No sporting helmet efficacy

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sp...-injuries.html

--
JS

On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:46:54 PM UTC, James wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sp...-injuries.html

Some interesting remarks in there, James:

"Schumacher’s doctors say he would not have survived his fall had he not worn a helmet"

But this, while encouraging,
"The increase in helmet use has had positive results. Experts say helmets have reduced the numbers of less serious head injuries, like scalp lacerations, by 30 percent to 50 percent,"
appears to be balanced by massive risk compensation:
"the fact that more skiers and snowboarders are engaging in risky behaviors: skiing faster, jumping higher and going out of bounds."
and this admission from a participant:
“'The equipment we have now allows us to do things we really couldn’t do before, and people’s pushing limits has sort of surpassed people’s ability to control themselves,' said Chris Davenport, a professional big-mountain skier."

Unsophisticated claims that helmets don't work just don't cut it; this article presents yet more evidence that they prevent fatalities and lesser injuries. But, despite increased helmet use, we have seen fatality numbers and in some case also fatality rates stabilize over the last decade or even two in a striking number of sports. There must be an explanation. Perhaps there's a level of risk that people find acceptable and improved safety equipment, instead of reducing the number of accidents, just increases the level of performance that fits within that risk. If risk compensation at such a level is inbuilt into the human psyche, I don't want to be the actuary who has to set the insurance rate.

So much for the risk-free society of the wimps and legislators.

Andre Jute

Stats ? skiers falling head first onto rocks then walking away report the helmet's life saving attributes to après' ???

Schumaker's brain prob did a short stop against his skull causing significant damages with the deceleration.

If you work deceleration in the equation then you see what's written.

Normally, bicycles doahn travel that fast.

I read: M wasn't traveling that fast M wasn't traveling that fast M wasn't traveling that fast M wasn't traveling that fast

OK no problem.

AJ...ITS THE BIG CARROT !

real or imagined. Money fame glamor eternal life the BIG TIME ...

We can do this....

TV...UTUBE....

Road Atlanta had a world class turn at the main straight's end. Donahue's 917 came down there at 215...a Corvette 165 ?

Going under the infield bridge at the braking area's end or so we expect given the physics involved, track drops away suddenly and DOWN YOU GO INTO A FAST SWEEPING RIGHT TO THE S/F line. DOWN.

When I came back after 20 years for the runoffs, the last turn was gone...replaced by a chicane.

Blasphemy...I cry.

WHAT WHAT WHAT ? AND THE GOOD OL BOYS SHOOK THEIR HEADS SAYING TOO MANY HOTSHOT WANNA BE gp DRIVERS CRASHED DOWN THERE SO THEY DUG IT UP.

So. I went to Long Beach....Holy cow where's the hairpin ? Watson Watson where ?

same deal.

On 03/01/14 11:21, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:46:54 PM UTC, James wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sp...-injuries.html


Some interesting remarks in there, James:

"Schumacher’s doctors say he would not have survived his fall had he
not worn a helmet"

Who made the doctors experts in helmet forensics though? Looking at the
persons head injuries and making an exclamation doesn't seem very
scientific to me. Did they calculate the attenuation of the impact
after examining the helmet deformation, for example?

It might be their best guess, but far from proof, and par for the course.

Here we have police making similar statements to the media about
bicyclists who come to grief. You can bet your life when someone dies
while not wearing a helmet they emphasis the fact, even if they died
from massive internal injuries, but do not mention a helmet if one was
worn and they died anyway. If they miraculously survive an infection in
hospital weeks later, it was the helmet that saved them.

But this, while encouraging, "The increase in helmet use has had
positive results. Experts say helmets have reduced the numbers of
less serious head injuries, like scalp lacerations, by 30 percent to
50 percent," appears to be balanced by massive risk compensation:
"the fact that more skiers and snowboarders are engaging in risky
behaviors: skiing faster, jumping higher and going out of bounds."
and this admission from a participant: “'The equipment we have now
allows us to do things we really couldn’t do before, and people’s
pushing limits has sort of surpassed people’s ability to control
themselves,' said Chris Davenport, a professional big-mountain
skier."

