advisor wanted

wrote:
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 . . .

I don't need to prove it. You need to prove that I will get some
benefit in exchange for the heat, expense, and inconvenience of riding
with a lump of foam on my head.

Meanwhile I have discovered
- that helmets are only designed to cope with impacts too gentle to be
life-threatening
- that walking is as hazardous as cycling, and no-one advoates walking
helmets
- that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a
healthy activity that on average prolongs life
- that at population level helmets don't save lives or serious
injuries. From which I deduce either
- they make no difference in severe impacts
or
- they make things worse at least as often as they make them better

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?

Ah, the appeal to emotion. Having looked at the facts I would:
- make sure the bike is in good shape
- make sure the child's bike-control is good enough
- make sure the child understands traffic rules and conventions
- tell him or her a helmet may save cuts and bruises but is unlikely
to save his/her life
- let the child choose to wear a helmet or not

Are you willing to take your CHILD with you mountain biking without
that child wearing a helmet?

As long as at least one of us is cautious. Cuts and bruises can spoil
your day and I wouldn't want too many of them.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

Colin McKenzie wrote:
...
Meanwhile I have discovered
- that helmets are only designed to cope with impacts too gentle to be
life-threatening
- that walking is as hazardous as cycling, and no-one advoates walking
helmets
- that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a
healthy activity that on average prolongs life
- that at population level helmets don't save lives or serious
injuries. From which I deduce either
- they make no difference in severe impacts
or
- they make things worse at least as often as they make them better....

Which leads to speculation that what might be sensible is a flexible
head covering that is abrasion resistant with a smooth (e.g. "rip stop"
nylon) surface. Minor head wounds (e.g. "road rash") that cause no real
damage to the brain or skull can still be rather painful for an
extended period.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:04:01 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote:

wrote:

Is housework considered a hazardous acitivity? No.

"considered", no, yet people are killed every year in domestic
accidents. Try telling the victims that the house can't be a dangerous
place (oh, you can't, because they're dead). It isn't very *likely*
that you'll die, but it can happen. And that, when you look at the
figures, is how it works for A to B cycling too.


Yawn. You are boring. Where have I ever said anything about not having
sympathy with people kileed stepping out of bathrubs? I haven't and
you're being an arrogant and presumptious fool for trying to do so. I
never said it ws not a dangerous place either.

If you have stooped to such childish tactics, you lose.



So do not compare apples and oranges.

I'm not, if you actually stop and look at it. Pedestrians make a very
useful control because they have similar accidents to cyclists at
similar rates, and have had for all the time we have records.

You are despite your protestations. Get over it and move on.




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

That if there are reductions in serious to minor injuries that the
serious injury totals will fall? It's very, very simple arithmetic. It
is "common sense", and you don't have any better basis for /your/
assumption.

Got any case study we can look at? Evidently not. Thanks for confiming
that.


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

I said it should be very easy to prove that helmets help /if they do/.
I've looked at plenty of studies and facts, and what they tell me is
there's no tangible reduction in serious injuries from helmet wearing.

You have looked at everytthing except the non-serious injury studies,
alhtough you attempt to make it look like you have.


I even pointed you at www.cyclehelmets.org where there's a large
collection, and a well referenced one at that, containing lots of
citations both ways for anyone to study at their leisure. I have.
Seems like you haven't.

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.\

You're being remarkably simplistic, as is evidenced by your use of
singular "the study" for a huge collection of literature. It is easy to
make a statement based on the serious injury data because it is
controlled by the pedestrian data (demonstrably has been for years).
And if we don't know the effect on minor injuries, well, they are by
definition minor, and aren't going to get people killed.

So, do you agree with me that helmets may be responsible for a portion
of those non-serious injuries being prevented from becoming serious?


jim

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:53:49 +0000, Peter Clinch
brain farted and said nothing:



jim

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:28:57 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

Peter Clinch wrote:
wrote:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly.

Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain
oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings
for helmet wearing.


Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8
million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15
years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced
head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted
riders were more likely to be killed.

* Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the
CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product
Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988.


Hmmm and not a word about th reduction from serious to non-serious,
eh?


jim

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:21:47 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

wrote:

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.


The common feature of all the stats, even for cycle friendly Holland, is
that the characteristics of the accidents that happen are virtually
identical and involve being hit by a motor vehicle most of the time. In
what way is a helmet going to protect you from being hit by a motor
vehicle in the US that its not going to do being hit by a motor vehicle
in Australia or Holland? And how is your helmet going to stop them
shouting at you but not actually running you over?


Apples and oranges Tony. I can lead you to water, but if you don't
want to drink, so be it.


jim

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:04:04 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

wrote:


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.

Speaking as a "European" who has recently covered almost six thousand miles
on the roads of the US, I think I can safely state that driving standards,
and attitudes towards other road users both powered and unpowered, differ as
widely from state to state in the US as they do between countries in Europe.
Personally I find it to be a toss-up between Belgium and California as to
which is the most terrifying place to use the roads.

Well, that may be, but overall? Europe or the US as cycling
friendliest?


