Another Helmet Thread

On Jun 20, 9:12*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 20, 11:24*am, Dan O wrote:

On Jun 19, 3:36*pm, wrote:

snip

Would you disagree that knee protectors would reduce skinned knees (actually cycling's most common injury)?

No, I would not disagree.

Would you disagree that helmets reduce head injuries (actually
cycling's most serious common injury)?

Yes, I definitely disagree...

Well then, there we are.

... that helmets reduce serious head injuries,
especially if by "head injury" you really meant "brain injury."
Recall, bicycling concussions have risen markedly since helmet use
became fashionable. *There's been no apparent improvement in
hospitalizations associated with helmet use (recall that Scuffham
study). *There's been no apparent decrease in cyclist fatalities
associated with helmet use (recall the comparison with pedestrian
fatalities).


I was looking for a simple, *clear*, yes or no - you know, like my
answer to your question about knee protectors? I am disregarding the
churning dodging qualifying rope-a-dope rationalizing blather above -
especially since it's the same old, same old, tired, same old...

I'll also disagree that head injuries (or brain injuries) are
cycling's most common serious injury.

I didn't say "most common serious injury", did I.
[i]
*Only 6% of cyclists at ER are
treated for moderate or worse injuries of the head. *See

.Stutts, et. al, "Bicycle Accidents: An Examination of Hospital
Emergency Room Reports and Comparison with Police Accident Data,"
Transportation Research Record #1168. You'll have to do a little
simple math using their data table.


Really, we could automate your dogged spiel. Even the personal digs
intended to provoke shame wouldn't be much of an AI challenge, as
you're so formulaic and rote with them.

*Does that really mean we should promote them?

Ah, but that's a separate question. *I promote neither knee protectors
nor helmets. *And you're changing the subject.

I'm disputing American society's insistence that one should not ride a
bike without a helmet, and its insistence that helmets have made
bicycling much safer.

But I'm not making either of those points - not even anything close.

*You're arguing against me.

I am disputing your insistence that helmets are worthless, worse than
worthless, and people who think otherwise are fools. That's all.

*In other places,
you may not promote helmet use (except, perhaps, by example). *But in
this discussion, you certainly seem to be doing so.


So do I understand your POV correctly that my merely using one is,
"perhaps", helmet promotion?

BTW, you have kids, correct? *Do you tell them to wear a helmet when
they ride?


Sometimes... usually, if they have started riding without one; but I
have also let them ride without a helmet (despite our applicable
MHL). It depends. But usually, yes. I try to help them have a
realistic sense of the helmet's limited worth. I'm not dogmatic about
it at all.

I tell them to wash their hands, too.

Mostly, I have taught my kids to think for themselves - to question
everything, including what I tell them - and to see propaganda for
what it is.

On 6/20/2013 10:22 AM, Dan O wrote:


Really, we could automate your dogged spiel. Even the personal digs
intended to provoke shame wouldn't be much of an AI challenge, as
you're so formulaic and rote with them.

Frank will _never_ answer the simple question:

"In the event of head impact bicycle crash, are you better off wearing a
helmet?"

He can't. The answer destroys the position he's works so hard at
defending. He will quote you endless "studies" about hospital admission
rates following the imposition of an MHL and how that _proves_ that
helmets don't work. Alas statistics are notoriously unreliable in
protecting your head as it hits the pavement.

I'm disputing American society's insistence that one should not ride a
bike without a helmet, and its insistence that helmets have made
bicycling much safer.

But I'm not making either of those points - not even anything close.

No one has tried to make either of those points. The advantage of
helmets is that in the unlikely event of head impact crash, injury
severity has been proven to be reduced.

On Jun 20, 1:22*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 20, 9:12*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jun 20, 11:24*am, Dan O wrote:


Would you disagree that helmets reduce head injuries (actually
cycling's most serious common injury)?

Yes, I definitely disagree...

Well then, there we are.

... that helmets reduce serious head injuries,
especially if by "head injury" you really meant "brain injury."
Recall, bicycling concussions have risen markedly since helmet use
became fashionable. *There's been no apparent improvement in
hospitalizations associated with helmet use (recall that Scuffham
study). *There's been no apparent decrease in cyclist fatalities
associated with helmet use (recall the comparison with pedestrian
fatalities).

I was looking for a simple, *clear*, yes or no - you know, like my
answer to your question about knee protectors? *I am disregarding the
churning dodging qualifying rope-a-dope rationalizing blather above -
especially since it's the same old, same old, tired, same old...