Yup. So people are suffering less slight knocks, bumps and minor cuts,
and instead suffer more serious injuries - or death. Is that a good thing?

Unsophisticated claims that helmets don't work just don't cut it;
this article presents yet more evidence that they prevent fatalities
and lesser injuries. But, despite increased helmet use, we have seen
fatality numbers and in some case also fatality rates stabilize over
the last decade or even two in a striking number of sports. There
must be an explanation. Perhaps there's a level of risk that people
find acceptable and improved safety equipment, instead of reducing
the number of accidents, just increases the level of performance that
fits within that risk. If risk compensation at such a level is
inbuilt into the human psyche, I don't want to be the actuary who has
to set the insurance rate.

So much for the risk-free society of the wimps and legislators.

It is certainly a complex issue, with claims and counter claims. I
don't profess to know the answer, and amidst the controversy, perhaps
there isn't one to be found.

--
JS

On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:46:54 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sp...-injuries.html

There's much in that article that should sound familiar. Things like lack of reduction in fatalities, risk compensation, rotational acceleration causing TBI, helmets' inability to mitigate rotational acceleration, limited protective capacity of helmets, TBI increasing as helmet use increases, etc.

But I hadn't heard of the fact that the increase in TBI count correlates so precisely with the increase in helmet popularity. That's what's known as a dose-response relationship, and it's one of the tests for causality - in this case, an indication that the helmets may actually be partially causing the TBI.

Also: “The helmet does a very good job at protecting against skull lacerations and skull fractures, but it doesn’t seem to have much effect on concussions or T.B.I.’s,” Shealy said, referring to traumatic brain injuries. “Our guess is that this is due to the fact that those injuries are occurring at such a high magnitude of energy that they overwhelm what a helmet can do for you.”

But as the recent sad news from LA indicates, really extreme crashes are not necessary for a helmet's failure to protect. Even a simple fall can do it:
http://bikinginla.com/tag/pam-leven/ And her case is (sadly) far from unique.

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:14:29 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:46:54 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sp...-injuries.html



There's much in that article that should sound familiar. Things like lack of reduction in fatalities, risk compensation, rotational acceleration causing TBI, helmets' inability to mitigate rotational acceleration, limited protective capacity of helmets, TBI increasing as helmet use increases, etc..



But I hadn't heard of the fact that the increase in TBI count correlates so precisely with the increase in helmet popularity. That's what's known as a dose-response relationship, and it's one of the tests for causality - in this case, an indication that the helmets may actually be partially causing the TBI.



Also: “The helmet does a very good job at protecting against skull lacerations and skull fractures, but it doesn’t seem to have much effect on concussions or T.B.I.’s,” Shealy said, referring to traumatic brain injuries. “Our guess is that this is due to the fact that those injuries are occurring at such a high magnitude of energy that they overwhelm what a helmet can do for you.”



But as the recent sad news from LA indicates, really extreme crashes are not necessary for a helmet's failure to protect. Even a simple fall can do it:

http://bikinginla.com/tag/pam-leven/ And her case is (sadly) far from unique.



- Frank Krygowski

From the article you reference: "According to the LAW Facebook page, group president Pam Leven was involved in a riding accident when she touched wheels with another rider on Sunday. Both she and the other rider went down hard; unfortunately, she suffered injuries including a broken hip and collarbone, as well severe head and facial trauma. The second rider was not seriously injured."

That much injury sure as b lazes doesn't sound like a, as you stated in your post, "a simple fall".

Cheers

Sir Ridesalot writes:

On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:14:29 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:46:54 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sp...-injuries.html



There's much in that article that should sound familiar. Things
like lack of reduction in fatalities, risk compensation, rotational
acceleration causing TBI, helmets' inability to mitigate rotational
acceleration, limited protective capacity of helmets, TBI increasing
as helmet use increases, etc.



But I hadn't heard of the fact that the increase in TBI count
correlates so precisely with the increase in helmet popularity.
That's what's known as a dose-response relationship, and it's one of
the tests for causality - in this case, an indication that the
helmets may actually be partially causing the TBI.



