Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

On Wed, 10 May 2006 07:40:03 -0400, Barnard Frederick
wrote:

I've butted heads with Carl in the past,
and while he is pedantic (and he's darned proud of it), and I often
disagree with him, I would never say anything like that.

Dear Barnard F.,

In a proudly pedantic manner, I'm wondering in what past
thread we butted heads, helmeted or otherwise.

Perhaps my proud pedantry simply has a silly streak of
forgetful senility in it?

(I can't remember forgetting you, but it's regrettably
possible.)

Possibly you post under other names when you dare to
disagree with me?

(You sometimes expound as Fred Barney, but my extensive and
easily searchable enemies list at Google Groups failed to
expose any evidence of your enormities.)

Could it be that I'm vividly influenced by "Stolen Valor,"
which exposes endless fakes who claim heroic Viet Nam
service?

(My powerful ego embraces galloping paranoia!)

Or might this be an imaginary claim of prior head-butting
that proves that you need to wear a helmet?

(A foam-hat could only have fended-off a fall that didn't
happen, so this logic is fairly fallible.)

Anyway, those are my feelings, which should cheer Ozark up.

(All the awful alliteration is due to an accidental brush
with the Beowulf poet and should wear off anon.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:45:32 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:

Burt wrote:

3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.


From the days when I used to wear a helmet:

I was cycling through a wood, a branch caught in the vent on my helmet
and wrenched me backwards off the bike, hurting my neck and lower spine
in the process.

I was getting ready to go out cycling, put my helmet on, remembered I
had left my gloves in the kitchen and went back to get them. My helmet
hit the top of the kitchen door frame giving me quite a severe jolt that
took a couple of minutes to recover from. I have never hit my head on a
door frame at home when not wearing a helmet.

I believe CSPC has documented cases where children have been strangled
by bike helmets.

But its all anecdote and does not change the population statistics
conclusions.

Dear Tony,

Come to think of it . . .

If, as statistics indicate, helmets offer protection against
comparatively minor injuries, but slightly increase the
chances of serious long-term brain damage or death . . .

Then this amusing thread is asking lots of living bicyclists
who still post to testify against the experiences of a small
number of dead and brain-damaged former bicyclists.

I must find an on-line ouija board and investigate.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Wed, 10 May 2006 06:42:36 -0400, "B Paton"
wrote:


"Peter Cole" wrote in message
...

If you ever decide to go back, be aware that you can use non-absorbent
closed cell foam pads which don't have that problem.

Thanks, but I am happier now. My days of experimenting to overcome this
deadly hazard posed by the safety device are over.

Dear B.,

Sounds like a case of helmet-pad-investigation menopause.

But then you wouldn't need to be using . . .

Never mind.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On 10 May 2006 07:16:10 -0700, "Scott"
wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:

Thing is, all the anecdotal evidence is from the type of riders that
we're really concerned about (us). All the other data is polluted
beyond reason with children, DUI riders, and BMXers.

What concerns me is what happens to fit roadies and MTBers when they
crash when riding the way most of us really ride.

One could learn something from the information.


Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark,

Some years ago I was contemplating continuing the promotion of a
weekend of racing in Tucson, with the intention of tying it in to the
"SafeKids" helmet promotion program. I thought it might help with the
marketing and sponsorship search for the events.

During the course of my research into helmet use and it's affect on
injuries, I discovered that, during one particular year, Tucson
happened to be the US city with the highest per capita incidence of
head injuries while cycling. Guess how many? 4. Two old folks
(retirees, actually) who fell off their bikes while toodling around out
in Sun City, and two kids under 12 who were hit by cars when the rode
out into traffic at the end of their driveways. Guess how many
reported head injuries there were among recreational or competitive
cyclists? Okay, I know, I've already given you the answer. That's
right, 0.

I thought it might have been a fluke, so I checked a few years before
and a few years after, and still no recorded incidences of reported
head injuries for recreational or competitive cyclists.

If you take the statistical 'noise' of kids, old farts, drunks, BMXers,
etc... out of the study populations, you'll find that the incidences of
head injuries becomes even less statistically significant. Bottom line
is that it almost never happens.

Dear Scott,

Yes, despite our understandable fascination with ourselves,
the typical dead bicyclist in the U.S. is about 14 years old
or drunk, and . . .

How shall I put this without hurting the feelings of so many
proud fellow RBT posters?

Not female.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On 10 May 2006, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
jtaylor wrote:
[various people wrote, but someone scambled the attributions]

And are you going to answer the main question? Why do you
particularly and explicitly want to exclude cases in which the helmet
made matters worse?

I do not want to exclude those events: see category 3. I do, however,
want first hand accounts only. Clear enough?

Your #3 specifically states that the head must have struck an object. You
were asked (twice) why you wish to exclude insances where an unhelmeted head
did _not_ strike an object, but would have so done had a helmet been worn.

How would you ever know this to be the case?

Presumably exactly the same way you 'know' that a helmet improved
matters if it did strike. That is, you're very happy to accept wild
speculation about things that didn't happened when it supports the
notion that helmets are a good idea, but when the opositte view is
expressed, it seems it must be cast-iron guaranteed incontrovertible
fact. Strange that.

