A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

published helmet research - not troll



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old June 19th 04, 10:14 PM
Steven Bornfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll



S o r n i wrote:
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:

JT, I'm really flattered that you consider me a master of


anything--that's high praise indeed!



Hard to consider your positions when you can't even fix your user name.

Bill "multiple personalities? OK then" S.


Name's Steve Bornfeld. I sometimes post from my home computer, and
sometimes at the office.

Steve




Ads
  #103  
Old June 19th 04, 10:55 PM
John Forrest Tomlinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:12:58 -0400, Steven Bornfeld
wrote:


By and large I think your position works well. The rub of course is
what freedoms you enjoy really do and do not impact on others. The two
that come immediately to mind are gun ownership and smoking. Two folks
may have honest differences where they come out on these issues based on
the merits, but sadly I think someone's position on these issues has
more to do with one's political persuation than on the quantifiable
merits of the case.


The isues are not just about freedom, but also about what is good for
cycling and good for public health. Too many people who claim to be
promoting cycling say nonsense like "Never ride without a helmet."
Really? Is going out without a helmet really so dangerous that it
should never be done? I don't think so. If cycling was that
dangerous, I'd imagine that many people would be having all sorts of
other bones broken too. That doesn't seem to be happening.

If you really want to promote cycling and health, talk about hoe great
cycling is and the importance of riding with a certain degree of
seriousness, at least akin to the minimal education people get when
going out in a car. And perhaps advocate for more respect for
cyclists and pedestrians by car drivers. Those are real cycling
safety issues -- not making people think that if they go out they're
going to crack their head open.

JT
  #105  
Old June 19th 04, 11:38 PM
Steven Bornfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll



Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:59:23 -0400, Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
wrote in message
:


I posted the link of a review of
previously published clinical studies.



That'll be where you went wrong, then. Epidemiological studies based
on whole population data (including series where there are substantial
step-changes in helmet use over very short periods, like in Australia)
show no discernible benefit. Small-scale prospective studies show
benefit, but often fall apart under investigation due to basic errors.
Injury Prevention has just published a critique of one such paper by
Cook & Sheikh; they mistook percentages for percentage points (a
fairly basic statistical error) - if you correct this they are saying
that helmets are 186% effective, with every helmet protecting not only
its wearer but somebody else as well - this clearly demonstrates that
there are major confounding factors in the data for which they have
not accounted.


Let me see if I get this straight. All the studies showing a benefit
have fatal flaws; all the studies that show no benefit are well-designed.
The studies I saw cited are all retrospective studies. I believe it is
possible that somewhere a paper may have been published that confuses
percentages for percentage points. It is hard to believe this happened
multiple times in referreed journals.
Let me be clear--I am not an expert in safety data nor in epidemiology.
But I am up to my eyeballs in newsgroup pundits (in unrelated fields)
making patently ridiculous claims about the body of evidence in fields
in which I do have expertise. It is impossible for me to evaluate
helmet data for myself, nor have I found it prudent to believe folks
such as yourself who may very well have that expertise.
One hopes that people in position of authority choose carefully in whom
they listen to when policy is made.


Many of the clinical papers are actually just literature reviews, with
remarkably few actual studies, of which the best-known is Thompson,
Rivara and Thompson's 1989 paper in the New England Journal of
Medicine. The flaws in that study are well-documented (it arrives at
a figure of 85% effectiveness by comparing poor solo urban street
cyclists with middle-class families on bike paths and attributes the
entire difference in injury rates to differences in helmet use).


See, I'm going to have to look up that paper. It is very, very
difficult for me to believe that NEJM would publish a paper with a flaw
that blatant.

It
is still quoted as gospel by almost every "new" paper and literature
review, and I have only once or twice seen any explicit mention of the
known flaws in the study. In fact, if you replace the "control" group
with Rivara's own street counts from the previous year, the supposed
benefit vanishes. BHSI still quote it, despite knowing that it is
wrong, because the figure is "so ingrained in the injury prevention
community" that to use another figure would be "unhelpful". Unhelpful
to whom? Those seeking to make the case for compulsion? Or those
seeking to form a balanced judgement based on theevidence?