Yep, I've cycled in Mexico on the roads and never had a driver
deliberately try to squeeze me to the side of the road. I have that
happen about a half dozen times in San Diego. Our roads are both
smoother and wider than those I covered in Mexico.

I would be convinced that Mexico is more cycxlist friendly, alathough
trying to go through the main business roads in Tijuana is much more
hazardous.

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:59:07 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

wrote:

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


So when you said the "less than "serious" accidents" were "the ones that
without a helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching?" you
actually meant the ones that didn't need an ER visit and stitching? Or
did you just reposition when you realised your current position was not
tenable in the face of the facts?

I suggest you read back up the thread before your mouth writes another
check your ass cannot cash. I have always maintained that non-serious
injuries are the ones that do not take you to the ER. My position has
not changed, just my words so the braindead can understand (their
condition probably caused by one too many accidents without a helmet
;-).



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


Actually numbers of riders decreased which meant as helmet wearing rates
went up so did accident rates and head injury rates per rider. As for
source, I gave that in a follow up post to another person's request.


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


I've cycled all over Europe and all over the US. Not sure there is much
difference. Downtown is downtown and countryside is countryside. The
cars in the US do tend to drive more slowly though. How much have you
done of both to compare?

The question you have avoided is: which is friendliest to cyclists -
the US or Europe?



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


But when what happens in Oz is consistent with the data from elsewhere
in the world including the US one has to ask is it more likely that the
US is similar to the rest of the world or that the laws of physics are
completely different in the US?

You talk physics, I talk about the possibility that helmets may reduce
the severity of a head impact and keep someone from going to the ER.
We've had a couple of people say that is the case anecdoatally. I
guess that is irrelevant to you.

The fact is I destroyed a helmet and did not end up in the hospital
for a head injury. That rock hitting my head would have been a
different matter. That is a fact regardless of whether or not you like
it. All stats aside.



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


Ah the "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up" gambit.

You missed the lead-in question didn't you? My mid definitely knows
that a helmet kept me out of an ER. Can you prove elsewise? No.

The accident happened as described. Accept it or not, your choice. MY
experience proves helmets work in the situation described.



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.


And I'm betting you have never cycled in Europe to make a statement like
that. In fact I have just recruited a keen Californian cyclist who is
finding it most unnerving cycling with European traffic because it is so
much more aggressive than she is used to.


And how many times in Europe have you been deliberately and
calculatedly squeezed to the side of a road by a driver? How many
times in Europe have you had some driver you have never encountered
yell out that they hope someone runs over you? How many times in
Europe have you been run up behind and deliberately bumpered by a car
and then the driver telling you to get off the road and on the
sidewalk?

I'm not addressing an accident here, but cold calculated intimidation
of cyclists by motorists.

Oh yes, and over what time span did all this happen?


jim

wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:28:57 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

Peter Clinch wrote:
wrote:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly.
Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain
oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings
for helmet wearing.

Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8
million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15
years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced
head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted
riders were more likely to be killed.

* Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the
CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product
Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988.


Hmmm and not a word about th reduction from serious to non-serious,
eh?


How so? It said helmets did not reduce head injury rates and you think
that is "not a word"? Curious. I notice also that you do not comment
on the suggestion that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed.
But that doesn't fit with your world view so best ignore it eh?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:30:28 +0000, Colin McKenzie
wrote:

wrote:
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 . . .

I don't need to prove it. You need to prove that I will get some
benefit in exchange for the heat, expense, and inconvenience of riding
with a lump of foam on my head.

Interesting. I don't have a heat problem with a helmet nor an
incovenience from using them. With the venting today, I suspect riding
caps would be far warmer. So, it breaks down to money. As I use
medical so inferequently, my first visit to an ER would be at my
expense and that is a $500 deductable. My last visit to an ER was for
a broken collar bone in 1994 and the bill was for some $1500. Granted
that is higher than some stitching. My money is better used on the
helmet than my medical bills. I know that plastic cannot protect me in
every situation, but they have done so so far.


Meanwhile I have discovered
- that helmets are only designed to cope with impacts too gentle to be
life-threatening

Any impact can be life threatening. How stupid you sound.


- that walking is as hazardous as cycling, and no-one advoates walking
helmets

right


- that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a
healthy activity that on average prolongs life

There is no other intervening variable causing that reduction? I doubt
the direct link.


- that at population level helmets don't save lives or serious
injuries. From which I deduce either
- they make no difference in severe impacts
or
- they make things worse at least as often as they make them better

Does not consider all the varaibles, but it is your call.



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?

Ah, the appeal to emotion. Having looked at the facts I would:
- make sure the bike is in good shape
- make sure the child's bike-control is good enough
- make sure the child understands traffic rules and conventions
- tell him or her a helmet may save cuts and bruises but is unlikely
to save his/her life
- let the child choose to wear a helmet or not

Its not an appeal to emotion. You either believe your posiition or you
don't. I've found that a lot of people who say one thing about their
own riding say quite another when it comes to their kids. You cannot
have it both ways.


Are you willing to take your CHILD with you mountain biking without
that child wearing a helmet?

As long as at least one of us is cautious. Cuts and bruises can spoil
your day and I wouldn't want too many of them.

Noted your caveat. Typical.



jim