A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

published helmet research - not troll



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old June 19th 04, 06:13 AM
CowPunk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll

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?
Ads
  #62  
Old June 19th 04, 06:43 AM
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll

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
  #63  
Old June 19th 04, 06:49 AM
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll

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
  #64  
Old June 19th 04, 07:13 AM
Peter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll

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.

  #65  
Old June 19th 04, 07:26 AM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll

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]

  #66  
Old June 19th 04, 07:37 AM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll

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]

  #67  
Old June 19th 04, 08:29 AM
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll

Peter writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Peter writes:

Bill Z. wrote:



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.


We had basically zero decline the year the helmet law went into effect,
and I'm in the Bay Area too. Most of the kids had helmets anyway (even
if just tied to the bike).


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


They happen in a school nearby where I live. The parking area is set
for diagonal parking right in front of the school, so parents pull
over, facing the wrong way, and then continue, driving the wrong way
in or near the bike lane until they can cross. It is very
disconcerting to see a car moving straight towards you on the wrong
side of the road, with no idea of the driver notices you or not.


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.


So they'll take it off once off the school grounds, and no one
anything about it.


I had one in the '50s - when were they "not available?"


They weren't available where I lived ... at least I never saw anyone
use one. With no demand, that might not be surprising.


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.


I don't believe you ... I saw no such drop in the year the helmet law
went into effect and we live in the same general area. Are things
*that* different on the other side of the bay? I've no idea about
Australia or NZ, but maybe the law was actually enforced there. It
sure hasn't been where I live.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
  #68  
Old June 19th 04, 02:08 PM
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll

Bill Z. wrote:
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.)


Sorry to open old wounds. ;-).
Of course, the kind of mental masturbation done to judge relative
benefits vs. risks of this type is done all the time.
Personally, I have no problem with anyone being an advocate--I am
myself. But (and it's possible I'm getting this all wrong) posting a
putatively bicycle advocacy piece which is actually a disguised
libertarian screed is a mite dishonest.
As for actually calculating the quantitative saving of lives, this is
always more complicated than it seems. I'll give you one example.
In the past year, three close friends (all male cyclists in their 50s)
have developed prostate cancer. One is terminally ill. Now, looking at
clusters of disease to advance one agenda or the other is very common
(the NY Times magazine did a piece on a BSE outbreak just a few weeks
ago), but although a few studies have been done with inconclusive
results, I still feel it is possible that there is a relationship
between cycling and prostate disease. In the kind of study which
Krygowski cited, this possibility is not on the map. Of course, it may
be in a few years.
I think an honest appraisal of the helmet issue is that what could be
dispassionately discussed as a clinical study usually degenerates into a
study of the rights of the individual vs. the government's involvement
in what is perceived to be the public interest. That these issues come
up all the time (licensing, mandatory vaccination etc.) doesn't make
them any less annoying to me.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
  #69  
Old June 19th 04, 02:10 PM
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll

Eric S. Sande wrote:

:-) 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.



I can't speak for the average reader. For me, talking about my "next
Mercedes" does remind me of one of my college biochemistry professors,
whose very obvious disdain for the premed students didn't strike me as
academic in the least.

Steve

:-)



--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
  #70  
Old June 19th 04, 02:17 PM
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default published helmet research - not troll

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Steven Bornfeld wrote:



Frank Krygowski wrote:

Steven Bornfeld wrote:



Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Tough to run a controlled
study of this type in real-life conditions.




It would be tough if there weren't such things as mandatory helmet
laws (MHLs). Or even better, _enforced_ MHLs. When you've got a
step increase in the percentage of cyclists in helmets for a whole
country, it's not a bad test of "real-life conditions." All you have
to do is remember to account for the decrease in cycling those laws
have caused. (Pro-helmet papers have been known to ignore a 35%
cycling drop, and count the 30% HI drop as a good sign!)





I don't know how you can call this a real test with any
control. In your response to Jay, you just said:

"Other pro-helmet studies from Australia have done things like ignore
the drop in cycling, ignore the concurrent installation of speed
cameras and stiff drunk driving enforcement, etc. to maximize the
supposed helmet benefit. Still, this is the first time I recall any
study but T&R's coming anywhere close to 85%. Despite the fudging,
other pro-helmet studies come out much lower. I'd like to check the
original paper."


If there were confounding factors in the prior example, you can't
come back and now say these can be ignored.



Do you understand that we're talking about multiple papers?

And do you understand that if the confounding factors all would tend to
decrease cyclist injuries, it's disingenuous to attribute all reduced
injuries to just one factor, the helmets?


I think it is disingenuous to say that all the other factors would
decrease cyclist injuries EXCEPT for the helmets!


I am suggesting that antihelmet partisans can be depended upon to
parse the data out there selectively.



... whereas pro-helmet partisans ...???


Sure.

Incidentally, the word "antihelmet" is rather imprecise.
"Anticompulsion" would be more accurate for many. "Anti-over-promotion"
would fit others. "Anti-fearmongering" still others. But I must say, I
can't recall anyone ever wanting to make helmets illegal.

Of course, it may be that the Church of the Helmet requires absolute
belief in _all_ pro-helmet dogma. If so, then there really are lots of
anti-helmet people.



Oh, a libertarian. Never mind--this explains it.


I've heard the same arguments from people who don't wear
seatbelts in cars. I thought they made what could be valid
points--until I spent a year covering head/neck trauma during my
residency.



So tell us about your head trauma experience. Since we're talking
about saving lives, what percentage of the head trauma fatalities you
saw were cyclists?




They don't usually call the dentist on the head trauma
fatalities. I was called on facial injuries. There were a
substantial number of cycling accidents. Most weren't wearing
helmets, but then this was 28 years ago.



Oh, a dentist.

IOW, you know something about teeth. You know relatively little about
head trauma. I should have guessed.



Ad hominem. You have no idea what I know about head trauma. Do you
want to tell me about your academic qualifications?



You probably realize that nationally, cyclists are less than 1% of
that problem, right?



If it's you, you're 100% dead.



... and, apparently, you know relatively little about evaluating
relative risk.



I personally know several people (including myself) who have suffered
head injury of various degrees while cycling. In most of these, there
was no automobile involved.
I hope you are lucky enough to have escaped serious injury, and that
your loved ones do the same.

Good luck,
Steve





--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
 




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
Bicycle helmet law can save lives Garrison Hilliard General 146 May 19th 04 05:42 AM
A Pleasant Helmet Debate Stephen Harding General 12 February 26th 04 07:32 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
How I cracked my helmet Rick Warner General 2 July 12th 03 11:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:39 PM.


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.