By the way, according to BHSI this thread is not happening ;-)


The fact that head injury rates have risen by 40% in the USA in a
period when helmet use rose from 18% to 50% surely tells us something.



Are we talking about cycling head injuries, or total head injuries?


As does the fact that the pro-helmet British government has admitted
that it knows of no case where cyclist safety has improved with
increasing helmet use.



I'd love to hear some context.



It is certainly understandable to me that racers who'd become
accustomed to the wind in their hair would object to the "intrusion" of
the insurance companies. Certainly there had been no studies back then
demonstrating the uselessness of helmets in preventing serious injuries,
but those I spoke to (some of whom you undoubtedly know personally) were
just as opposed to mandated helmets as you are now.



That was not, in my opinion, an actuarial judgement; there was not
enough data to go on at the time. Quite why a device designed for a
crash at around 12mph should be mandated for racing is an interesting
philosophical question.


Actually in this area you have a point. It was a decision made for the
USCF by whichever insurance carrier was willing to write the liability
policy. Far be it from me to tell you their decisions are made on the
basis of good, rational data. ;-)


HPV races now have helmets mandated. I have
never seen an HPV racer sustain a head injury in a crash. Several
helmeted wedgie racers have died and been brain injured in recent
times, though.


Krygowski (and perhaps you) can probably name some safety measures that
you would acknowledge will decrease death and morbidity from bicycle
accidents.



Only about 10% of cyclist injuries are to the area covered by the
helmet and many (possibly most) cyclists who die of head injury also
have other mortal injuries. Most fatal cyclist injuries are of course
sustained in crashes involving motor vehicles: it is motor traffic,
not cycling, which is dangerous.



Statistically you are right of course. But we are talking about
cycling; we might have much more to talk about were this a political or
automotive ng. But I know of several folks who have suffered head
injury, a couple of which were life-threatening (prolonged coma and
permanent neurological damage) without the benefit of motor vehicles.


Any "safety programme" which ignores these fundamental facts is
necessarily going to be of limited effect.


The first, best thing that can be done to improve cyclist safety is to
promote cycling. There is robust evidence from around the world that
risk falls as participation increases, for a variety of reasons.

The best thing a cyclist can do to ensure their own safety is to ride
confidently and in a vehiclular style, as per Effective Cycling (and
the equivalents in other countries such as Cyclecraft).

If you look at detailed returns on crashes you find recurrent themes:
cyclist injured by turning goods vehicle after the cyclist has gone up
the inside at a junction; cyclist hit by car emerging from junction
(which can be reduced by riding further out so you are where the
driver is looking); cyclist hit by overtaking car which turns across
their path (which can be reduced by riding further out, as the
overtaking manoeuvre is then more deliberate and reminds the driver
that you are there, rather than simply cruising by).

And of course a cyclist should ensure that their bike is well
maintained, with brakes and steering in good order.



The biggest problem with helmet promotion is that it reinforces the
perception of cycling as dangeorus without teaching any of the
techniques which reduce the danger. In doing so, it actively deters
cycling, which paradoxically /increases/ risk.



Clarification please: are you talking about relative risk to the rider,
or total risk to the population?


Now, I would not normally care too much about people who decide to
promote helmet use, if it weren't for the studies which show that it
deters cycling - but these days the only thing stopping some
jurisdictions from passing a helmet law is low levels of helmet use.
More than one Government has said that compulsion will be introduced
when voluntary wearing rates are high enough (at least they've learned
that much from Australia, where cycling was decimated by compulsion).

So the Liddites



I must complement you on this usage!

have persuaded Gvernments that every person who wears
a helmet is voting for compulsion. That is unacceptable.

My objections to helmet compulsion are not libertarian, but
evidence-based. We have the experience of laws in Australia, New
Zealand and Canada to draw on. In no case did injury rates reduce.
In every case cycling was deterred.



