Bicycle accident = glad i had my Helmet on this time

On Aug 7, 9:16*am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

But I do not think I fully understand (or am even capable of
understanding) all the ins-and-outs of statistics, mathematics,
and data collection between what happens on the street and what
numbers come out of the system. * It could be perfect, it could
be flawed - I'll never know.

This is a good time to point out that the most prominent helmet-
skeptic authors of refereed scientific papers are professional
statistics experts, with PhDs and full time jobs in that field. They
DO understand what you admit you do not. It's how they've uncovered
the problems with the pro-helmet claims.

- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 7, 5:23 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 7, 9:16 am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:



But I do not think I fully understand (or am even capable of
understanding) all the ins-and-outs of statistics, mathematics,
and data collection between what happens on the street and what
numbers come out of the system. It could be perfect, it could
be flawed - I'll never know.

This is a good time to point out that the most prominent helmet-
skeptic authors of refereed scientific papers are professional
statistics experts, with PhDs and full time jobs in that field. They
DO understand what you admit you do not. It's how they've uncovered
the problems with the pro-helmet claims.


But do they Ride Bike? ;-)

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"MikeWhy" wrote:
Every one of us who have destroyed a perfectly good helmet in the
prescribed manner knows exactly what's in your learned papers: nothing of
any consequence. Helmets work, despite your ill wishes.

Prove it.

Prove that helmets work? I don't suppose a personal before and after on your
own driveway slab is meaningful to you.

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 18:42:46 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Aug 6, 8:45Â*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 6, 1:42Â*pm, Sir Ridesalot wrote:



Hey there Frank.

I'm really curious here. What do you mean that I was overstating
things? I was there when my helmeted head struck the pavement right on
my temple. VBG LOL I know from the force of that impact that I would
never have been able to keep my head from striking the payment even if
I had not been wearing the helmet at the time. In other words, had I
not been wearing a helmet my head would have struck the pavement
anyway. The impact was directly over my left temple. It often does not
take a very severe blow to the temple to kill a person. I also stated
that a helmet can not protect a person from all accidents. So where
did I overstate something?

This is a repeat of a post I tried to make a while ago, just before my
connection was lost. Â*Apologies if it appears twice.

First, I have no doubt you're being sincere. Â*I believe most people
giving such stories are sincere. Â*But it's a fact that helmets have
not reduced HI rates per cyclist. Â*So, how might the "helmet saved my
life (or head injury)" be wrong?

In your case, you feel that your impact was very hard - say, as
measured impact speed in m/s at initial contact. Â*But can you really
judge that? Â*ISTM that only a person who had experienced a great many
such impacts would have an accurate basis for judging. Â*A novice head-
banger such as yourself could easily be fooled by the loud noise of
the stiff shell.

Secondly, most people telling stories like yours are probably
imagining that the initial contact impact speed (in m/s) would be the
same for their bare head as for their helmet. Â*In most cases, I think
this is probably wrong. Â*We've evolved very specific muscles, reflexes
and skull size to allow maximum brain size with survivability from
falls - such as while running over rocky ground chasing antelopes. Â*I
think those muscles and reflexes would be greatly decelerating the
bare head during that final extra inch or two of travel after a helmet
would have hit. Â*More briefly, many helmet hits would be near misses
with bare heads, and many hard helmet hits would be gentle hits of a
bare head.

Next, you make much of your implication that your head would have hit
at the fragile temple and killed you. Â*But I think it's unlikely that
would happen. Â*If it were ever likely in the general sense, we'd have
evolved away from that via extra padding or structure over that part
of the brain. Â*More specifically, it's a lot easier to hit a bike
helmet there than it is to hit the bare head, given the way your neck
pivots.

And I'll note, as I have before, that I've witnessed crashes that
would _certainly_ have generated "Helmet saved my life" stories, IF a
helmet had been worn. Â*The fact that the crashees survived with only
the most minor injuries illustrated to me, at least, that lots of such
stories are false. Â*Details on request.

Let me make it clear, I'm not trying to put you down. Â*I think the
loud sound, the shock of impact, the psychological shock of the event,
etc. conspire to produce these stories. Â*It's got to be a startling
event, and if it fools your estimates, I wouldn't say it's your
fault.

