Wife & Whether to Helmet or not to Helmet

wrote:
wrote:

I'd say wear a helmet. If you are in an accident with a vehicle, the
helmet won't make much difference. You'll be dead or not by luck. But
most accidents I see are people crashing by themselves, on railroad
crossings, potholes, with other bikes, pedals breaking, etc. On these
low speed low impact accidents, the helmet works to keep your head from
being cracked open. So what could be a lengthy serious possibly
lifelong injury becomes a mild concussion that you recover from in a
week or so.

That's a statement of faith, not of fact.

The best data shows otherwise - that the helmet will make negligible
difference.

No. Its a fact I have seen first hand several accidents where the
rider smacked his helmet clad head into the pavement. 10-15 mph.
Helmet was crushed. Head had a mild concussion. Riders were driven to
the hospital for a check, instead of an ambulance being called. Riders
were back riding a week or so later. With new helmets.

What facts do you think are not facts in the above statement?



- Frank Krygowski

wrote:

Offroad motorcycling will not only teach you beyond any doubt about the
usefulness of helmets, it will also make it obvious to you that bicycle
helmets are woefully inadequate. Falling from your mtn bike with a
full-face helmet on is a very eye-opening experience. You will be
aghast at the thought of using anything less after that.
....
You
will forever recognize anti-helmet tatements as either sheer ignorance
or trollz.

So, to summarize:

To demonstrate the value of bicycle helmets, you should do a completely
different activity, one that calls you to frequently crash.

That activity will prove to you that bike helmets are woefully
inadequate.

And anyone who doubts the value of a woefully inadequate helmet for an
activity where people _don't_ frequently crash is a troll.

Wonderful logic!

- Frank Krygowski

In article ,
says...

My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
instructed that I should die.

So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?

It's a crapshoot. No way to predict. It's like trying to make that decision
when you figure out you are about to crash and can't avoid it. In that
split second you can decide to ride off the cliff or run into a car. Which of
the choices will get you minimal damage or maximal damage? You can never tell.
---------------
Alex

wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:

... I follow the literature for
professional reasons. Most everything cited here is old news. If
someone wants to give me a link to a real study where the neck injury
issue is addressed directly and not obliquely, I would be hapy to read
it. -- Jay Beattie.

Hey now we're getting somewhere! But to what literature do you refer?

Anything in a peer reviewed journal -- usually with a MedLine cite and
in English (no offense to Sandy or the multilinguals on this NG). If
it is just posted on one of those agenda driven websites (pro or con),
forget it. -- Jay Beattie.

On 28 Apr 2006 12:10:36 -0700,
wrote:


wrote:
wrote:

I'd say wear a helmet. If you are in an accident with a vehicle, the
helmet won't make much difference. You'll be dead or not by luck. But
most accidents I see are people crashing by themselves, on railroad
crossings, potholes, with other bikes, pedals breaking, etc. On these
low speed low impact accidents, the helmet works to keep your head from
being cracked open. So what could be a lengthy serious possibly
lifelong injury becomes a mild concussion that you recover from in a
week or so.

That's a statement of faith, not of fact.

The best data shows otherwise - that the helmet will make negligible
difference.

No. Its a fact I have seen first hand several accidents where the
rider smacked his helmet clad head into the pavement. 10-15 mph.
Helmet was crushed. Head had a mild concussion. Riders were driven to
the hospital for a check, instead of an ambulance being called. Riders
were back riding a week or so later. With new helmets.

What facts do you think are not facts in the above statement?



- Frank Krygowski

Dear Russell,

I doubt that Frank would argue that you have not seen
helmeted riders fall and survive with mild concussions.

But he may be wondering how many unhelmeted riders you have
seen suffer "lengthy serious possibly lifelong injuries" in
similar falls?

The invention of styrofoam helmets in the early 1980's was
not accompanied by any significant reduction in such serious
injuries.

