published helmet research - not troll

Steven Bornfeld wrote:



Frank Krygowski wrote:

...
And it's still true that often, the ONLY thing people hear about bike
safety is "Always wear a helmet!!!!" Nothing about rules of the road,
lights at night, maintaining the machine, etc.

I've seen enough helmeted families riding facing traffic, or riding at
night without lights, to know that the emphasis needs to be changed.

Feel free to start another thread. My advocacy of helmets does not
in any way make me irresponsible regarding these other issues. Do you
believe it does?

Well, not if your real objective is to sell helmets.

If your real objective is to improve bicycle safety, or (as you alluded
to) reduce the amount of your taxes spent on others' injuries, then yes,
your helmet advocacy is irresponsible.

Ignoring more effective measures, speaking only about helmets, and doing
so from a position of ignorance is somewhat irresponsible.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Steven Bornfeld wrote:


Like I said. I'd be happy to seek out the study. Can you post a
reference?

_Cycle Helmets - The Case For and Against_ , Hillman, M., Policy Studies
Institute, London, 1993 ISBN 0 85374 602 8

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

:-) The intellectual level of the discussion seems to be falling like
a stone.

Frank. I haven't even entered this discussion.

However there is a certain academic quality to your posts that just
naturally tends to alienate the average reader.

:-)

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
in.edu__________

The discussion also reminds me of a class where everyone has a strong
opinion, but nobody does the homework! ;-)

I was always accused of ruining the curve...

It's when you argue for _others_ to wear helmets, or start promoting
their effectiveness, that people will disagree.

I don't think I've argued anywhere that helmets should be mandatory.
And I completely agree with Kunich, you and others that you have the
right to choose. I don't agree with making kids wear helmets.

I'm just pointing out that arguing for helmets based on fatalities alone,
is poor justification for their use. Anyway, I don't think helmets are
designed for car/bike accidents, or to prevent fatalities. IMHO, They're
designed to reduce severe injuries and trauma.

I can think of one situation off hand where a friend of mine was
riding home from fishing, when we were kids, he got his fishing pole
caught up in his front wheel, and crashed. The end of his handlebar
went into his temple and took out a core sample of his brain.
Yes, he ended up with brain damage. Would a helmet have helped, well
who knows... that's the point.

If you have't seen a helmets benefit in preventing brain injuries, maybe
you just haven't been riding long enough, hard enough or fast enough?

So can a wool hat.
That's a leap of faith.


Now what evidence do you have about helmets protecting against dented
skulls or brain injuries?

I just look at the dents and cracks in my helmets.

Proving something like that is like trying to prove global warming.
You can't do it without f*****g a lot of people up.

I'll bet you put globs of sunscreen on before you go out... don't you.

Did you know that there is no evidence that sunscreen prevents skin cancer?

Yup, it's a fact.

Or what about the fact that some of the ingredients in
sunscreen are known carcinogens?

Peter writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Erik Freitag writes:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:21:50 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:

There are other ways in which laws can be enforced and have effects.

My bike commute in the SF East Bay area took me past an elementary
school, a middle school, and a high school. Although there are far
fewer kids cycling to school now than before the helmet law, I still
see a reasonable number. ...

The reduction is due to traffic conditions, which have gotten worse.
I'm nervous about riding a bike past a school when kids are being
dropped off due to the parents' erratic driving. I just don't feel
comfortable when cars park facing the wrong way and drive down a bike
lane, on the wrong side of the street along a collision course with me,
as they wait for an opportunity to cross over to the other side.

.... Almost all of them have a helmet, but about
80% of those helmets are hanging from their handlebars. Maybe this is
just a new fashion statement, but I think there's another reason - the
kids really don't want to wear the helmets but the law is enforced at
the schoolyard (and possibly at home). As soon as they are off the
school property the helmets come off their heads and get tied to the
bars.

One relative told me that, as a child, she would ride a bike without
holding onto the handlebars but only when a block or more from home so
her parents wouldn't know.

Wearing one in sight of the school and putting them on then handlebars
elsewhere will simply show that the kid isn't overly respectful of
authority, and probably generate some kudos from his peers. I'd hardly
see how this would effect riding.

When my daughter was starting high school I asked her why none of her
friends rode their bikes anymore. She asked them and the main reason
given was the 'helmet hair' issue. Now we may not think that's a very
good reason, but it really doesn't matter if it keeps kids from
riding. Fewer kids riding is likely to mean fewer adults riding later.

When I started high school, kids mostly stopped riding bikes too, and
helmets weren't even available. It was mostly a "little kids ride
bikes" thing. If it isn't one excuse, it's another, but I see no
reason to blame helmets.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Steven Bornfeld writes:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Steven Bornfeld wrote:


Yeah, yeah. I'll bet he hates helmets too.
:-) The intellectual level of the discussion seems to be falling
like a stone.
He did study the issue of benefits versus detriments of cycling when
he was researching the helmet issue, true. And it's partly for that
reason that he is strongly against mandating helmets, and very
cautious about even promoting them.
Give the guy credit for doing study and research before forming his
opinion, please.

Like I said. I'd be happy to seek out the study. Can you
post a reference?

