advisor wanted

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:03:12 -0700, said in
:

Can you say for certain that if no one were to wear helmets, the
situation would not be worse than it is?

Interesting reversal of the burden of proof there.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

In , on 10/30/05
at 10:12 AM, Rich said:



Tony Raven wrote:

In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000
cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries.
By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist
accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra helmets
were doing they were not reducing head injuries.

In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets is
double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists suffering
head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So whatever all
those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not protecting
them from head injuries.

The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland.
They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world at
0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death rate per
km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate.

In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has
repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate
and lowest head injury rate in Australia.

Very interesting information, and I'd like to read more. Can you post
links to the studies or web sites where you got them?

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly. I do not know about
Australia, but the US is not cyclist friendly. I've had seveal encounters
where I've had drivers deliberately squueze me to the side of the road and
hazards there while yelling that I should get off the road and on the
sidewalk. Even had someone tell me they hoped some driver would run over
me.

Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is
driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated,
they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions.


jim

--
-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

In , on 10/30/05
at 12:49 PM, Peter Clinch said:



wrote:

It is misguided because it concerns only "serious" accidents and I'm
betting you agree that far more less than "serious" accidents happen
than serious.

Certainly "less than serious" accidents happen, but by their very nature
they aren't serious. I've banged my head a few times and drawn blood
doing housework, I'm not alone in that. I don't feel the need for a
hlemt doing it though, and I doubt you do either.

Is housework considered a hazardous acitivity? No.

So do not compare apples and oranges. A better comparison would be
construction sites where helmets ARE required (at least in the US) because
it is a dangerous activity.


Where are the stats for those, the ones that without a
helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching?

If there were a significant number of those then there would be a drop
in the overall figures of serious injuries, but there aren't.

That is an assumption. Unless, of course you can cite a study saying
specifically that.


Put -'em up if you gottem, but I'm lookin' forward to your sounds of
silence.

They don't exist because they don't get to ER rooms. But they don't get
into the serious figures which they would have done otherwise, and the
serious head injury rates would have gone down accordingly. But they
haven't.

Where is your data on non-serious injuries? Without any on your part,
anecdotal evidence is better than your lack of information.

See above. For non-serious injuries they amount to basically
discomfort, /if/ I have one. A helmet means discomfort on 100% of
trips.

Well, if it is that easy, why haven't you done it?

Why haven't I done what?

You said it should be easy to get those studoes/facts . . .


Really, how do you propose that be measured? They only measure srious
injuries and have no data at all on those that walk away without a
report being filed.

But if they meant a serious injury was /avoided/ then the annual rate of
serious injuries would be coming down, and would show a better trend
than that for pedestrians who have historically matched cyclist trends
for years since before helmets were introduced. This hasn't happened.

Again, you are using apples to make statements about oranges and are
clueless that you are doing it.

No I'm not. You read through the work at www.cyclehelmets.org and pick
the real holes in it. It's fully referenced so you can get back to the
sources.

Sorry, Pete, you are. The study onlyu concerns serious injusries and
nothing else. It misses taking into account a lot of variables that are
imprtant to being able to make any categorical statement.\


jim

--
-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:42:27 -0800, said in
:

Appples and oranges. If you can not see that, then there is no point
saying anything else.

Yes, apples and oranges. Cyclists who choose to wear helmets and ride
in family groups on bike trails, versus those who do not and ride
alone on city streets. Apples and oranges. Only an idiot would fail
to see the difference. And only a zealot would attribute it to the
headgear rather than the riding style.

Interestingly, where the helmet usage rate rises by very large amounts
in a very short time (such as in New Zealand, where it doubled in a
single year) there is no discernible change in recorded head injury
rates. Obviously someone forgot to tell all those apples to become
oranges...

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

In , on 10/30/05
at 01:21 PM, Peter Clinch said:



wrote:

Well, you seem to want to be able to take all kinds of poetic license.
Are you opposed to my doing the same?

So what poetic license have I taken?

It's like the scene in Jerry Maguire where Tom Cruise's client isn't
interested in Nice Words, he wants Tom's character to "show me the
money!". The change is I'm asking you to show me the casualty savings.
The data is there for you to look at,
governments with a vested interest in showing their mandatory helmet
laws have produced a beneficial effect haven't been able to find those
savings though. In the UK the government is pro-helmet and seeks to
encourage their use, yet in a written reply to a parliamentray question
the responsible minister had to admit there was no known case of helmets
being preoven to improve safety, and he had a whole department of civil
service statisticians to help him.

So:
"Show me the casualty savings!"