Also: “The helmet does a very good job at protecting against skull
lacerations and skull fractures, but it doesn’t seem to have much
effect on concussions or T.B.I.’s,� Shealy said, referring to
traumatic brain injuries. “Our guess is that this is due to the fact
that those injuries are occurring at such a high magnitude of energy
that they overwhelm what a helmet can do for you.�



But as the recent sad news from LA indicates, really extreme crashes
are not necessary for a helmet's failure to protect. Even a simple
fall can do it:

http://bikinginla.com/tag/pam-leven/ And her case is (sadly) far
from unique.



- Frank Krygowski

From the article you reference: "According to the LAW Facebook page,
group president Pam Leven was involved in a riding accident when she
touched wheels with another rider on Sunday. Both she and the other
rider went down hard; unfortunately, she suffered injuries including a
broken hip and collarbone, as well severe head and facial trauma. The
second rider was not seriously injured."

That much injury sure as b lazes doesn't sound like a, as you stated
in your post, "a simple fall".

Cheers

From other descriptions of the accident, it appears to have been a crash
in a left turn, with no motor vehicles involved: "As the group was
making a safe and routine left turn from Sunset Blvd., she got tangled
up with another experienced cyclist that was next to her within the
group. They both went down onto the pavement."

--
Joe Riel

On 1/3/2014 1:40 PM, Joe Riel wrote:

snip

From other descriptions of the accident, it appears to have been a crash
in a left turn, with no motor vehicles involved: "As the group was
making a safe and routine left turn from Sunset Blvd., she got tangled
up with another experienced cyclist that was next to her within the
group. They both went down onto the pavement."

Unsurprisingly, the article doesn't say that helmets are not effective.
If skiers engaged in the same level of risk with a helmet as without a
helmet the injury level would have fallen. The issue is twofold. First
is the increase in risky behavior of skiers, and second is that the
proportion of skiers versus snowboarders is changing with more people
engaging in the much riskier sport of snowboarding.

As "the experts" pointed out, they were looking at correlation. One
thing the AHZs have never been able to comprehend is the difference
between correlation and causation (actually they probable do comprehend
it, they just don't like it!).

In any case, we're fortunate that for cycling that the number of serious
and fatal injuries has declined as helmet usage has increased, despite
the increasing numbers of cyclists.

On 1/3/2014 4:02 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:14:29 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:46:54 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sp...-injuries.html


There's much in that article that should sound familiar. Things like lack of reduction in fatalities, risk compensation, rotational acceleration causing TBI, helmets' inability to mitigate rotational acceleration, limited protective capacity of helmets, TBI increasing as helmet use increases, etc.



But I hadn't heard of the fact that the increase in TBI count correlates so precisely with the increase in helmet popularity. That's what's known as a dose-response relationship, and it's one of the tests for causality - in this case, an indication that the helmets may actually be partially causing the TBI.



Also: “The helmet does a very good job at protecting against skull lacerations and skull fractures, but it doesn’t seem to have much effect on concussions or T.B.I.’s,” Shealy said, referring to traumatic brain injuries. “Our guess is that this is due to the fact that those injuries are occurring at such a high magnitude of energy that they overwhelm what a helmet can do for you.”



But as the recent sad news from LA indicates, really extreme crashes are not necessary for a helmet's failure to protect. Even a simple fall can do it:

http://bikinginla.com/tag/pam-leven/ And her case is (sadly) far from unique.



- Frank Krygowski
From the article you reference: "According to the LAW Facebook page, group president Pam Leven was involved in a riding accident when she touched wheels with another rider on Sunday. Both she and the other rider went down hard; unfortunately, she suffered injuries including a broken hip and collarbone, as well severe head and facial trauma. The second rider was not seriously injured."

That much injury sure as b lazes doesn't sound like a, as you stated in your post, "a simple fall".

Cheers

Touching wheels in a tight pack at speed is one of the worst dangers
when group riding. It's certainly not something I'd call a simple fall.
It's something that we spend a lot of time teaching to new group riders.

Condoleneces to her family and friends.