Another Helmet Thread

On Monday, June 24, 2013 9:06:14 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:24:08 PM UTC-7, fk wrote:

Incidentally, it's not uncommon to find registration forms with which riders must agree to wear ANSI or Snell approved helmets. (Tour of Colorado is one, IIRC.) But Snell approved helmets are rare as hen's teeth, and the ANSI standard has been out of existence since the mid-1990s.

Someone must not be paying their lawyers enough, eh, Jay? ;-)



How about underwriters. Any language relating to helmets is insurance driven since the release is sufficient alone to bar a claim -- at least in those states where waivers are upheld (a lot of states, including Oregon, uphold waivers relating to athletic and other elective outdoor activities). Insurers have taken a belt and suspenders approach by throwing in the helmet requirement.


I don't know enough about Ohio law to comment on how release signatures are treated. I know our release form was written by a lawyer who was a club member. He claimed that if we required helmets, we were effectively putting a requirement on ourselves to enforce the helmet rule, and he felt that it could make things worse (somehow?) if someone did sue.

I didn't really understand his logic, but then IANAL. Maybe he was competent, maybe not. (He's since passed on from this life.) In any case, I was happy not to have a helmet requirement. Almost all people wore them anyway. The opinion is that they go with lycra, you know.

- Frank Krygowski

Dan writes:

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... ? :-)


Look, Frank, we're just four little words away from accord here.

I don't think a helmet is necessary for *any* bike ride (let alone
*every* bike ride).

I think mandatory helmet laws are unnecessary, and a losing
proposition.

I think comprehensive and continuing education on bicycling and
bicycling for transportation should be available and accessible
to everyone, and that awareness of this should be at least as
uniquitous as what's on TV.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your choice to ride
without a helmet. Nothing wrong with that! I don't think it's
irrational, or anything of the sort.

I would never presume to ask you to compromise your principles,
and if you can't do it, you can't do it. But at least acknowledge
it's only your *opinion* that there's anything wrong with someone
considering a helmet worthwhile protection for their own ordinary
bicycling (I'd really rather hear those four little words, though).

Do I not seem reasonable here? Do you?

On Monday, June 24, 2013 10:02:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

Well, perhaps you don't know how I can be effective. What I know is that I was asked to testify to the state legislators in opposition to a proposed MHL for kids. Two of us testified against it, over a dozen people (nurses, doctors, our local Safe Kids president, one crying kid recounting his bike crash in which his helmet saved his life, etc.) The legislators literally woke up when the two of us testified, and we still have no kids MHL in this state.



And of course, that's _far_ from the only advocacy work I've done. But I'm sure you don't want to hear anything about the rest. Because that would be immodest, right?



So let's just return to discussing data. I worked my entire career in a profession where data was considered critically important, and was analyzed using math and reason. I taught some of those data analysis techniques in the college classroom. Yes, sometimes data sets conflict. There are ways of settling those disputes, of determining the strengths and weaknesses of the varying data sets. Taking offense at the data provider's presentation is not one of them.

I would hope that engineers are making decisions based on data more reliable than the opinion of a barely lucid retiree who responds to a telephone survey. Even when the usage and injury data is more reliable, the conclusions drawn are often suspect -- and can be tied directly to known agendas. That applies to lunatic conclusions on both sides, e.g. that helmets are causing head injuries (based on Amsterdam and other studies showing higher injuries among helmeted riders) to helmets preventing broken legs or 85% of all head injuries. Planning and public health decisions are being made based on conclusions that are hardly more than unsupported assumptions or wishful thinking.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/25/2013 10:35 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2013 10:02:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

Well, perhaps you don't know how I can be effective. What I know is that I was asked to testify to the state legislators in opposition to a proposed MHL for kids. Two of us testified against it, over a dozen people (nurses, doctors, our local Safe Kids president, one crying kid recounting his bike crash in which his helmet saved his life, etc.) The legislators literally woke up when the two of us testified, and we still have no kids MHL in this state.



And of course, that's _far_ from the only advocacy work I've done. But I'm sure you don't want to hear anything about the rest. Because that would be immodest, right?



So let's just return to discussing data. I worked my entire career in a profession where data was considered critically important, and was analyzed using math and reason. I taught some of those data analysis techniques in the college classroom. Yes, sometimes data sets conflict. There are ways of settling those disputes, of determining the strengths and weaknesses of the varying data sets. Taking offense at the data provider's presentation is not one of them.