In fact, of course, it's much easier to be certain of the case 4 you
want to exclude than either case 1 or 2. If my head passes at speed a
stationary object with less clearance than the thickness of a helmet,
then it is pretty much certain that outcomes would have been worse had
a helmet been worn - since there would have been an impact to the head
which did not occur without the helmet.

You missed another option too - case 5 - I was wearing a helmet and
was involved in an incident when my head/helmet did not strike an
object and I believe the helmet made matters worse. I've got one of
them too.

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

On Wed, 10 May 2006 17:00:32 GMT, "Sorni"
wrote:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

I was hit from behind by a pickup truck, the lady fell asleep, at 1030
on a Saturday morning. I think I went airborne, and hit her windshield
with my face, remember nothing, she was asleep. I woke her up when I
hit her windshield. (12 stitches around my eye orbit), I got a
concussion, out for 30 minutes, amnesia for about 40 hours...did not
have on a helmet, NO bumps or bruises to my head, only my face and
nose. A helmet would have made no difference BUT I wear one now as a
second concussion(needed 6 months of cognitive retraining for the
first concussion), is additive and would be much worse. Helmet hurts
nothing, 'may' help.

What's interesting is that Peter most likely will not be attcked --
epsecially personally -- for that last comment. (Nor should he be, but then
again no one should.)

Wonder why.


Dear Sorni,

Since you're wondering . . .

Peter isn't likely to be attacked because he doesn't attack
other people.

Helmets, however, are open to discussion.

If a "helmet hurts nothing" . . .

Then why do more and more large scale studies find that
there is a slight increase in deaths and serious head
injuries when helmet use increases?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 17:00:32 GMT, "Sorni"
wrote:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

I was hit from behind by a pickup truck, the lady fell asleep, at
1030 on a Saturday morning. I think I went airborne, and hit her
windshield with my face, remember nothing, she was asleep. I woke
her up when I hit her windshield. (12 stitches around my eye
orbit), I got a concussion, out for 30 minutes, amnesia for about
40 hours...did not have on a helmet, NO bumps or bruises to my
head, only my face and nose. A helmet would have made no difference
BUT I wear one now as a second concussion(needed 6 months of
cognitive retraining for the first concussion), is additive and
would be much worse. Helmet hurts nothing, 'may' help.

What's interesting is that Peter most likely will not be attcked --
epsecially personally -- for that last comment. (Nor should he be,
but then again no one should.)

Wonder why.


Dear Sorni,

Since you're wondering . . .

Peter isn't likely to be attacked because he doesn't attack
other people.

If that were true then Mark Hickey wouldn't, either.

Helmets, however, are open to discussion.

If a "helmet hurts nothing" . . .

Then why do more and more large scale studies find that
there is a slight increase in deaths and serious head
injuries when helmet use increases?

Why, because of BIAS, of course!

On 10 May 2006, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Richard wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Your #3 specifically states that the head must have struck an object. You
were asked (twice) why you wish to exclude insances where an unhelmeted head
did _not_ strike an object, but would have so done had a helmet been worn.

How would you ever know this to be the case?

Precisely.

Then the input would be specious, would it not?

Actually, yes, but rather less specious than all the responses to your
suggested cases - it's easier to be confident of the case you want to
exclude than the cases you want to include.

Why do you want to count those completely specious cases, and ignore
this rather less specious one?

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

On 10 May 2006 07:08:00 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
wrote:


Rajah wrote:
1) a car hit me, I went over the hood, helmeted head hit the pavement,
helmet was broken, toe was broken, head was not (no concussion or other
mental effects, 'cept for my friends who think I'm crazy).

On a meta-note. Would someone please start a separate thread in the
vein of "Designing a Helmet Poll." Please stop debating the merits of
the poll here and limit to your first-hand experiences.


Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
helmet. Were the results different, I don't think we'd be hearing
complaints about the poll from jtaylor and his merry band of "living in
fear of a UK MHL" cyclists.

Dear Oz,

More and more large scale studies show either no effect or
else a slight rise in deaths and serious head injuries when
helmet use rises.

The dead and the brain injured may not be able to
participate in your well-meant poll.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article .com,
says...
I'm looking for three data points he

I have experienced item 1, but not 2 or 3.

1. My head struck pavement when I fell sideways while wearing a helmet.
The force of the collision cracked the helmet, and I broke two ribs and
suffered painful contusions on my shoulder, hip and lower leg. Swelling
and tenderness in my leg remained for months. I had a headache for a
few hours, but no road rash on my bald head, and no known lasting
effects. I think it would have been worse without the helmet, but I
don't know how much worse.

I would add a 4th category. I struck my head on the pavement when I
fell while cycling WITHOUT a helmet. I was unconscious for ~ 5 minutes,
and suffered lacerations to the scalp. This was in the "olden days" --
no paramedics, no ambulance, I rode home, and didn't go to the doctor.
I think a helmet would have reduced the seriousness of both the
lacerations and the concussion.

Rick