Helmet propaganda debunked

Scientific journals are finally taking a close look at bogus helmet
claims:

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5495

JFJ

wrote in message
ups.com...
Scientific journals are finally taking a close look at bogus helmet
claims:

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5495

JFJ


I followed the link and read the article. Didn't see much of anything
substantive to say that NOT wearing a helmet is as safe as wearing one.

As one who was hit head-on by a teenage driver talking on a cell phone ...
who subsequently was knocked 30 feet into the air and landed on my head on
the pavement (per documented eyewitness accounts), and who not only survived
the incident, but survived it with no head injury whatsoever (despite a
number of other injuries like a broken hip, pelvis and ankle), I'll
wholeheartedly endorse today's helmets and their ability to provide
meaningful protection.

Maybe that particular study is suspect. It shouldn't become an excuse for
people to be stupid and to abandon common sense.

Oh ... I'm pro-helmet, but anti-compulsion. I'm also anti-stupidity and
especially anti-clinical study to the exclusion of all experiencial data.

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

"psycholist" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ups.com...

Snip

Oh ... I'm pro-helmet, but anti-compulsion. I'm also anti-stupidity and
especially anti-clinical study to the exclusion of all experiencial data.

--
Bob C.

That's exactly my stance. I quote from BikeBiz.com, "BikeBiz.com is
fiercely pro-helmet but anti-compulsion."

wrote:
Scientific journals are finally taking a close look at bogus helmet
claims:

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5495

JFJ

I'm always perplexed by this debate. Many of us have first hand
experience with a helmet preventing or minimizing injury. With modern
lightweight construction I'm hard put to see the downside.
Is the arguement over the 85% claim? If so, from a practical matter
wouldn't it be OK if the reduction was only half that.

Now the compulsory thing is something else. I'm not for much in the way
of compulsion for adults.

Lots of sports have had this debate and most top level atheltes now use
helmets. This debate went on for football many years ago. Can you
imagine playing football w/o a helmet? How many hockey players are
helmetless? And even rock climbers - a notoriously independent group-
are starting to use helmets more and more.

gds wrote:

With modern
lightweight construction I'm hard put to see the downside.

The problem is that helmets are designed down to the barest minimum to
pass the standards. The data in the oft-cited Harborview study is based
on much beefier helmets than any that are worn today; it was a good
study in it's day but has had no value for the past half decade. There
doesn't seem to be any good studies proving the effectiveness of modern
bike helmets...and, no, annecdotes don't count.

With bike helmets, the more you pay, the less protection you get (but
better venting and style, lighter weight). The happy medium (reasonable
comfort and protection) is probably in the mid-priced helmets, not the
high-end.

I followed the link and read the article. Didn't see much of
anything substantive to say that NOT wearing a helmet is as
safe as wearing one.

Stay on topic - it was about propaganda used by proponents of helmet
laws.

As one who was hit head-on by a teenage driver talking on a
cell phone ... who subsequently was knocked 30 feet into the
air and landed on my head on the pavement (per documented
eyewitness accounts), and who not only survived the incident,
but survived it with no head injury whatsoever (despite a
number of other injuries like a broken hip, pelvis and ankle),
I'll wholeheartedly endorse today's helmets and their ability
to provide meaningful protection.

That's a really large sample size. Besides, a helmet is designed for a
fall from 1.5m to 2m max. You'd be dead if you dropped on your head
from 9m, helmet or not. A little loose with your hyperbole perhaps?

Maybe that particular study is suspect. It shouldn't become an
excuse for people to be stupid and to abandon common sense.

The earth is flat. That used to be common sense.

Oh ... I'm pro-helmet, but anti-compulsion. I'm also anti-
stupidity and especially anti-clinical study to the exclusion of all
experiencial data

Ah, yes, there's always the insult in the absence of any scienec to
back your beliefs.

JFJ

wrote:
Scientific journals are finally taking a close look at bogus helmet
claims:

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5495

JFJ

Is it time for this flame war again?

Whenever there's a helmet thread, I'm always amazed at the number of people
who show up as experts about an experience they've been fortunate never to
have had. It's equally amazing to me how quick they are to discard the
input of those who HAVE had the experience.

SHOW ME THE DATA! They say.

Guess what folks, lots of cyclists have falls and smack their heads.
Because they're wearing helmets, they're able to get up and ride on. Their
experience never makes it into any report or database.

I am very well acquainted with the limitations of statistics and the ways
they can be manipulated. The old study promoting helmet use is supposedly
being debunked. I've sure seen lots of suspect data on these threads
offered by those who are pushing an anti-helmet agenda. Data is always
subject to interpretation.

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

wrote:
....and, no, annecdotes don't count.


Why? Lots of anecdotes DO mean something. Take aside the idea of
compulsion. Is it being argued that helmets add NO safety? Anecdotes do
prove that there is SOME benefit. So, if there is a positive benefit
and they are comfortable? I still am perplexed by the vitriolic
oppostion.

gds wrote:
wrote:
...and, no, annecdotes don't count.


Why? Lots of anecdotes DO mean something. Take aside the idea of
compulsion. Is it being argued that helmets add NO safety? Anecdotes
do
prove that there is SOME benefit. So, if there is a positive benefit
and they are comfortable? I still am perplexed by the vitriolic
oppostion.

I'm not so sure I can address the issue of 'vitriolic' opposition, but
I'll share with you why I think many (myself included) are opposed to
the pro-helmet forces.

1) there is little, if any, evidence to show they work
2) studies show that in cycling, like other activities such as skiing,
when you over-emphasis the necessity for safety gear, you give the
false impression that the activity is inherently dangerous, which
typically leads to less people participating in the activity
3) in some areas where mandatory helmet laws have been enacted, there's
evidence of an INCREASE in head injuries
4) did I mention that there's no evidence that helmets work? (at least,
not under real world conditions)

Don't need a nanny-state bureaucrat telling me to save me from myself.