Another Helmet Thread

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 21:49:49 +0300, davethedave wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 11:21:46 -0700, Jay Beattie wrote:


I would even go with (4): an unknown percentage of sometime-riders will
decide not to ride if helmet use is made mandatory. These riders will
miss the health benefits incidental to riding their bikes to and from
the neighborhood smoke shop or liquor store.

Good job dude! I've run out of cigarettes and I can score a few beers
while I'm out too. Oh no! I've only got 10 minutes to get there before
beer stops at 10.00pm.

I know!

I'll take the bike.

pfffffffft chissssssh!

Ahhhh!

Ice cold Efes.

Obtained without a helmet no less.

Cheers all.
--
davethedave

On 6/23/2013 11:21 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

I would even go with (4): an unknown percentage of sometime-riders will decide not to ride if helmet use is made mandatory. These riders will miss the health benefits incidental to riding their bikes to and from the neighborhood smoke shop or liquor store.

I wonder what that percentage really is. When motorcycle helmets were
made mandatory in many states there was some grumbling about it but very
few people stopped riding. Similarly, when bicycle helmets were made
mandatory in some countries and provinces there was no sustained drop in
cycling levels, just a blip for a short period of time.

Where an MHL could have an effect on riding levels is in bike sharing
programs.

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:57:09 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

LAB numbers are national -- that's what I'm getting at. Look at the XL spread sheet on the LAB link.

I'll try to to check them out in the next couple days. I've got a busy time coming up (for a retired guy, anyway).

His post also suggests that wearing a helmet somehow increased the number of head injuries, which is totally unsupported.

Not so! Here's another instance:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-injuries.html



or if you prefer a more capitalist version,



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...659207918.html

Why are they banning helmets? Because they definitely increase concussions. How about that!



You're kidding, right? We've been through this with boxing helmets.

I don't remember what we've been through about boxing helmets, but the guys doing the banning of those helmets are certainly _not_ kidding! What makes you think they are completely wrong? And what makes you think the mechanism wouldn't apply to bike helmets as well? (Physics, please, not lawyerese.)

And as I mentioned a long time ago in this thread, the definition of TBI has changed three times of the last ten or so years which could explain the increase.


Has the definition of "concussion" changed? That's the specific thing they're talking about.



Yes, it has. http://websters-dictionary-online.co...ion/Concussion (scroll down).


I looked, but that's an awful lot of scrolling to find whatever unspecified passage you're thinking of. How about a quote, and a brief explanation of how it is relevant?


_Bicycling_ has been rah-rah about helmets ever since about 1980, which is (coincidentally?) about the time when Bell began pouring lots of money into advertising. Were you reading the magazine? I remember when they wrote against "forcing the issue" (through helmet laws). I remember when almost all the photos showed cyclists with no helmets. Of course, brain injury among cyclists was never a topic. Then they gradually moved to strong endorsement of helmets, with letters to the editor talking about "my life was saved." Next was a "No photos (of white guys in America) without helmets" policy. (Africans, Asians etc. might still slip in.) It's hard to be unbiased when a large portion of your advertising is based on styrofoam!


Here is the article: http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/ Frank picks parts of the article and ignores the rest.


Which part should get more emphasis? The author's search for a helmet he believes will actually work? The difficulty and cost in finding the same?


To be fair, I picked the parts with the numbers. I ignored the "bike helmets save countless lives every year" because it's completely uncorroborated, and demonstrably false. Apparently you decided it was important because... well, maybe because you actually believe it, despite the lack of evidence. Who knows?







I really don't care whether a person does or does not wear a helmet....







Nor do I. Most of the people I ride with wear them. Now, about the color of their shorts... ;-)







...but selectively citing articles, picking and choosing data, etc. to promote an agenda is not acceptable by either side.







Really?? Have you not read _any_ helmet promotion material in the past 20 years??



Helmet promotion by whom? WHO or other health organizations -- or do you mean the manufacturers? To the extent you are talking about studies showing the effectiveness of helmets, then yes, I've been reading them on this NG for over a decade. If you mean advertisements or promotion by manufacturers, then qualified "no." I haven't seen any safety claims from manufacturers in years.