But again: Â*Overall, there must be hundreds of such stories every year
in the US, perhaps thousands. Â*There has been no corresponding drop in
fatalities or serious head injuries. Â*More disciplined studies of the
data have found (for example) no change in the percentage of cyclists
hospitalized due to head injury. Â*In fact, data for cyclists tracks
almost exactly the same as data for pedestrians - and pedestrians
don't wear helmets. Â*Sincere as they are, even if your story is true,
most of the "saved me" stories must be wrong.

- Frank Krygowski

To be really honest Frank I don't get your assertion that I must have
been exaggerating the severity of the impact or what the most likely
consequence would have been had I not been wearing a helmet at the
time of that impact. I know what a hard impact sounds and feels like
and whether *YOU* believe it or not it was a very hard impact. The
force of the impact and the speed of the impact were far greater than
what my neck could have prevented my head from striking the pavement
with considerable force had there been just the extra inch of
clearance gained from the lack of the helmet shell had I not been
wearing the helmet. Had I not been wearing the helmet it still would
have been my temple that struck the asphalt. That is easily discerned
by just by the force of the impact I did have. To reiterate, there is
no way given the velocity and the resultant force of the impact that
an extra inch would have allowed me to prevent my head from striking
that pavement. Sound has nothing at all to do with it. I based my
observations on the *FELT FORCE OF THE IMPACT* due to the velocity of
the impact and not on imagination. This force was very high. I was
travelling at over 30 kilometers per hour and went down with what
amounted to a fulcrum effect from the bottom of the bicycle. It was as
if some giant had kicked the wheels out from under me and to the
right. My injuries attest to the fact that I landed on the upper
posterior region of my left side and my head and upper posterior area
of the left shoulder struck the pavement and most likely struck it
before my hip and elbow did.

You have a lot of ifs in your posts for someone who wasn't there. I do
realize that there probably are my "My helmet saved my life!" stories
that are groundless. I am not discussing a number of different
scenarios. I was relating one particular episode that I witnessed
intimately. However, I do have the experience and am well able to form
an opinion about the severity of the impact my head had on that
asphalt. You are welcome to your opinion(s) and I am not trying to get
you to change them. As I stated in my original post and in other
follow-up posts in this thread a helmet will not protect a person from
every accident or impact.

Cheers from Peter
Frank should continue to ride without a helmet.

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"MikeWhy" wrote:
After that smart remark, I will adduce one incontrovertible fact:
helmets do not protect against abrupt rotation of the head,

Nor do they reduce the incidence of teenage pregnancy.

You left out part of the message to which you respond
with an irrelevant remark.

"helmets do not protect against abrupt rotation of the head, the most
easily induced mode of brain and spinal cord injury.

What would you suggest, Michael? A sticker, perhaps, to warn the
unsuspecting end user that the helmet does not protect against abrupt
rotational injuries? Is there a real danger that a consumer with enough
working brain cells to make a helmet a worthwhile investment might mistake a
helmet strapped atop the head as effective in any way in preventing an
abrupt rotational injury? Who, aside from you, believe that helmets should
not be worn until they address this alleged shortcoming?

Helmets protect
very little against contracoup brain injury."

Why don't you clue us in on just how that makes your point of
ineffectiveness? Reducing contrecoup injury even a "very little" means the
helmet already reduced the impact load. How much more than "very little"
would you need to declare the helmet effective?

On Aug 7, 9:16*am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Frank Krygowski:

It's very improbable that the national data is wrong. *Therefore the
majority of such stories must be wrong, no matter how sincerely they
are believed.

While riding today, a thought bubbled up to the surface.

When making the helmet-no-helmet decision, one considers:

- "Common Sense"

- Anecdotes From Trusted Sources

- Personal Experience

- "Science"

Common Sense in quotes bc what passes for common sense isn't
always all that sensible.... but it works a lot of the time.

Science in quotes bc there's a huge amount of complexity between
data and conclusions. * I'm pretty sure that all of the engineers
involved in building Chernobyl would have said that the chances
of it failing like it did were vanishingly small.

Obviously I haven't interviewed Chernobyl engineers, but I'd be very
surprised if your statement above were true. It would almost
certainly be true of the reports delivered by their middle managers to
the politicians who needed to approve the project, but my experience
in dealing with the working-level engineers and scientists is that
they are very much aware of many things that may possibly go wrong and
also aware that there are undoubtedly other things that may go wrong
that they haven't even considered.

In Richard Feynmann's discussion of his meetings with the engineers
involved in the design of various parts of the Space Shuttle following
the Challenger disaster he makes the point that the working engineers
he talked to were convinced that the fatal flaw had originated in
their part of the project - i.e. the people working on the main
engines thought that's what had failed, the ones working on the
pumping systems thought those had failed, the ones working on the
solid boosters thought those had failed, etc.