As long as this is not libertarian, and allowing that proper bicycle
maintenance and effective cycling are more important to cyclist safety,
what would your feelings be about:
1) Mandatory licensing of cyclists (as per motor vehicles)
2) Mandatory minimum age for cyclists on public streets and roads
3) Mandatory registration of bicycles and periodic bicycle inspections




But of course, these are unwelcome messages. When you compare child
head injury rates for road crashes you find that pedestrians and
cyclists have around the same proportion of head injuries, and
pedestrian injuries are much more numerous (the risk levels in
off-road cycling for children are an order of magnitude lower). Any
justification of cycle helmet promotion applies to a much greater
extent to walking helmets. And even more so for car occupants, whose
fatality rate from head injuries is much greater.


Another clarification please: The head injury rates for cyclists vs.
pedestrians vs. auto passengers are for 1) Mile traveled
2)total number in population 3) hour spent in activity

What to do?
Clearly the answer is to reduce the danger which cars pose to other
road users, but that is politically unacceptable. Cycle helmets give
the impression of "doing something" without the need to offend the
motor lobby, which is politically very attractive.


I think that making the auto industry the focus in this discussion in
very much the same way makes it too easy to absolve ourselves of
responsibility in this issue. I certainly agree with you about the
relative danger of autos. I also agree that doing anything meaningful
in this area will be difficult (although the increase in the price of
crude oil is doing more than the political will would allow--if a
sustained rise in gasoline prices leads to diminished sale of SUVs, I
would be very happy). But if we wish to appear to be "doing something",
it is not enough to fault those who think helmet laws will save us; we
must have the courage (and the political clout) to do something that
WILL be meaningful.

Best,
Steve


Guy





--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University


  #106  
Old June 19th 04, 11:44 PM
Steven Bornfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll



Frank Krygowski wrote:
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:


Krygowski (and perhaps you) can probably name some safety measures
that you would acknowledge will decrease death and morbidity from
bicycle accidents. Are there any that you would mandate? Or is this
more about personal freedom than safety?



Personally, I heartily agree with many already-mandated safety measures.
Examples are obedience to traffic signs and signals. Respecting right
of way, and other similar traffic laws. Use of lights at night.

There are some I disagree with. For example, many states require a
bicycle bell. To me, this is senseless - it adds nothing practical to
safety.

IOW, it's a mistake to paint me as a libertarian, as you did in another
post.

Having said that, I _do_ think personal freedom is very important. If
you disagree, post your diet for the past month, and we'll get started
on what, and how much, you should be allowed to eat!


Hey--my diet shouldn't concern you--only my wife and daughter who have
to smell me.

Steve




  #108  
Old June 19th 04, 11:51 PM
Steven Bornfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll



John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:12:58 -0400, Steven Bornfeld
wrote:



By and large I think your position works well. The rub of course is
what freedoms you enjoy really do and do not impact on others. The two
that come immediately to mind are gun ownership and smoking. Two folks
may have honest differences where they come out on these issues based on
the merits, but sadly I think someone's position on these issues has
more to do with one's political persuation than on the quantifiable
merits of the case.



The isues are not just about freedom, but also about what is good for
cycling and good for public health. Too many people who claim to be
promoting cycling say nonsense like "Never ride without a helmet."
Really? Is going out without a helmet really so dangerous that it
should never be done? I don't think so. If cycling was that
dangerous, I'd imagine that many people would be having all sorts of
other bones broken too. That doesn't seem to be happening.



Hey, JT--you're CRC, aren't you? I raced for one season, got seriously
injured (Kissena). I don't know what you consider as a serious injury,
but I know few folks who've raced for several seasons who have not
broken bones. I'm sure there are some. I'm not talking about my 7-year
old daughter scraping her knee? Do you have kids? What would you
recommend for your kids?

Steve


If you really want to promote cycling and health, talk about hoe great
cycling is and the importance of riding with a certain degree of
seriousness, at least akin to the minimal education people get when
going out in a car. And perhaps advocate for more respect for
cyclists and pedestrians by car drivers. Those are real cycling
safety issues -- not making people think that if they go out they're
going to crack their head open.

JT


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski General 1927 October 24th 04 06:39 AM
First Helmet : jury is out. Walter Mitty General 125 June 26th 04 02:00 AM
Reports from Sweden Garry Jones General 17 October 14th 03 05:23 PM
France helmet observation (not a troll) Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles General 20 August 30th 03 08:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.