By "helmet promotion" I mean all of the thousands of pamphlets, articles, bike safety talks, videos, websites, TV spots, radio spots, advertisements, laws, etc. that tell people "Always wear a helmet" or "Never bike without a helmet" or "Wearing a helmet is the single most important bike safety strategy" or "A helmet can save your life" or other tripe. Surely, you can't pretend you've missed _all_ that!

Of course you haven't seen claims from manufacturers. You're a lawyer; you, of all people, should certainly understand why they don't claim any safety benefit. What they do instead is fund organizations like Safe Kids to do their claims and their lobbying for them.

Ski helmets have proliferated, yet the lift lines haven't shortened. Bicycle helmets have proliferated, yet the numbers nationally and in Portland have doubled (quadrupled in PDX in 15 years). There are far more people on bikes on the road today than there were in the helmetless society of 1973 or so -- before the introduction of the Bell Bucket tortoise shell helmet. The claimed "danger, danger" argument would resonate with me more if there were reductions in the numbers of cylclists.

Oh please! For a long, long time there _were_ huge reductions in the number of cyclists. In areas with enforced MHLs the reductions were large, sudden and perfectly synchronized with the start of the laws. The effect was obvious to anyone with more processing capability than a Scharf.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's impossible to exert a positive influence on bike use. As a hypothetical example, if car use were forbidden, bike use would soar even in the presence of an enforced MHL. (However, the MHL would be gone before the next election.) We happen to be living in a time (and perhaps it will last a few years) when riding a bike is trendy again, much like the early 1970s. Fashion has driven a rise in biking, and the myths about the safety of bike lanes, etc. have partially countered the years of "Danger!" myths, so things are picking up. But that certainly doesn't prove that helmet pushing has no negative influence!

Even in the population that is subject to MHLs in Portland, ridership is up. http://bikeportland.org/2012/12/10/c...ime-ever-81089



(we won't talk too much about that stat, because I don't believe the percentages of kids on bikes is anywhere near what it was when I was a kid)

And being "up" from a very low value does not prove that helmets did not contribute to producing the very low value. Surely you understand that!


So why aren't people scared in Portland, yet they are supposedly scared off by the "danger, danger" message elsewhere? Portland is not that hospitable weather-wise, and the roads are poor in many parts of town. There are a lot of reasons for not riding in this city.

In case you _really_ don't understand: First, Portland is one of the U.S. cities with the healthiest, densest city centers. (A great many U.S. cities have been described as "donuts" with nothing of value in the old city center.) It has lots of non-slum housing close to the center. (My kid told me NE Portland was described as the "bad" area of town. She though it was ludicrous. It's better than the "good" areas of many cities around here.) The climate is mild, with even hot summer days featuring low humidity, unlike the East. It has an undeniable hipster culture ("Keep Portland Weird!") and a relatively young population. It's got a uniquely good public transit system, much better than almost all U.S. cities, which is important for making car ownership optional, and for backup (flat tire?) or extending a bike's capabilities (multi-mode travel). Hell, it's even got Zip Cars. It has a bicycle advocacy organization and culture that, despite its frequent insanity ("Ooooh, cycle tracks!!!!") is about the most active in the country.. It's got... oh hell, do I _really_ need to go on?

So rather than taking a narrow focus on the helmet debate, you should answer the question of what has caused numbers to boom here and in other cities, notwithstanding increased voluntary helmet usage (indicating an apparently scared population of cyclists).

One of the rules of life is that we each get to focus on what _we_ think is important, at least in our own time. (And I think it was Darwin who noted that we need _someone_ to focus on every bit of the world, even earthworms..)

You think the "Bicycling is dangerous!" propaganda and the associated "You must always wear a helmet!" propaganda is unimportant. But FWIW, I've been praised by significant people in bicycling advocacy - nationally known people whose names you would immediately recognize - for the writing and other work I've done on these issues. If you disagree with them about the importance of these issues, fine; work on something else.

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:57:09 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

LAB numbers are national -- that's what I'm getting at. Look at the XL spread sheet on the LAB link.

I'll try to to check them out in the next couple days. I've got a busy time coming up (for a retired guy, anyway).

