Helmets

On 10/6/2016 12:27 PM, Duane wrote:


How do you count the people that had accidents with helmets or without
helmets and were not injured? Who would record that? I don't see the
point of counting how many people wear them.

If you want to know if helmets helped or not maybe you could look at the
riders that actually did have accidents and in cases where there were
strong similarities in the accident (speed, type of impact...) but the
outcomes were significantly different and that difference could somehow
be assigned causality with helmet usage (head injuries and not broken
hips for example), then that data might be interesting if it was somehow
repetitive. Otherwise I'm not sure what this gets you other than
something to argue about on some newsgroup.

I must say, for a person who regularly argues about helmets, you show an
astonishing lack of knowledge about the research that has been done and
is still being done!

Suffice to say that ratios of head injuries to non-head injuries have
been done. Those have typically shown some moderate benefit to helmet
use. OTOH, surveys have asked riders about hitting their heads, and
helmeted individuals have reported far more head hits than non-helmeted
individuals. Although it's sometimes denied, counts of riders have
shown significantly less cycling after enactment of heavily enforced
helmet laws, and when combined with injury data, have shown increased
injuries per rider after MHLs.

Of course, to find this information, one must actually look for it.
Most people don't. They instead make their decision based on fashion
("I'm a roadie, so of _course_ I'll wear a helmet!") or on the current
meme ("You could fall off your bike and hit your head! Of _course_ you
should wear a helmet!")

BTW, my wife and I just finished a five day tandem tour, including time
on a long bike trail. I was amused to spot folks riding the nearly
empty trail on low recumbent trikes, their heads about three feet off
the ground, and wearing bike helmets.

What's that about? Are they afraid of tripping when they climb up and
out of those things?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10-08-2016 14:03, Frank Krygowski wrote:
BTW, my wife and I just finished a five day tandem tour, including time
on a long bike trail. I was amused to spot folks riding the nearly
empty trail on low recumbent trikes, their heads about three feet off
the ground, and wearing bike helmets.

What's that about? Are they afraid of tripping when they climb up and
out of those things?

Have you ever tried to climb up and out of one of those things?

--
Wes Groleau

On 10/8/2016 3:25 PM, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 10-08-2016 14:03, Frank Krygowski wrote:
BTW, my wife and I just finished a five day tandem tour, including time
on a long bike trail. I was amused to spot folks riding the nearly
empty trail on low recumbent trikes, their heads about three feet off
the ground, and wearing bike helmets.

What's that about? Are they afraid of tripping when they climb up and
out of those things?

Have you ever tried to climb up and out of one of those things?

Well, yes. I admit, it's a clumsy operation - about as risky as getting
up out of a bathtub.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 09/10/16 05:30, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Hell, if someone sold a spray-on automobile repellent for cyclists,
there are people who would buy it!)

I saw someone link to a kickstart project the other day for synchronised
flashing bicycle lights. I guess if you ride in a bunch you get the
whole lot turning on and off in synchronicity. Wowwee. I can't wait
for that epileptic fit inducing product.

So, yes, I believe you could get crowd funding to develop a can of car
repellant spray.

--
JS

On 07/10/16 03:27, Duane wrote:

How do you count the people that had accidents with helmets or without
helmets and were not injured? Who would record that? I don't see the
point of counting how many people wear them.

If you want to know if helmets helped or not maybe you could look at the
riders that actually did have accidents and in cases where there were
strong similarities in the accident (speed, type of impact...) but the
outcomes were significantly different and that difference could somehow
be assigned causality with helmet usage (head injuries and not broken
hips for example), then that data might be interesting if it was somehow
repetitive. Otherwise I'm not sure what this gets you other than
something to argue about on some newsgroup.


People like Jake Olivier have devoted their professional life to proving
that bicycle helmets significantly reduce serious head injuries in
cyclists, and consequently recommends measures to promote helmet
wearing. In this country (Australia) and I believe parts of Canada,
those measures are translated to laws.

He is certain helmets do not, with statistical significance, increase
neck injuries or DAI (rotational brain injuries). The latter he says
will be difficult to refute with 3/5 studies showing no correlation
between helmets at DAI, yet I'm sure there will be a sixth study that
shows otherwise.

He's also certain that helmet wearing doesn't encourage us to take more
risks.

He and his colleges have devoted countless hours and dollars to
"proving" helmets are good, but precious little to changing road use
culture and road design, which most agree would prevent many crashes
from happening in the first place. It's kinda sick really.

Many of his studies are, I believe, funded and directed by one of the
heads of "road safety" research, Raphael Grzebieta - who believes the
Dutch Government will certainly introduce helmet laws in the near future.

I think he's deranged, but of course according to him, I'm not qualified
to even dispute his outrageous claims. :-/

Pompous git springs to mind.

--
JS