I would hope that engineers are making decisions based on data more reliable than the opinion of a barely lucid retiree who responds to a telephone survey. Even when the usage and injury data is more reliable, the conclusions drawn are often suspect -- and can be tied directly to known agendas. That applies to lunatic conclusions on both sides, e.g. that helmets are causing head injuries (based on Amsterdam and other studies showing higher injuries among helmeted riders) to helmets preventing broken legs or 85% of all head injuries. Planning and public health decisions are being made based on conclusions that are hardly more than unsupported assumptions or wishful thinking.


I hope that these "experts" don't get some "crying kid" killed in spite
of what the doctors and nurses and others in the trenches say.

The attempts here to pass mandatory helmet laws for children have failed
and probably will continue to fail. But it's not because helmets can't
work or pedestrians don't wear helmets. It's more to do with personal
freedoms and the fact that most kids wear them anyway.

On 6/25/2013 7:35 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

That applies to lunatic conclusions on both sides, e.g. that helmets are causing head injuries (based on Amsterdam and other studies showing higher injuries among helmeted riders) to helmets preventing broken legs or 85% of all head injuries.

Jay, you listed lunatic conclusions only on one side. _Only_ the AHZs
have ever claimed that helmets prevent leg injuries or that helmets
prevent 85% of head injuries. Rivara & Thompson, whose study they are
intentionally misquoting, never made any such claims.

The former is based on either intentionally or unintentionally not
differentiating between correlation and causation. In any study, you can
find strange correlations that are meaningless and that don't imply
causation. For example, if you look at head injuries based on education,
you could conclude that a college degree protects you from injuries.

The latter is based on deliberately taking the data from the Rivara &
Thompson study out of context.

Paradoxically, when you account for the relatively small number of
head-impact crashes, whole population studies show a _greater_ reduction
in head injuries than the Thompson & Rivara study would indicate (while
at the same time finding no reduction in cycling levels as a result of
the legislation). This is not surprising because the Thompson & Rivara
study reports only on crashes where the victim sought medical attention.
They had no way of knowing how many crashes there were where the
presence of a helmet mitigated the injuries to the level where medical
attention was not necessary, but the whole population studies that look
at changes in head injury rates do, by default, take this into account.

Also, fatalities among youth, who are much more often covered by a
mandatory helmet law, plummeted as helmet laws took effect and helmet
usage increased, according to figures from the IIHS
http://www.iihs.org/Renderers/ShowMedia.ashx?i=MediaArchive:55eb8ed8-e98d-4a7f-9617-b26a9047c242.

A major issue with the AHZs is that they lack the skills necessary to
analyze data using critical thinking skills and mathematical analysis.
This creates a perpetual cycle of not accepting, or intentionally lying
about, scientifically sound, statistically sound studies where they
don't like the conclusion, and promotion of junk-science and statistics
which don't prove their position because the research is invalid.

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:35:20 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2013 10:02:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:



snip



Well, perhaps you don't know how I can be effective. What I know is that I was asked to testify to the state legislators in opposition to a proposed MHL for kids. Two of us testified against it, over a dozen people (nurses, doctors, our local Safe Kids president, one crying kid recounting his bike crash in which his helmet saved his life, etc.) The legislators literally woke up when the two of us testified, and we still have no kids MHL in this state.







And of course, that's _far_ from the only advocacy work I've done. But I'm sure you don't want to hear anything about the rest. Because that would be immodest, right?







So let's just return to discussing data. I worked my entire career in a profession where data was considered critically important, and was analyzed using math and reason. I taught some of those data analysis techniques in the college classroom. Yes, sometimes data sets conflict. There are ways of settling those disputes, of determining the strengths and weaknesses of the varying data sets. Taking offense at the data provider's presentation is not one of them.



I would hope that engineers are making decisions based on data more reliable than the opinion of a barely lucid retiree who responds to a telephone survey. Even when the usage and injury data is more reliable, the conclusions drawn are often suspect -- and can be tied directly to known agendas. That applies to lunatic conclusions on both sides, e.g. that helmets are causing head injuries (based on Amsterdam and other studies showing higher injuries among helmeted riders) to helmets preventing broken legs or 85% of all head injuries. Planning and public health decisions are being made based on conclusions that are hardly more than unsupported assumptions or wishful thinking.

I'll agree that public health recommendations and decisions are often faulty. But as a person who has started taking offense at very bland comments, you should use more care in your characterization of retirees. Goose and gander, right?

- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:59:46 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:

I hope that these "experts" don't get some "crying kid" killed in spite

of what the doctors and nurses and others in the trenches say.