Steve

This was also beaten to death a decade ago, and is being trotted out
again. The guy didn't say that helmets were ineffective. He suggested
that the health benefits of cycling regularly, even for "commuter" or
"utility" cyclists riding short distances at low speeds, exceeded the
risks whether helmets were used or not. That has zero to do with
whether helmets are effective or not. It may be a good argment
against mandatory helmet laws (depending on how much of a disencentive
a helmet requirement actually is.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:

Peter writes:


Bill Z. wrote:


Erik Freitag writes:


On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:21:50 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:


There are other ways in which laws can be enforced and have effects.

My bike commute in the SF East Bay area took me past an elementary
school, a middle school, and a high school. Although there are far
fewer kids cycling to school now than before the helmet law, I still
see a reasonable number. ...


The reduction is due to traffic conditions, which have gotten worse.

The traffic conditions didn't change appreciably between the year before
the helmet law was enacted and the year after. Yet there was a very
obvious effect on the number of bicycles in the school racks.

I'm nervous about riding a bike past a school when kids are being
dropped off due to the parents' erratic driving. I just don't feel
comfortable when cars park facing the wrong way and drive down a bike
lane, on the wrong side of the street along a collision course with me,
as they wait for an opportunity to cross over to the other side.

The things you describe don't happen at any of the three schools that I
pass.


.... Almost all of them have a helmet, but about
80% of those helmets are hanging from their handlebars. Maybe this is
just a new fashion statement, but I think there's another reason - the
kids really don't want to wear the helmets but the law is enforced at
the schoolyard (and possibly at home). As soon as they are off the
school property the helmets come off their heads and get tied to the
bars.


One relative told me that, as a child, she would ride a bike without
holding onto the handlebars but only when a block or more from home so
her parents wouldn't know.

Wearing one in sight of the school and putting them on then handlebars
elsewhere will simply show that the kid isn't overly respectful of
authority, and probably generate some kudos from his peers. I'd hardly
see how this would effect riding.

Your claim was that the helmet law can't affect ridership since it's not
enforced by the police. But at least in my neighborhood it is enforced
by the schools and anyone who wants to ride to school must at least wear
a helmet when on the school grounds. This requirement was made clear
both to the children and to parents during back-to-school activities.


When my daughter was starting high school I asked her why none of her
friends rode their bikes anymore. She asked them and the main reason
given was the 'helmet hair' issue. Now we may not think that's a very
good reason, but it really doesn't matter if it keeps kids from
riding. Fewer kids riding is likely to mean fewer adults riding later.


When I started high school, kids mostly stopped riding bikes too, and
helmets weren't even available.

I had one in the '50s - when were they "not available?"
Anyway, the comparison was between the number of riders seen at a school
before the helmet law and the significantly smaller number at the same
school after the law became effective. The age-range of the kids
remained the same.

It was mostly a "little kids ride
bikes" thing. If it isn't one excuse, it's another, but I see no
reason to blame helmets.

The 30% or so drop in ridership when surveys were done in NZ and
Australia just before and after helmet laws went into effect would seem
to be one good reason. I didn't keep any statistics at the schools I
observed, but there was a similar drop.

CowPunk wrote:


I'll bet you put globs of sunscreen on before you go out... don't you.

Well, not me. I seldom use the stuff.

Are we changing the subject??

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

CowPunk wrote:

The discussion also reminds me of a class where everyone has a strong
opinion, but nobody does the homework! ;-)


I was always accused of ruining the curve...


It's when you argue for _others_ to wear helmets, or start promoting
their effectiveness, that people will disagree.


I don't think I've argued anywhere that helmets should be mandatory.
And I completely agree with Kunich, you and others that you have the
right to choose. I don't agree with making kids wear helmets.

Ok.

I'm just pointing out that arguing for helmets based on fatalities alone,
is poor justification for their use. Anyway, I don't think helmets are
designed for car/bike accidents, or to prevent fatalities. IMHO, They're
designed to reduce severe injuries and trauma.

Only in a very marginal way. They're designed to prevent a body-less
magnesium headform from exceeding 300 gees of linear acceleration in a 2
meter drop, IIRC. That's the standard - nothing more than a 14 mph
impact, and no provision for fighting rotational acceleration of the
brain. In common terms, they're designed to protect against an ideal
"Laugh-In" fall.

When the standard was first proposed, back in the mid-1970s, there were
serious reservations from the safety community. They felt the standard
was far too weak. But Snell, etc said it was all that was possible -
otherwise nobody would wear the helmet.

Now we're told this weak protection will save people from severe
injuries and trauma - 90+% of which is caused by crashes with cars. And
when data appears saying they don't work, people are surprised.


I can think of one situation off hand where a friend of mine was
riding home from fishing, when we were kids, he got his fishing pole
caught up in his front wheel, and crashed. The end of his handlebar
went into his temple and took out a core sample of his brain.
Yes, he ended up with brain damage. Would a helmet have helped, well
who knows... that's the point.

If you have't seen a helmets benefit in preventing brain injuries, maybe
you just haven't been riding long enough, hard enough or fast enough?

Well, I've ridden over 30 years as a dedicated adult cyclist. True, I
never placed higher than second in a road race. And my time trialing
never set any records. And I've been pretty stubborn about not crashing.

Are you saying I need to crash more?


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]