On Aug 8, 12:00*am, wrote:


*Frank should continue to ride without a helmet.

I do nearly all my riding without a helmet. Glad you approve.

And of course, I'm in league with the vast majority of the world's
cyclists.

Really, it's primarily the non-cycling nations - e.g. the USA,
Australia, New Zealand and Canada - that have gone helmet crazy. Plus
those "performance" roadies imitating racers now bound by UCI's cave-
in.

Since cycling is considered astonishing in those countries, the
citizens were easily convinced that it was deadly without a magic
hat. Meanwhile, Italian grandmothers still bike to get their
groceries, unaware that they are being wild and crazy daredevils. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 8, 12:13*am, "MikeWhy" wrote:

What would you suggest, Michael? A sticker, perhaps, to warn the
unsuspecting end user that the helmet does not protect against abrupt
rotational injuries?

How about a sticker saying "According to the same standards used by
the FDA for medical interventions, helmets like this one are useless.
But don't worry, bicyclists have less risk of serious head injury than
pedestrians do." That would be perfectly accurate.

Is there a real danger that a consumer with enough
working brain cells to make a helmet a worthwhile investment might mistake a
helmet strapped atop the head as effective in any way in preventing an
abrupt rotational injury?

Probably so. Most consumers seem easily convinced that bike helmets
prevent 85% of all head injuries, even very serious ones. In fact,
I'd bet most people reading this believed that at one time - or
perhaps still do.

Who, aside from you, believe that helmets should
not be worn until they address this alleged shortcoming?

I don't see why they should be worn if a) the risk of biking head
injury is as low as it is, and b) helmets haven't been proven to
reduce that already low risk.

Bike helmets are an ineffective solution to an imaginary problem.

- Frank Krygowski

In article
,
Peter Rathmann wrote:

On Aug 7, 9:16*am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Frank Krygowski:

It's very improbable that the national data is wrong. *Therefore
the majority of such stories must be wrong, no matter how
sincerely they are believed.

While riding today, a thought bubbled up to the surface.

When making the helmet-no-helmet decision, one considers:

- "Common Sense"

- Anecdotes From Trusted Sources

- Personal Experience

- "Science"

Common Sense in quotes bc what passes for common sense isn't always
all that sensible.... but it works a lot of the time.

Science in quotes bc there's a huge amount of complexity between
data and conclusions. * I'm pretty sure that all of the engineers
involved in building Chernobyl would have said that the chances of
it failing like it did were vanishingly small.

Obviously I haven't interviewed Chernobyl engineers, but I'd be very
surprised if your statement above were true. It would almost
certainly be true of the reports delivered by their middle managers
to the politicians who needed to approve the project, but my
experience in dealing with the working-level engineers and scientists
is that they are very much aware of many things that may possibly go
wrong and also aware that there are undoubtedly other things that may
go wrong that they haven't even considered.

In Richard Feynmann's discussion of his meetings with the engineers
involved in the design of various parts of the Space Shuttle
following the Challenger disaster he makes the point that the working
engineers he talked to were convinced that the fatal flaw had
originated in their part of the project - i.e. the people working on
the main engines thought that's what had failed, the ones working on
the pumping systems thought those had failed, the ones working on the
solid boosters thought those had failed, etc.

So did the people who made the materials from which the failed O-rings
were manufactured, and contacted NASA about the risk prior to launch due
to cold launch temperatures. Turned out they weren't wrong.

--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.

Per Peter Rathmann:
Obviously I haven't interviewed Chernobyl engineers, but I'd be very
surprised if your statement above were true. It would almost
certainly be true of the reports delivered by their middle managers to
the politicians who needed to approve the project, but my experience
in dealing with the working-level engineers and scientists is that
they are very much aware of many things that may possibly go wrong and
also aware that there are undoubtedly other things that may go wrong
that they haven't even considered.

In Richard Feynmann's discussion of his meetings with the engineers
involved in the design of various parts of the Space Shuttle following
the Challenger disaster he makes the point that the working engineers
he talked to were convinced that the fatal flaw had originated in
their part of the project - i.e. the people working on the main
engines thought that's what had failed, the ones working on the
pumping systems thought those had failed, the ones working on the
solid boosters thought those had failed, etc.

Point taken. Poor choice of illustration on my part.
--
PeteCresswell