Sure. Because so many kids are killed on bikes every year, right? So many greater than the number killed in cars, and the number killed while walking, and the number killed by drowning, and... But don't bother to look up those numbers, because they might actually educate you.

"Danger! Danger!" indeed.

- Frank Krygowski

On 6/25/2013 7:59 AM, Duane wrote:

I hope that these "experts" don't get some "crying kid" killed in spite
of what the doctors and nurses and others in the trenches say.

The attempts here to pass mandatory helmet laws for children have failed
and probably will continue to fail. But it's not because helmets can't
work or pedestrians don't wear helmets. It's more to do with personal
freedoms and the fact that most kids wear them anyway.

You routinely see parents letting their kids do far stupider things than
riding a bicycle without a helmet.

At what point is it necessary to pass a law to compel people to protect
their children? Bicycling without a helmet doesn't qualify as an
activity that needs a law. Yeah, it's a good idea to wear a helmet but
riding without one is usually okay.

When you see doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc. testifying in support of
helmet laws for children it's because they see only the subset of
cyclists that are involved in crashes so they know the benefits of
helmets. Education is working because, as you state, most kids wear
helmets with or without an MHL.

Many parents like having the MHL because if the kid objects to wearing a
helmet they can say "sorry, you have no choice, it's the law," rather
than getting into an argument with them.

On 6/25/2013 9:03 AM, sms wrote:
On 6/25/2013 7:59 AM, Duane wrote:

I hope that these "experts" don't get some "crying kid" killed in spite
of what the doctors and nurses and others in the trenches say.

The attempts here to pass mandatory helmet laws for children have failed
and probably will continue to fail. But it's not because helmets can't
work or pedestrians don't wear helmets. It's more to do with personal
freedoms and the fact that most kids wear them anyway.

You routinely see parents letting their kids do far stupider things than
riding a bicycle without a helmet.

At what point is it necessary to pass a law to compel people to protect
their children? Bicycling without a helmet doesn't qualify as an
activity that needs a law. Yeah, it's a good idea to wear a helmet but
riding without one is usually okay.

When you see doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc. testifying in support of
helmet laws for children it's because they see only the subset of
cyclists that are involved in crashes so they know the benefits of
helmets. Education is working because, as you state, most kids wear
helmets with or without an MHL.

Many parents like having the MHL because if the kid objects to wearing a
helmet they can say "sorry, you have no choice, it's the law," rather
than getting into an argument with them.

On 6/25/2013 12:03 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/25/2013 7:59 AM, Duane wrote:

I hope that these "experts" don't get some "crying kid" killed in spite
of what the doctors and nurses and others in the trenches say.

The attempts here to pass mandatory helmet laws for children have failed
and probably will continue to fail. But it's not because helmets can't
work or pedestrians don't wear helmets. It's more to do with personal
freedoms and the fact that most kids wear them anyway.

You routinely see parents letting their kids do far stupider things than
riding a bicycle without a helmet.


It's hard to legislate against being stupid even when kids are
concerned. It's better to educate than legislate though. When my kid
was in grammar school they suggested that they wear bike helmets. It has
been part of his cycling kit since he started.

At what point is it necessary to pass a law to compel people to protect
their children? Bicycling without a helmet doesn't qualify as an
activity that needs a law. Yeah, it's a good idea to wear a helmet but
riding without one is usually okay.


I don't think it's necessary to pass a law. That's my point. But it's
not because I don't see the benefit of helmets. That's also my point.

When you see doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc. testifying in support of
helmet laws for children it's because they see only the subset of
cyclists that are involved in crashes so they know the benefits of
helmets. Education is working because, as you state, most kids wear
helmets with or without an MHL.

Yes. But I don't like when the AHZs lobby against what the people in
the front lines see and tell them that because of some misinterpreted
statistics that they are wrong. The AHZs always know better than the
people dealing with this directly. If find that a stretch.


Many parents like having the MHL because if the kid objects to wearing a
helmet they can say "sorry, you have no choice, it's the law," rather
than getting into an argument with them.


Maybe. I know that there are kids that snowboard or ski without them.
I guess that there would be kids playing hockey without them if the
leagues let them. This is where the uncertainty comes in with respect
to legislation. Personally, I don't care. My kid wears a cycling helmet
so it won't affect him anyway. So do I most of the time for that
matter. I have no fear that legislating helmets is going to kill
cycling in Montreal. It may kill the bixi but that's another issue.

Lunatics running around telling people that gardening is more dangerous
than cycling in an attempt to fight the MHLs though just paint us all as
lunatics. I would prefer if the discussion was based on reality and not
the usual hyperbole and innuendo that we find here.