advisor wanted

wrote:
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.


You really are fixated on those fruits aren't you. I wish you would
lead me somewhere. So far your wells have been dry. How about you
produce some data where whole population studies have shown an
improvement in injury rates (of any sort) through increases in helmet
wearing rates?


--
Tony

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

wrote:
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.


So you haven't cycled in Europe then and you are imagining what it is
like? Actually the worst of the countries we've discussed to cycle in
is New Zealand IMO and there we have the data that helmets increased
head injury rates.

--
Tony

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

wrote:


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


I've already said, both the same and that from plenty of experience of
both. Which would you say? Ah I forgot you have no experience of
Europe so you don't know


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.


Anecdote is anecdote. It tells you nothing about what is likely to
happen. I know anecdotes of people who jumped out of planes at altitude
without a parachute and walked away uninjured. Doesn't tell you
anything about the advisability of jumping out of a plane without a
parachute

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.


As useful as the anecdote about jumping without a parachute.


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?

You clearly have never ridden in Europe or you would know it is about as
common as in the USA. A Google of uk.rec.cycling will give you plenty
of such stories.


--
Tony

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

wrote:

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

If that is the case then why do you think the rates from serious
injuries will be unaffected by the increasing use of helmets relative to
when no helmets were used?

As for "may do", what "may" happen has a burden of proof both ways.
Where do you have any proof of your assertion? If there is none, why
should anyone treat it as /necessarily/ true?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

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

Still can't demonstrate any casualty savings from helmet use, I see...

That really is the bottom line for saying people should wear them to
make themselves safer. And if helmets make people safer that should be
shown by casualty savings. So where are they?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

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

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.

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

How can you tell without reading it that "head injury" refers purely to
serious head injuries?

And even assuming some do go from serious to non-serious, how will that
*not* affect the serious rates, by reducing them? After all, if you've
removed serious injuries by downgrading them, then there must be fewer
serious injuries. Still not a word from you about how that would not be
the case, and not a word of proof from you that any injuries are taken
from serious to non-serious.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

wrote:

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.

But since non-serious injuries aren't serious, why does this affect your
overall safety on a bike?

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

What measure do you want to use? Have *you* answered it objectively?
That will be "no", then... Once again you ignore the fact that the
burden of proof applies to you just as much as to people who disagree
with you.

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.

Yet you can't come up with any figures to show this is the case. If
they had gone to ER that would have been a serious injury and the
serious injury rate would be higher as a result if your supposition was
correct. The figures don't back you up.

We've had a couple of people say that is the case anecdoatally. I
guess that is irrelevant to you.

It is statistically irrelevant, yes, because the figures take *all* the
anecdotes into account, and all those anecdotes of keeping people out of
ER should be bringing the serious injury rates down with increasing
helmet use. But they aren't.

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.

But you may only have hit the rock in the first place as a result of
wearing the helmet, directly from your head being bigger and heavier
with a helmet on or indirectly through behaviour modified by risk
homeostasis. And if it really did save you a trip to the ER and was
entirely beneficial in that case then it doesn't affect any future
incident when a helmet could make you worse off.

You missed the lead-in question didn't you? My mid definitely knows
that a helmet kept me out of an ER.

As above, you don't, and even if you did it doesn't have any effect on
future incidents where a helmet could hinder things.

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

But you can't guarantee any future accident will be exactly that
situation, so the knowledge is of no use.

And how many times in Europe have you been deliberately and
calculatedly squeezed to the side of a road by a driver?

More than once.

times in Europe have you had some driver you have never encountered
yell out that they hope someone runs over you?

More than once.

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?

Hasn't happened to me, but has happened to others reporting on
uk.rec.cycling

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

More than once.

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

It's been happening to people on and off for years in the UK, and
continues to happen. Recent report in the UK press noted a cyclist was
blinded by an egg thrown from a car.