To re-phrase things as nicely as possible, it is a matter of
fact that you have seen people with helmets crash and suffer
mild concussions. But it is a matter of faith or prediction
that a crash injury would have been significantly worse
without a helmet. Since nation-wide records fail to support
the prediction, "faith" is a reasonable description.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Jay Beattie wrote:
wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:

... I follow the literature for
professional reasons. Most everything cited here is old news. If
someone wants to give me a link to a real study where the neck injury
issue is addressed directly and not obliquely, I would be hapy to read
it. -- Jay Beattie.

Hey now we're getting somewhere! But to what literature do you refer?

Anything in a peer reviewed journal -- usually with a MedLine cite and
in English (no offense to Sandy or the multilinguals on this NG). If
it is just posted on one of those agenda driven websites (pro or con),
forget it. -- Jay Beattie.

I do not disagree; my point is that the statement "I am not aware of
...." is totally useless without context, in other words, where you have
looked. "Anything in a peer reviewed journal" does not help. Tell
us what journals you read regularly, and which you read sometimes, etc,
otherwise your statement is value-free.

Doug

wrote:
wrote:

I'd say wear a helmet. If you are in an accident with a vehicle, the
helmet won't make much difference. You'll be dead or not by luck. But
most accidents I see are people crashing by themselves, on railroad
crossings, potholes, with other bikes, pedals breaking, etc. On these
low speed low impact accidents, the helmet works to keep your head from
being cracked open. So what could be a lengthy serious possibly
lifelong injury becomes a mild concussion that you recover from in a
week or so.

That's a statement of faith, not of fact.

It is both. The two are not mutually exclusive. What you meant was
that it is a statement of faith, not of knowlege. No reason you can't
make a leap of faith and arrive at a fact.

It would also be a leap of faith to say that the sun is going to rise
tomorrow. We cannot know that. And it doesn't matter. Whether or not
it is known to us or is a fact or not is totally completely irrelevant.
It is so likely that we may as well assume/pretend to know it for
sure.

I remember what it feels like to hit my head on the playground, among
other things. I have also crashed and hit my head while wearing a bike
helmet. I know a little about styrafoam from poking it with my
fingers. I, like Russell, don't need conclusive scientific evidence or
proof to have arrived at fact - and to know it - through reasoning.

Why I am responding to a troll, -that- I don't understand.

wrote:
On 28 Apr 2006 12:10:36 -0700,

The invention of styrofoam helmets in the early 1980's was
not accompanied by any significant reduction in such serious
injuries.

Who cares? A trivial resuction would be worth obtaining, especially if
you are the individual to whom it happens or doesn't.

Remember, the likelihood of an event happening is only half the
equation. The price to be paid if it does is the other.

wrote:
wrote:

Offroad motorcycling will not only teach you beyond any doubt about the
usefulness of helmets, it will also make it obvious to you that bicycle
helmets are woefully inadequate. Falling from your mtn bike with a
full-face helmet on is a very eye-opening experience. You will be
aghast at the thought of using anything less after that.
...
You
will forever recognize anti-helmet tatements as either sheer ignorance
or trollz.

So, to summarize:

To demonstrate the value of bicycle helmets, you should do a completely
different activity, one that calls you to frequently crash.

Actually it is a very similar activity. You are really scraping the
bottom of the barrel, troll!

And anyone who doubts the value of a woefully inadequate helmet for an
activity where people _don't_ frequently crash is a troll.

You left out sheer ignorance. Again, you are scrapin the bottom of the
barrell for arguments.

Wonderful logic!

Thanks! Note that all the same statements could all be made about
automobile seat belts, too. Crashing a lot of cars with dummies in
them in a short amount of time will reveal lots about seatbelts, too.

dkl

On 27 Apr 2006 00:47:33 -0700, wrote:

I'll bet speed is an important factor. Cyclists in the US I'm guessing
tend more to be fitness-types who are probably riding on average much
faster than the average Dutch rider. In The Netherlands, you get all
sorts of normal people and old ladies riding bikes around at 3 mph in
addition to their fitness-types. Sure you can get seriously injured
getting doored at 3mph, but crashing at 25mph is a much better way to
ensure adequate injury!

Standard speed around here for the regular traffic is between 15 and 25
kph. At 3 mph people fall off their bikes because they're going too slow.

Jasper