Dan, you were looking for something simple you could use as a
"Gotcha!" But I'm not addressing word games. I'm addressing the real
reasons that so many cyclists wear helmets, and so many agencies
promote helmets. The fact is, the reasons aren't borne out by data,
and I repeatedly give links to the data, or to papers containing it.
You don't address the data. Scharf doesn't address the data.
Instead, you pump out ad hominems against the people providing the
data.



I'll also disagree that head injuries (or brain injuries) are
cycling's most common serious injury.

I didn't say "most common serious injury", did I.

Sorry for the slip, but the transposition of adjectives doesn't
matter. Brain injuries are simply not common in bicyclists, by any
reasonable measure, despite the hype. That fact negates either
version.
[i]
*Only 6% of cyclists at ER are
treated for moderate or worse injuries of the head. *See

.Stutts, et. al, "Bicycle Accidents: An Examination of Hospital
Emergency Room Reports and Comparison with Police Accident Data,"
Transportation Research Record #1168. You'll have to do a little
simple math using their data table.

Really, we could automate your dogged spiel. *Even the personal digs
intended to provoke shame wouldn't be much of an AI challenge, as
you're so formulaic and rote with them.

If you're going to dispute everything I say (as you consistently do,
no matter what the topic) your task is not to automate my statements.
Your task would be to come up with cogent, scientific rebuttals. I'm
not seeing that.

*Does that really mean we should promote them?

Ah, but that's a separate question. *I promote neither knee protectors
nor helmets. *And you're changing the subject.

I'm disputing American society's insistence that one should not ride a
bike without a helmet, and its insistence that helmets have made
bicycling much safer.

But I'm not making either of those points - not even anything close.

*You're arguing against me.

I am disputing your insistence that helmets are worthless, worse than
worthless, and people who think otherwise are fools. *That's all.

And did I say people who think otherwise are fools? If so, provide
the quote. I may think they're mistaken, but that's hardly the same
thing.

On the "worthless" point, you can find where I've said bike helmets
may be recommended for certain types of risky riding, like aggressive
mountain biking or criterium racing. That counters your "worthless"
allegation.

The essence is, I think they are not necessary, and not effective, for
the activity for which they are most often promoted and/or mandated,
which is ordinary biking on ordinary roads and recreational trails.
The risk of brain injury (or serious head injury) is very low, and the
evidence of benefit is extremely sparse, at best. Again, if we were
talking about a proposed prescription drug with the same data as bike
helmets, the FDA would never allow it to market.





*In other places,
you may not promote helmet use (except, perhaps, by example). *But in
this discussion, you certainly seem to be doing so.

So do I understand your POV correctly that my merely using one is,
"perhaps", helmet promotion?

BTW, you have kids, correct? *Do you tell them to wear a helmet when
they ride?

Sometimes...

OK, then you _do_ promote helmet use, at least in those instances.

...usually, if they have started riding without one; but I
have also let them ride without a helmet (despite our applicable
MHL). *It depends. *But usually, yes. *I try to help them have a
realistic sense of the helmet's limited worth. *I'm not dogmatic about
it at all.

I tell them to wash their hands, too.

Mostly, I have taught my kids to think for themselves - to question
everything, including what I tell them - and to see propaganda for
what it is.

I don't know how old your kids are, nor their reading or math levels.
(My kids are long grown up.) But if you really want them to see
propaganda for what it is, have them compare the helmet promotion
material to the material - including cited papers - in
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/...videncebrf.pdf

Of course, if Dad won't bother to read the papers, it's very doubtful
the kids will. :-/

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:30:12 PM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:
Jay Beattie considered Sat, 22 Jun 2013

16:51:04 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:



On Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:38:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 2:25:56 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:



I've said that they may make sense for riding that really does impose a high risk of crashing in a way that's within their tiny protective capacity. The examples I gave are criterium racing and aggressive mountain biking.







But even then, it seems the protective capacity may be too small. This rider died of TBI despite a simple fall on a smooth surface, a fall that helmet proponents assure us is within the meager capacity of a helmet:



http://fox5sandiego.com/2013/06/19/f...#axzz2Wy2w53lw



Of course, there are countless other instances of helmeted fatalities.







What the less lunatic AHZs will admit is that while helmets do have a







protective effect in crashes, whole population studies do not show a







reduction in head injury rates and fatalities as helmet use increases.







The only problem with this position is that whole population studies







_do_ show a reduction in head injury and fatality rates as helmet use







increases.







From the June 2013 issue of _Bicycling_ magazine: "Between 1995 and 2009, the annual number of bike trips in the U.sS. grew by 30%...";







and "...by 1999 half of all riders were wearing them - up from just 18 percent eight years earlier..."







and "Here's the trouble: Stat #3: As more peole buckled on helmets, brain injuries also increased. Between 1997 and 2007 the number of bike-related concussions suffered annually by American riders increased by 67 percent, from 9327 to 15546..."