His post also suggests that wearing a helmet somehow increased the number of head injuries, which is totally unsupported.

Not so! Here's another instance:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-injuries.html



or if you prefer a more capitalist version,



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...659207918.html

Why are they banning helmets? Because they definitely increase concussions. How about that!



You're kidding, right? We've been through this with boxing helmets.

I don't remember what we've been through about boxing helmets, but the guys doing the banning of those helmets are certainly _not_ kidding! What makes you think they are completely wrong? And what makes you think the mechanism wouldn't apply to bike helmets as well? (Physics, please, not lawyerese.)


I believe it had something to do with "cyclists not dodging punches".


And as I mentioned a long time ago in this thread, the definition of TBI has changed three times of the last ten or so years which could explain the increase.


Has the definition of "concussion" changed? That's the specific thing they're talking about.



Yes, it has. http://websters-dictionary-online.co...ion/Concussion (scroll down).


I looked, but that's an awful lot of scrolling to find whatever unspecified passage you're thinking of. How about a quote, and a brief explanation of how it is relevant?


Understanding of TBI is growing by leaps and bounds. Where have you
been?

snip


Helmet promotion by whom? WHO or other health organizations -- or do you mean the manufacturers? To the extent you are talking about studies showing the effectiveness of helmets, then yes, I've been reading them on this NG for over a decade. If you mean advertisements or promotion by manufacturers, then qualified "no." I haven't seen any safety claims from manufacturers in years.

By "helmet promotion" I mean all of the thousands of pamphlets, articles, bike safety talks, videos, websites, TV spots, radio spots, advertisements, laws, etc. that tell people "Always wear a helmet" or "Never bike without a helmet" or "Wearing a helmet is the single most important bike safety strategy" or "A helmet can save your life" or other tripe. Surely, you can't pretend you've missed _all_ that!

Of course you haven't seen claims from manufacturers. You're a lawyer; you, of all people, should certainly understand why they don't claim any safety benefit. What they do instead is fund organizations like Safe Kids to do their claims and their lobbying for them.


See my earlier post today re; countering misinformation vs. derisive
invalidation of reasonable individual choice.


Ski helmets have proliferated, yet the lift lines haven't shortened. Bicycle helmets have proliferated, yet the numbers nationally and in Portland have doubled (quadrupled in PDX in 15 years). There are far more people on bikes on the road today than there were in the helmetless society of 1973 or so -- before the introduction of the Bell Bucket tortoise shell helmet. The claimed "danger, danger" argument would resonate with me more if there were reductions in the numbers of cylclists.

Oh please! For a long, long time there _were_ huge reductions in the number of cyclists. In areas with enforced MHLs the reductions were large, sudden and perfectly synchronized with the start of the laws. The effect was obvious to anyone with more processing capability than a Scharf.


That was kind of weird - and isolated. There are a lot of factors
unaccounted for in participation rates, and I don't think the data
is comprehensive, anyway.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's impossible to exert a positive influence on bike use. As a hypothetical example, if car use were forbidden, bike use would soar even in the presence of an enforced MHL. (However, the MHL would be gone before the next election.) We happen to be living in a time (and perhaps it will last a few years) when riding a bike is trendy again, much like the early 1970s. Fashion has driven a rise in biking, and the myths about the safety of bike lanes, etc. have partially countered the years of "Danger!" myths, so things are picking up. But that certainly doesn't prove that helmet pushing has no negative influence!


"Trendy". There's that; but there's more than that. Revolution is up
around the bend. Revolution is messy.

Even in the population that is subject to MHLs in Portland, ridership is up. http://bikeportland.org/2012/12/10/c...ime-ever-81089



(we won't talk too much about that stat, because I don't believe the percentages of kids on bikes is anywhere near what it was when I was a kid)

And being "up" from a very low value does not prove that helmets did not contribute to producing the very low value. Surely you understand that!


The balanced thinking around here all stipulates that helmet promotion
will have a depressing effect on participation, but... see my earlier
post today re; those people who would rather not ride are apt to find
some excuse.