The cost of an ER visit for stiitching of head wounds (simple) is well
over $500. You can check that for yourself (US hospitals). Cost of a
helmet $100. Simple relationship.


BS, and you know it.

Actually, I know it's true. Again, the data and research is out there
for several countries, so you show me the data that tells us the extent
to which compulsory seatbelt laws have improved things.

Apples and oranges. Why is it when you do not have a csae you try to
switch topics to something not directly related?


"Show me the casualty savings!"

Nice that you have socialized medicine. We don't. But were you to go
to the ER what do you figure it costs you in terms of paying yourself?
If you are not aware of this factor, it means figuring out what the
time in the hospital cost you in terms of how much an hour you get
paid. The same principle can be applied to driving across town to save
a dime a galloin on gas, FWIW.

But this assumes I'd be spending more time there. As the
neurosurgeon expert witnesses observed by Brian Walker pointed out, it
isn't actually as straightforward as a helmet makes you safer, period,
and as David Jamieson, UK Government Minister, had to admit, the [UK]
Government knows of no case where cyclist safety has improved with
increasing helmet use (and again I emphasize that this man is *pro*
helmet).

That you spent ANY time there is the issue. Or did that go right over your
head?


"Show me the casualty savings!"

Again, where is your ddata on the non-reported accidnets?

Again, the non-serious accidents don't get reported, because they are by
definition not very serious. However, again I point out to you that if
serious accidents are being downgraded then there should be a drop in
the rate for serious injuries. There isn't.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Cost of ER visit versus $100 for a helmet. If you can't do the math, I
cannot help you. Must be the socialized school system problem. Let's see .
.. 1+1 = 2, 1+2 = 3, . . .


The only trend visible here is that you are using apples to make a
case about oranges and are remarkably without any data concerning less
than serious accidents. That is what is patently visible.

I'll tell you again.
The non-serious accidents don't get reported, because they are by
definition not very serious. However, again I point out to you that if
serious accidents are being downgraded then there should be a drop in
the rate for serious injuries. There isn't.

And what part of a helmet may be responsible for the accident being
non-seriopus do you not understand?


"Show me the casualty savings!"

Boring.



Tell it to the MIT researcher who was just fired for manupulating data
and using false data. He got caught, but now everyone ois wondering
about all the previous stuff that went through this process without
detection. Tell it to the cold fusion gang, too.

The national figures for several different nations are widely available
in raw form to be used and interpreted by anyone as they see fit. Bogus
use tends to be found out in time, as this chap at MIT has discovered,
but since one is working with openly available data and there are lots
of folks who know what they're on about such cases don't remain at large
indefinitely. And we've been looking at these figures for a *long* time
now, and even with a vested interest in showing that the helmets they've
mandated are working well, governments who have introduced an MHL have
been conspicuous in their inability to show any clear casualty savings.

Again, my comment stands up. A lot of bogus research is out there because
of jacked up figures, created data and plain old not doing the math right.
Thn there is failure to consider the proper vaiables and so on.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Still whining. I'll not repeat the relationship for you again. If ois has
not penetrated your skell yet, maybe a rock will and then it will get in.


See above. Even those folks you are waxing poetic about can be fooled.
Happens all the time.

Why do you assume that it must be me that's been fooled, and it can't be
you. You seem to be working on nothing but assumptions.

And you are working from brain farts and obstinincy.



"Show me the casualty savings!"

Yada, yada, yada. . .


Precisely, and what about that helmet in those situations? Did they
prevent a serious injury to the point it bacame non-reportable? What
would the cost have been had the lack of a helmet elevated that injury
to a reportable one? ThatIS the problem with using one category of
data to make a categorical statement about bike injuries.

Again I have to point out that if helmets are degrading serious injuries
to being non serious then that will have an affect on the serious
figures. That you don't catch them elsewhere doesn't affect a drop in
the serious figures, but there is no such drop.

Unture. Otherwise, you would be able to post a citation to that very fact
from the reesearch you are spewing without any though or analysis. Y9ou
have failed to do that, substituting idiocy and obfuscation.


"Show me the casualty savings!"

Hold it, now you seem to be on the other side. Either they work or
they don't.

Don't be simplistic. A good thick leather jacket will protect against
stray duckshot quite effectively, but that doesn't mean it's worth a
damn against targeted high velocity rifle fire.

Here we go again. . . Got anything that pretains directly to what we are
talking about? Or are you merely trying to distract us from the fact, you
ain't got jack**** to work with?