So a moderate increase in bicycling, a tremendous increase in helmet use, and a tremendous surge in TBI.







Why does the author of this major article in _Bicycling_ magazine contradict you? Is it because he actually looked for data?



Frank, that number is deceptive, and you know it. The gross number of head injuries says nothing about injury rate. Between 1997 and 2007, the number of cyclists in PDX almost tripled. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared....cfm?id=169951



Crash incidents also plummeted, which, as you have said many times, is typical when numbers of cyclists rise.



So, assuming a similar increase in raw numbers of head injuries in PDX (67%), and a tripling of the number of riders, that means the head injury rate actually fell by about 40%. You know that, and you should have mentioned the change in numbers of cyclists nationally.



He did.

Go back and read it again.

I did. And to the extent Frank believes the numbers in the Bicycling article, then I retract what I said. I don't believe the numbers, and they don't track the LAB or PDX numbers. His post also suggests that wearing a helmet somehow increased the number of head injuries, which is totally unsupported. And as I mentioned a long time ago in this thread, the definition of TBI has changed three times of the last ten or so years which could explain the increase. Even the Bicycling article mentions this and endorses helmet use, and it echoes what SMS said about improved survival rates due to helmet usage skewing head injury statistics. Here is the article: http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/ Frank picks parts of the article and ignores the rest. I really don't care whether a person does or does not wear a helmet, but selectively citing articles, picking and choosing data, etc. to promote an agenda is not acceptable by either side.

-- Jay Beattie.

Phil W Lee writes:

sms considered Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:22:37
-0700 the perfect time to write:


Dan wrote:
I'm not seeing anything here resembling even the beginning of a definiitve,
comprehensive, or otherwise convincing case. In fact, I don't even see
any basis for any conclusion (except maybe that bicycling appears to be
becoming more dangerous).

Probably not becoming more dangerous, probably better reporting as
hospitals become more connected.

You seriously believe that hospitals weren't reporting data on this
kind of thing by 1997?


You may not be aware, but understanding of TBI is and has been
undergoing revolutionary advancement.

(And I don't think bicycling is particularly dangerous - was just
pointing out that that is the only thing Frank's magazine article
seems to suggest.)

You see, there is this thing called the internet.

Well, there we are, then ;-)

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 11:26:48 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:30:12 PM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:


Go back and read it again.



I did. And to the extent Frank believes the numbers in the Bicycling article, then I retract what I said. I don't believe the numbers, and they don't track the LAB or PDX numbers.

Again (and again, Jay) PDX numbers are unique in the U.S. Seriously, I think you need to travel a lot more. Biking is trendy now among some people, but the rest of the country does NOT look like your town!

My wife and I just got back from an 11 state vacation. It wasn't a bike trip, but I did bike in quite a few "new" cities for me - Nashville, Memphis, Salt Lake City, etc. etc. I saw lots of bikes in tiny Durango, CO. I saw some in other towns, but nothing anywhere like Portland.

His post also suggests that wearing a helmet somehow increased the number of head injuries, which is totally unsupported.

Not so! Here's another instance:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-injuries.html
or if you prefer a more capitalist version,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...659207918.html

Why are they banning helmets? Because they definitely increase concussions.. How about that!


And as I mentioned a long time ago in this thread, the definition of TBI has changed three times of the last ten or so years which could explain the increase.

Has the definition of "concussion" changed? That's the specific thing they're talking about.

Even the Bicycling article mentions this and endorses helmet use, and it echoes what SMS said about improved survival rates due to helmet usage skewing head injury statistics.

_Bicycling_ has been rah-rah about helmets ever since about 1980, which is (coincidentally?) about the time when Bell began pouring lots of money into advertising. Were you reading the magazine? I remember when they wrote against "forcing the issue" (through helmet laws). I remember when almost all the photos showed cyclists with no helmets. Of course, brain injury among cyclists was never a topic. Then they gradually moved to strong endorsement of helmets, with letters to the editor talking about "my life was saved." Next was a "No photos (of white guys in America) without helmets" policy. (Africans, Asians etc. might still slip in.) It's hard to be unbiased when a large portion of your advertising is based on styrofoam!

Here is the article: http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/ Frank picks parts of the article and ignores the rest.

To be fair, I picked the parts with the numbers. I ignored the "bike helmets save countless lives every year" because it's completely uncorroborated, and demonstrably false. Apparently you decided it was important because.... well, maybe because you actually believe it, despite the lack of evidence.. Who knows?