So why aren't people scared in Portland, yet they are supposedly scared off by the "danger, danger" message elsewhere? Portland is not that hospitable weather-wise, and the roads are poor in many parts of town. There are a lot of reasons for not riding in this city.

In case you _really_ don't understand: First, Portland is one of the U.S.. cities with the healthiest, densest city centers. (A great many U.S. cities have been described as "donuts" with nothing of value in the old city center.) It has lots of non-slum housing close to the center. (My kid told me NE Portland was described as the "bad" area of town. She though it was ludicrous. It's better than the "good" areas of many cities around here.) The climate is mild, with even hot summer days featuring low humidity, unlike the East. It has an undeniable hipster culture ("Keep Portland Weird!") and a relatively young population. It's got a uniquely good public transit system, much better than almost all U.S. cities, which is important for making car ownership optional, and for backup (flat tire?) or extending a bike's capabilities (multi-mode travel). Hell, it's even got Zip Cars. It has a bicycle advocacy organization and culture that, despite its frequent insanity ("Ooooh, cycle tracks!!!!") is about the most active in the country. It's got... oh hell, do I _really_ need to go on?


Revolution Now!

So rather than taking a narrow focus on the helmet debate, you should answer the question of what has caused numbers to boom here and in other cities, notwithstanding increased voluntary helmet usage (indicating an apparently scared population of cyclists).

One of the rules of life is that we each get to focus on what _we_ think is important, at least in our own time. (And I think it was Darwin who noted that we need _someone_ to focus on every bit of the world, even earthworms.)

You think the "Bicycling is dangerous!" propaganda and the associated "You must always wear a helmet!" propaganda is unimportant. But FWIW, I've been praised by significant people in bicycling advocacy - nationally known people whose names you would immediately recognize - for the writing and other work I've done on these issues. If you disagree with them about the importance of these issues, fine; work on something else.


That's your thing, and I've acknowledged that a lot of what you say
makes good sense. Now watch this: "Nothing wrong with that." (See
how easy that was? I'm not a helmet promoting zealot.)

writes:

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:57:09 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:



snip


Here is the article: http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/ Frank picks parts of the article and ignores the rest.


Oooo... I can't believe I missed this part before.


Which part should get more emphasis? The author's search for a helmet he believes will actually work? The difficulty and cost in finding the same?


Yes!! That's exactly where the emphasis should be! Instead of blowing
it off and sweeping it under the rug and actually *exploiting* the lame
quality of typical helmets to further your argument against helmets
on philosophical grounds.

insert link to POC Sports here


To be fair, I picked the parts with the numbers. I ignored the "bike helmets save countless lives every year" because it's completely uncorroborated, and demonstrably false. Apparently you decided it was important because... well, maybe because you actually believe it, despite the lack of evidence. Who knows?


Well, you do seem to claim that they don't show up on the counts. Is
that anything like "countless"?

(You can demonstrate "saves countless lives" is false?)



...but selectively citing articles, picking and choosing data, etc. to promote an agenda is not acceptable by either side.



Really?? Have you not read _any_ helmet promotion material in the past 20 years??


And that's acceptable?

snip

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 6/23/2013 11:21 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:



I would even go with (4): an unknown percentage of sometime-riders will decide not to ride if helmet use is made mandatory. These riders will miss the health benefits incidental to riding their bikes to and from the neighborhood smoke shop or liquor store.



I wonder what that percentage really is. When motorcycle helmets were

made mandatory in many states there was some grumbling about it but very

few people stopped riding.

Oh, good grief! See http://www.miabateregion11.info/bulletsforhelmetlaw.htm
" After Louisiana reinstated a mandatory helmet law in 1982, the NUMBER of fatalities decreased ONLY because of a substantial DECREASE in the number of registered motorcyclists. The fatality rate (fatalities per 100 accidents) actually went UP, which is contrary to what is implied by the opponents of an adult choice option." Then take it to a motorcycle discussion group, please.

Similarly, when bicycle helmets were made

mandatory in some countries and provinces there was no sustained drop in

cycling levels, just a blip for a short period of time.

In Western Australia, for example, that "blip" of a drop has existed for only about 20 years. Too soon for Scharf to tell anything, I guess!