With regard to helmet efficacy (or not) I have been stating the point
that they are no proven use against serious head injuries. That is very
different to saving you a nasty graze and a headache.
I've had those doing housework, yet in common with almost the whole
population I don't feel the need for a helmet doing my housework.

Not true. That is an ASSumption.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

But, one or two or three at some point become those hundreds or
thousands do they not?

They should, yes. So why do those thousands not add up to any
improvement? Perhaps the anecdotes aren't as clear as the reports
assume them to be?

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Aggregate data is like a generalization. There are always exceptions.
Anecdotal evidence is that one and two and three. . .

And since the aggregate is no change, that suggests that there are 2 or
3 the other way where they made things worse...

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Getting up out of bed is far more hazardous. So what? Neither compare
to cycling in any form.

But they do compare very well. Pedestrian serious injury rates from
RTAs have closely mirrored cyclist serious injury rates over the time
we've got figures for, and this happens in different countries too.
Where one jumps, the other jumps (as happened after compulsory seatbelt
legislation has been passed). So they do compare, because they act the
same way over time. One is an excellent control for the other.

Apples and oranges yet again. Stick with bicycles and not with NON
dangerous activities. Now, if you wany to make a case from something that
is hazardous, try construction. Helmets are mandatory there, are they not?
Racing cars and boats are dangerous sports and they require helmets. US
style football is considered a dangerous sport, helmets are required.
Getting the picture?


walked far more miles than I have cycled over the last 14-15. Walking
has only resulted in a tweaked ankle or two.

You might tell people on ventilators after being run over when they were
crossing the road that your anecdote is more meaningful than theirs.

And what happened to them on their bikes?



One last thought, and you really should address this with real data
rather than on-the-fly assumptions, because the data is out the

Show me the data related to cycling helmets and non-serious injuries. You
keep saying it is out there. But so far, you've only make that wild-assed
claim and hav yet to present one single fact. Of course, your saying so
don't make it so, depsite your delusions.

So, Pete, let's see you get out of your rut and put up those figures
related to helmets and non-serious injuries. But, while you are finding
them, take a break from here and give us a well deserved break from you
passing gas.


jim

--
-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

In , on 10/30/05
at 04:25 PM, Colin McKenzie said:



Lest anyone think Peter is a lone voice...

Butch wrote:
Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great
I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect
you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the
point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not
reported.

Which should mean, if they work, that reported injury rates go down as
more people wear them. Whereas what we find is that the trend for
cyclists is the same as for pedestrians regardless of changes in
cyclists' helmet-wearing rate.

For your information in our country Health care is so
expensive that most people seldom go to ER.

Luckily Peter is quoting UK stats, where people go to Casualty (ER) for
any injury they haven't got a plaster to fit. Among other things, these
stats show walking and cycling to be about equally hazardous, and to
vary the same way over time - despite cycle helmet wearing rates
increasing from 0 to about half of cyclists in the last 20 years.

One of the reasons people perceive cycling to be dangerous is the
relentless propaganda saying it is, from those promoting helmets.

Wear a helmet, if you wish, to prevent those small injuries you're not
going to go to the ER for. But forget about it saving your life.

And the proof that it will NOT save your life is? Do not confuse overall
stats with what happens in any given situation. I am sure that there are
isolated cases where the use of a helmet IS the direct cause of death in
what would have been a non-serious accident. For isntance, not work
properly, helmet slides bbehind head, straps cut off breathing . . .

Of course, the acid test is: are you willing to take your CHILD with you
on a bike in traffic without that child wearing a helmet? Are you willintg
to take your CHILD with you mountain biking without that child wearing a
helmet?

That's where the rubber meets the road.


jim

--
-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

In , on 10/30/05
at 05:08 PM, Tony Raven said:



wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:43:01 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:


But it isn't "misguided advice", it is reporting the simple truth
that population data does not show any noticable improvement in
head injury rates with increased helmet wearing. That that *fact*
runs counter to "common sense" doesn't make it wrong.

It is misguided because it concerns only "serious" accidents and I'm
betting you agree that far more less than "serious" accidents happen
than serious. Where are the stats for those, the ones that without a
helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching?

Put -'em up if you gottem, but I'm lookin' forward to your sounds of
silence.


I'll put them up for Pete if I may.

Do you know the definitions of a "serious" injury? In most countries
your "ER visit and stitching" would be counted as serious in the
official definitions.

As I was saying. Non-serious are those you DO NOT end up in the ER for.



In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000
cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries.
By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist
accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra helmets
were doing they were not reducing head injuries.

Missing bit of data and that is the total number of riders in both years.
Source?