I really don't care whether a person does or does not wear a helmet...

Nor do I. Most of the people I ride with wear them. Now, about the color of their shorts... ;-)

...but selectively citing articles, picking and choosing data, etc. to promote an agenda is not acceptable by either side.

Really?? Have you not read _any_ helmet promotion material in the past 20 years??

Jay, my real passion is battling the "Bicycling is terribly dangerous" myth.. (And I've been told by knowledgeable people that I've helped quite a bit on that issue.) But one of the main reasons I got into that was because helmet promotion material was consistently pretending that a person couldn't put their butt on a bike saddle without incurring huge risk of death. "Never ride anywhere, even in your driveway, without a helmet!" and garbage like that.

When you start attacking such pro-helmet, anti-cycling nonsense, then I'll consider you truly unbiased. As it is, I think you're stuck with a history of belief that you (probably) know deep down is faulty. And a couple decades of telling your kid "Always wear a helmet" can make it hard to ride without one, or to accept data proving that's reasonable.

I've got the advantage that I never really came down on my kids on that issue. Yes, I did tell them to wear one, because that's what I believed at the time. But I knew I'd rather see them ride without a helmet than not ride; so when it became clear permitting "no helmet" would have them ride more, I did so. At least, it made it much easier for me to later tell my kids "Yep, I now agree with you. Based on data."

- Frank Krygowski

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:01:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 11:26:48 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:30:12 PM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:





Go back and read it again.







I did. And to the extent Frank believes the numbers in the Bicycling article, then I retract what I said. I don't believe the numbers, and they don't track the LAB or PDX numbers.



Again (and again, Jay) PDX numbers are unique in the U.S. Seriously, I think you need to travel a lot more. Biking is trendy now among some people, but the rest of the country does NOT look like your town!



My wife and I just got back from an 11 state vacation. It wasn't a bike trip, but I did bike in quite a few "new" cities for me - Nashville, Memphis, Salt Lake City, etc. etc. I saw lots of bikes in tiny Durango, CO. I saw some in other towns, but nothing anywhere like Portland.

LAB numbers are national -- that's what I'm getting at. Look at the XL spread sheet on the LAB link.

His post also suggests that wearing a helmet somehow increased the number of head injuries, which is totally unsupported.



Not so! Here's another instance:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-injuries.html

or if you prefer a more capitalist version,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...59207918..html



Why are they banning helmets? Because they definitely increase concussions. How about that!

You're kidding, right? We've been through this with boxing helmets.










And as I mentioned a long time ago in this thread, the definition of TBI has changed three times of the last ten or so years which could explain the increase.



Has the definition of "concussion" changed? That's the specific thing they're talking about.

Yes, it has. http://websters-dictionary-online.co...ion/Concussion (scroll down).

Even the Bicycling article mentions this and endorses helmet use, and it echoes what SMS said about improved survival rates due to helmet usage skewing head injury statistics.



_Bicycling_ has been rah-rah about helmets ever since about 1980, which is (coincidentally?) about the time when Bell began pouring lots of money into advertising. Were you reading the magazine? I remember when they wrote against "forcing the issue" (through helmet laws). I remember when almost all the photos showed cyclists with no helmets. Of course, brain injury among cyclists was never a topic. Then they gradually moved to strong endorsement of helmets, with letters to the editor talking about "my life was saved." Next was a "No photos (of white guys in America) without helmets" policy. (Africans, Asians etc. might still slip in.) It's hard to be unbiased when a large portion of your advertising is based on styrofoam!



Here is the article: http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/ Frank picks parts of the article and ignores the rest.



To be fair, I picked the parts with the numbers. I ignored the "bike helmets save countless lives every year" because it's completely uncorroborated, and demonstrably false. Apparently you decided it was important because.... well, maybe because you actually believe it, despite the lack of evidence. Who knows?



I really don't care whether a person does or does not wear a helmet...



Nor do I. Most of the people I ride with wear them. Now, about the color of their shorts... ;-)



...but selectively citing articles, picking and choosing data, etc. to promote an agenda is not acceptable by either side.



Really?? Have you not read _any_ helmet promotion material in the past 20 years??

Helmet promotion by whom? WHO or other health organizations -- or do you mean the manufacturers? To the extent you are talking about studies showing the effectiveness of helmets, then yes, I've been reading them on this NG for over a decade. If you mean advertisements or promotion by manufacturers, then qualified "no." I haven't seen any safety claims from manufacturers in years.