Where an MHL could have an effect on riding levels is in bike sharing

programs.

Well golly! IIRC, not that long ago, he was claiming helmet laws wouldn't have an effect even there!

- Frank Krygowski

Dan writes:

writes:


snip


One of the rules of life is that we each get to focus on what _we_ think is important, at least in our own time. (And I think it was Darwin who noted that we need _someone_ to focus on every bit of the world, even earthworms.)

You think the "Bicycling is dangerous!" propaganda and the associated "You must always wear a helmet!" propaganda is unimportant. But FWIW, I've been praised by significant people in bicycling advocacy - nationally known people whose names you would immediately recognize - for the writing and other work I've done on these issues. If you disagree with them about the importance of these issues, fine; work on something else.


That's your thing, and I've acknowledged that a lot of what you say
makes good sense. Now watch this: "Nothing wrong with that." (See
how easy that was? I'm not a helmet promoting zealot.)

You can't say, "Nothing wrong with that", to a personal choice to
use a helmet for one's own ordinary bicycling, because you think
acknowledging *any* potential benefit is ammunition for the your
arch enemies the pro-MHL zealots.

But that's not the right ammunition to be afraid of - mostly because
helmets *do* offer very significant potential benefit. Your ammunition
is that the downside of MHL (and helmet promotion that exaggerates its
significance) to society outweighs the upside _to society_.

It's a good case. Stick to it.

On Monday, June 24, 2013 12:01:47 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
fk writes:


To be fair, I picked the parts with the numbers. I ignored the "bike helmets save countless lives every year" because it's completely uncorroborated, and demonstrably false. Apparently you decided it was important because... well, maybe because you actually believe it, despite the lack of evidence. Who knows?


(You can demonstrate "saves countless lives" is false?)

According to what seems to be the best study on the issue, they don't even save any detectable number of hospitalizations, not even when helmet use rises from 30% to 90% within a couple years. And the author of that study (Paul Scuffham) said in a footnote that the fatality count for his country was far too small to have any importance. That's with or without helmets.

I've also linked several times to the data comparing pedestrian fatalities to bike fatalities over roughly 20 years. In the U.S., pedestrian fatalities fell by a greater percentage than bike fatalities. If bike helmets were saving "countless lives," it should have been obvious in that data.

Fragile, oversized bike helmets do generate lots of heartfelt stories. They don't seem to keep people out of the hospital or morgue. That's what the numbers say, Dan. (But yes, I remember, you don't care about the data.)

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, June 24, 2013 12:22:17 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:

You can't say, "Nothing wrong with that", to a personal choice to

use a helmet for one's own ordinary bicycling, because you think

acknowledging *any* potential benefit is ammunition for the your

arch enemies the pro-MHL zealots.

Absolutely false. I've said many times that I don't care if you (or others) wear a helmet.

Most of the people I ride with wear helmets. They don't hear a word from me on the subject unless they start an argument. The salmon and sidewalk rider I talked with in the pastry shop the other day had a helmet. I didn't mention a word about it.

Now, if someone _does_ start telling me to wear a helmet, I will respond; and yes, that does happen, and sometimes with astonishing rudeness! The friend I'll ride with tomorrow was with me when I was shouted and sworn at because my wife and I didn't wear them. The friend said she was astonished that I kept my temper, and that she would have exploded at the jerk.

Which really is representative of the general trends. Helmet promoters yell "Where's your helmet?" or much worse. Helmet promoters pass laws forbidding individual or parental choice. Helmet promoters write rules saying "You're not allowed on this ride (on public roads!) unless you wear a helmet and agree that bicycling is dangerous."

Yet people who are skeptical, based on years of study of data, are the ones called "Zealots." Go figure!

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

On Monday, June 24, 2013 12:22:17 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:

You can't say, "Nothing wrong with that", to a personal choice to

use a helmet for one's own ordinary bicycling, because you think

acknowledging *any* potential benefit is ammunition for the your

arch enemies the pro-MHL zealots.

Absolutely false. I've said many times that I don't care if you (or others) wear a helmet.


Let's hear it, then (four little words). Can he do it... ? :-)

snip