None of this is an objective measure of hostility, but may filter
through to you that the UK isn't the jolly friendly cycling paradise you
seem to imagine. And even in much more cycle friendly places serious
cyclist injuries tend to be from impacts with motor vehicles and once
you're in those accidents then there is no proof that a helmet makes any
tangible difference to you coming out the other side intact.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Butch wrote:

least you wear a helmet when you go caving and when you ride your
Unicycle.haha

Caving, always... crawling around with rocks everywhere below head
height you'd not have much fun without one... On the Unicycle I
certainly always used the lid when learning, but now I don't generally
take uncontrolled falls from it I rarely bother any more. But I
/always/ wear skater's wrist guards, and have been glad of them more
than once. Even when learning I never hit my head though.

Unfortunately I have experienced a small train crash in France in
1985, I almost never ride in trains.

A problem with anecdotal evidence... trains remain one of the safest
ways to travel, and though they do crash from time to time past personal
experience doesn't affect their overall safety on any subsequent trip.

Your friend Roos is an attractive lady but I never did see her with a
hat while riding the bent?

I almost always wear some sort of hat because I'm bald and like the
extra insulation and sun protection since I burn easily. Roos usually
makes do with just her hair, but she wears a buff, polar buff or cycling
cap at times. No pictures though, I'm afraid.

been there many, many times mostly in the late 60's but also in mid
80's. I always enjoyed it very much, the people are exceptional, as a
matter of fact the statistian I last worked with was Dutch. I agree
that the Dutch are very comfortable on their bikes, but as someone else
said they are also respected by the drivers, this is not at all true
here, especially not in Florida.

That is the biggest difference cycling there. To have people stop and
wave you on when /they/ have right of way just doesn't happen much in
the UK! But accidents happen, and when motor vehicles hit bikes tends
to be when the nasty ones occur, and they occur everywhere, NL included.

You mention sport cycling vs recreational cycling, I guess we mostly
do a combination, we usually ride for a while then race for a while
etc.

Though there's racing and Racing. I think everyone has a burn once in a
while, and I certainly try and spin out my top gear whenever I get on a
big hill with good sightlines, but that's not quite the same as trying
to push the whole time you're on a ride.

Anyway it has been very pleasant chatting with you Peter, if you ever
get to West Central Florida come ride with the Morons, as for me I will
continue to wear my helmet. An unfortunate thing about getting older
is that it takes longer to recover from those injuries every year and I
need all the help I can get.

I have no trouble with folk choosing to wear helmets as long as it's an
informed choice. I am not "anti helmet" and I own and use a helmet
myself, but I do resent being called irresponsible for not pushing them
on to kids heads with no real evidence that they'll help them stay alive
and free of serious injuries, as at least one person around here seems
to continue to think...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

wrote:

- 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.


I've no doubt you doubt it but then you haven't bothered to do any
research on the subject. In all countries/states where helmet laws have
been introduced, cycling has decreased and in those where they have been
introduced but not enforced, helmet wearing peaked and then declined
again while cyclist numbers dipped and then recovered. So the direct
link is pretty conclusive. Just for information here are some of the
figures on cycling decline in the year following the introduction of
mandatory helmet laws:

State Falls in cycle use
Australian Capital Territory 33% to 50%
New South Wales 44% to 90% for children
Northern Territory 50% commuters, 17% to 39% schoolchildren
Queensland 22% to 30% children
South Australia 38% schoolchildren
Victoria 36% to 46% children
Western Australia 26% to 38% overall, more than 50% children
British Columbia 28%
Nova Scotia 40% to 60%.


--
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 23:16:11 -0800, wrote:

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

With such diversity in the United States of America and the
(disunited) sates of Eurpoe it's difficult to say. Even in the UK
there is diversity between the cities.

Generally Portrugal is not very friendly to cyclists, generally
Holland is. I have heard that many US cities are very cyclist
friendly, but not having cycled there myself I won't comment further.