Jay, my real passion is battling the "Bicycling is terribly dangerous" myth. (And I've been told by knowledgeable people that I've helped quite a bit on that issue.) But one of the main reasons I got into that was because helmet promotion material was consistently pretending that a person couldn't put their butt on a bike saddle without incurring huge risk of death. "Never ride anywhere, even in your driveway, without a helmet!" and garbage like that.



When you start attacking such pro-helmet, anti-cycling nonsense, then I'll consider you truly unbiased. As it is, I think you're stuck with a history of belief that you (probably) know deep down is faulty. And a couple decades of telling your kid "Always wear a helmet" can make it hard to ride without one, or to accept data proving that's reasonable.

Ski helmets have proliferated, yet the lift lines haven't shortened. Bicycle helmets have proliferated, yet the numbers nationally and in Portland have doubled (quadrupled in PDX in 15 years). There are far more people on bikes on the road today than there were in the helmetless society of 1973 or so -- before the introduction of the Bell Bucket tortoise shell helmet. The claimed "danger, danger" argument would resonate with me more if there were reductions in the numbers of cylclists.

Even in the population that is subject to MHLs in Portland, ridership is up.. http://bikeportland.org/2012/12/10/c...ime-ever-81089

(we won't talk too much about that stat, because I don't believe the percentages of kids on bikes is anywhere near what it was when I was a kid)

So why aren't people scared in Portland, yet they are supposedly scared off by the "danger, danger" message elsewhere? Portland is not that hospitable weather-wise, and the roads are poor in many parts of town. There are a lot of reasons for not riding in this city. So rather than taking a narrow focus on the helmet debate, you should answer the question of what has caused numbers to boom here and in other cities, notwithstanding increased voluntary helmet usage (indicating an apparently scared population of cyclists).

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/22/2013 8:26 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Even the Bicycling article mentions this and endorses helmet use, and it echoes what SMS said about improved survival rates due to helmet usage skewing head injury statistics. Here is the article: http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/ Frank picks parts of the article and ignores the rest. I really don't care whether a person does or does not wear a helmet, but selectively citing articles, picking and choosing data, etc. to promote an agenda is not acceptable by either side.

LOL, have you ever looked at cyclehelmets.org of which Frank is of
course part of?

They feel _compelled_ to misstate the facts in order to achieve their
goal. Rather than providing a resource for factual and scientific
information they have descended to the worst sort of junk science and
statistics in an effort to advance their cause.

No one would think any worse of them if they simply would admit and
state three indisputable facts:

1. If you're in a head impact crash on your bicycle, all peer-reviewed
scientific studies prove that you'll fare better if you're wearing a
helmet than if you're not wearing one, but...

2. The incidence of head impact crashes while cycling is fairly small, so...

3. Adults can decide whether or not to accept the slight extra risk of
not wearing a helmet--the government doesn't have to mandate helmet usage.

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 10:06:56 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 6/22/2013 8:26 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:



Even the Bicycling article mentions this and endorses helmet use, and it echoes what SMS said about improved survival rates due to helmet usage skewing head injury statistics. Here is the article: http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/ Frank picks parts of the article and ignores the rest. I really don't care whether a person does or does not wear a helmet, but selectively citing articles, picking and choosing data, etc. to promote an agenda is not acceptable by either side.



LOL, have you ever looked at cyclehelmets.org of which Frank is of

course part of?



They feel _compelled_ to misstate the facts in order to achieve their

goal. Rather than providing a resource for factual and scientific

information they have descended to the worst sort of junk science and

statistics in an effort to advance their cause.



No one would think any worse of them if they simply would admit and

state three indisputable facts:



1. If you're in a head impact crash on your bicycle, all peer-reviewed

scientific studies prove that you'll fare better if you're wearing a

helmet than if you're not wearing one, but...



2. The incidence of head impact crashes while cycling is fairly small, so....



3. Adults can decide whether or not to accept the slight extra risk of

not wearing a helmet--the government doesn't have to mandate helmet usage..

I would even go with (4): an unknown percentage of sometime-riders will decide not to ride if helmet use is made mandatory. These riders will miss the health benefits incidental to riding their bikes to and from the neighborhood smoke shop or liquor store.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 11:21:46 -0700, Jay Beattie wrote:


I would even go with (4): an unknown percentage of sometime-riders will
decide not to ride if helmet use is made mandatory. These riders will
miss the health benefits incidental to riding their bikes to and from
the neighborhood smoke shop or liquor store.

Good job dude! I've run out of cigarettes and I can score a few beers
while I'm out too. Oh no! I've only got 10 minutes to get there before
beer stops at 10.00pm.

I know!

I'll take the bike.
--
davethedave