

1. Helmeted cyclists fare much better in head impact crashes than
non-helmeted cyclists.

2. Helmets don't completely eliminate the need for medical treatment,
they just reduce the severity of injury.

3. The number of head-impact crashes while cycling is relatively low.

4. Changes in hospitalization rates are caused by factors other than the
implementation of an MHL.

5. There is no evidence that MHLs and helmet promotion reduce cycling rates.

6. There is no evidence that MHLs and helmet promotion increase obesity.

7. The relative dangers of other activities are irrelevant when it comes
to he use or non-use of bicycle helmets.

8. Helmet wearing does not cause more car/bicycle accidents.

9. The chance that the wearing of helmet will cause a head impact that
would not otherwise occur due to the extra inch of helmet are
vanishingly small.

10. The Netherlands is different than the U.S..

On Jun 19, 10:04*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:21*am, Dan O wrote:

On Jun 19, 7:59 pm, James wrote:

On 20/06/13 12:33, fk wrote:

Statistics can be abused.

And so often are.

I would go so far as to say *usually* are.

Dan, if you believe that, then next time you or your kid or spouse get
seriously ill, you need to reject whatever the best doctors in your
area recommend. *Because all the remedies will have been tested and
chosen based on statistics.

You also need to throw out your bicycle. *Because the materials and
processes used to construct nearly every part will have been managed
by the technique called Statistical Process Control. *It's quite
standard in manufacturing.

You need to forget about insurance. *Insurance companies rely heavily
on data and statistics to not only decide your rates, but to invest
the money you or your employer have paid for premiums. *And you
certainly don't want to be associated with a company that uses such
techniques, do you?

Speaking of investments, you probably don't want your money in the
bank, let alone the stock market. *Banks use statistics heavily in
analyzing their own investments. *And if they are *usually* wrong,
they're bound to crash and make you lose all your money. *The FDIC
couldn't help, because they use statistics too.

Really, the best thing for a dedicated statistics skeptic to do is to
pour every penny into the next lottery ticket. *Because the following
odds probably don't apply to you, right?http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...ds-winning-lot...

You have to distinguish between statistics and epidemiology which
involves drawing conclusions or associations from statistics. You can
prove that beer drinking promotes muscle development if you study a
bunch of rugby playing frat boys. You can prove that EMF causes
cancer if you study a bunch of people who live under high voltage
lines -- and next to a smelting plant. These were actual studies. The
problem is not the statistics. It's the associations drawn from the
statistics that are often suspect.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:12:35 AM UTC+1, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:57:16 AM UTC+2, T0m $herman wrote:

People who start another helmet discussion should be shot or preferable just ignored. Wearing or not wearing a helmet is a non issue for:

- people who wear helmets,

- people who don't wear helmets



so for everone. It only triggers people who have to much time or idiots by default.



Lou

I vote for "idiots by default". This thread was started by Liddell Tommi to give Franki-boy another chance to harangue us.

Andre Jute

On 6/20/2013 10:42 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:04 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:21 am, Dan O wrote:

On Jun 19, 7:59 pm, James wrote:

On 20/06/13 12:33, fk wrote:

Statistics can be abused.

And so often are.

I would go so far as to say *usually* are.

Dan, if you believe that, then next time you or your kid or spouse get
seriously ill, you need to reject whatever the best doctors in your
area recommend. Because all the remedies will have been tested and
chosen based on statistics.

You also need to throw out your bicycle. Because the materials and
processes used to construct nearly every part will have been managed
by the technique called Statistical Process Control. It's quite
standard in manufacturing.

You need to forget about insurance. Insurance companies rely heavily
on data and statistics to not only decide your rates, but to invest
the money you or your employer have paid for premiums. And you
certainly don't want to be associated with a company that uses such
techniques, do you?

Speaking of investments, you probably don't want your money in the
bank, let alone the stock market. Banks use statistics heavily in
analyzing their own investments. And if they are *usually* wrong,
they're bound to crash and make you lose all your money. The FDIC
couldn't help, because they use statistics too.

Really, the best thing for a dedicated statistics skeptic to do is to
pour every penny into the next lottery ticket. Because the following
odds probably don't apply to you, right?http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...ds-winning-lot...

You have to distinguish between statistics and epidemiology which
involves drawing conclusions or associations from statistics. You can
prove that beer drinking promotes muscle development if you study a
bunch of rugby playing frat boys. You can prove that EMF causes
cancer if you study a bunch of people who live under high voltage
lines -- and next to a smelting plant. These were actual studies. The
problem is not the statistics. It's the associations drawn from the
statistics that are often suspect.



The typical example that you get in stats classes is that in the 50s
statistical analysis concluded that jet airplanes caused high blood
pressure and heart disease because a large number of jet passengers
contracted these health problems. In reality, looking at the population
in the study, in the 50s most people that used jets to a large extent
tended to be middle aged mid level businessmen. So the high levels of
stress and tobacco usage were the real culprits. You have to prove a
causal relationship or else you just have a coincidence.