In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets is
double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists suffering
head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So whatever all
those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not protecting
them from head injuries.

The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland.
They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world at
0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death rate per
km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate.

That has a lot to do with wach copuntries view of cycling. Europe is
cycling friendly. The US is not.


In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has
repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate
and lowest head injury rate in Australia.

Interesting, but what happens in Oz may or may not be relevant to the US
or anywhere elase for that matter.



Starting to see a pattern?

Yep, one person's facts are another's damned lies.



Whatever common sense is telling you about the protective effect of
helmets, experience around the world says its wrong.

This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because of
attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that comparative
information, the stats are interesting, but may not be telling you what
YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who have cycled in Europe
who would not venture on the road in the US because of the attitude of US
drivers.


jim

--
-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:45:04 -0800, wrote:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly. I do not know about
Australia, but the US is not cyclist friendly. I've had seveal encounters
where I've had drivers deliberately squueze me to the side of the road and
hazards there while yelling that I should get off the road and on the
sidewalk. Even had someone tell me they hoped some driver would run over
me.

A helmet protects against unfriendly motorists in what way exactly?

gotbent wrote:
snippage

I'm one of the anecdotal cases. I crashed, broke my collar bone, and hit my
head hard enough for the foam along the temple line to compress more than
half its thickness. My eyeglasses cut a huge gash across the top of my nose.
Plenty of aches from my near 30 mph crash. No concussion or even a headache.
Did I do something stupid...yes succeeded in getting too much air jumping a
break in the road, and went into an oscillation when I landed. Did I do
something stupid because I was wearing a helmet? Probably not. Certainly it
was a testosterone induced wave of stupidity, as in those days I routinely
jumped railroad tracks without any problem. Man, I got some major air that
time though, and the back of the bike started to come around and I knew I
was ****ed big-time....

So much for the theory that upright bicycles are safer than recumbent
bicycles are, due to the ability of the upright rider to "bunny-hop"
over obstacles.

Maneuvers that can be performed quite reliably with forethought and
planning often fail miserably in an emergency situation when immediate
action is required.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels

Hi Peter, Just for your information I rode last week with my son(34),
his first time on
a bent, I could not get him to wear a helmet either, we went 35 miles
he hit over 29
mph several times. To be honest I did not wear a helmet when I was 37
either, I only started wearing them several years ago after I had a bad
fall, hit a dog on my diamond frame. First thing I did the next day
was to order a helmet.
Your biggest complaint about wearing a helmet seems to be comfort, I
just don't see it
I ride a lot and I have no complaint about helmet comfort? The start
of this thread was
how to improve the visor. You have to admit it is hard to ride without
some sort of
visor so you end up with a hat. I still have hair and I can't keep a
hat on when riding my bent above 18 or so mph say nothing about 20 to
30? In our group (MORONS, Magnificant Old Riders On Nice Seats) only
one person rides without a helmet, she is often fiddling with her hat.
I have rode many centuries and have had all sorts of problems but never
once did my helmet bother me? I don't give a dam about bike statistics
or helmet laws or advertisments, I just know from my experience if I
push things which I often do I can expect to fall at least every 15
months. From my personal experences and personal observations I choose
to wear a helmet, because I need a visor anyhow and I clearly saw my
buddys visor and forhead (in helmet) hitting the large gravel and
breaking apart. For that matter I would never ride without my glasses,
and have tried several types of goggles/shields which I did not like
(we got huge hoppers down here).
You talk about Raw data and Good Data, I seriously doubt if you have
either, to get that you have to have controls and even then you may
bias it. I can't begin to tell you how many times when I was working I
saw people (usually managers) take statistical data and manipulate it
(it takes very little) to reach the conclusion they want. Your data
comes from a bureaucrat filling out a form or entering it on a
computer. No one should expect a helmet to do much if you hit a tree
or a car, as for the size and weight of the helmet causing damage, I
think you are stretching there just a bit. I will just bet you if you
are still riding 20 / 25 years from now you will be wearing a helmet
and not because someone tells you to but because your experience and
common sense tells you to. I can no more ride off without my helmet
than I can drive a car without a seat belt. Maybe I should put a belt
on my bent.haha By the way ask you Nerosurgeon friend if helmets are
so worthless why do they put them on children after brain surgery. For
that matter I know several local physicians who ride bikes quite a bit,
they all wear helmets, and so should you. Ask your Mother or your wife
if they think you should ride with or without a helmet.
Got to go tomorrow is a ride day and the weather looks perfect again,
and I have all that left over Halloween Candy to eat.haha

Happy Trails Butch