First Helmet : jury is out.

Frank K wrote in part:

I can't generate many weird anecdotes, anyway. I've had only one
super-slow on-road fall in over 30 years, and I've never come close to
hitting my head. Not very remarkable.

Just like most cyclists' experiences, I dare say.


That's where you're wrong Frank. Your injury free cycling career is the
exception, not the rule.

Robert

Frank Krygowski [/i]
neil0502 wrote: [but I'm going to edit a bit. Neil's post is
very unclear as to who wrote what. I'm going to attempt to
insert double before what I actually said.] [Neil, please
learn how to respond correctly!] [/quote]

[pedantry and dogmatism ignored....]

Originally posted by Frank Krygowski


Originally posted by Frank Krygowski

So, George, in your 14 years on that job, have you ever
seen any motorists who were head injured?

How about pedestrians?

Please tell us a couple tales about them.

Because it seems that motorists suffer far more serious
head injuries than cyclists. Motorists are about 50% of
America's head injury fatalities, for example. Cyclists
are less than 1%.

And pedestrian traffic deaths far outnumber cyclist
traffic deaths. The same is true for pedestrian head
injury deaths, either in absolute numbers or on a per-
hour basis.

I'm still looking for sound reasons for not wearing a
bicycle helmet. I've read people's comments that helmets
are not particularly comfortable, may be warmer than not
wearing one, and that they may alter the environmental
sounds that you hear while riding.

For me (again, YMMV), those are pretty small prices to
pay (many of them can also be dramatically mitigated
through appropriate helmet selection and fitting)--
especially as one who took a header over the bars ten
days ago on an mtb ride, landing smack dab on my $20 Bell
and putting a 4" hole in it. Feel secure in saying: that
would have been my head.

The reason I continue to play advocate here is simple:
there's a very vocal and adamant group of people on this
NG who would have us believe that helmets are useless, or
worse. I think it's reasonable to present new cyclists
with an opposing viewpoint that says, quite simply,
wearing a (properly selected, well-fitting) helmet
probably won't hurt you, and it could minimize your
injuries in the event of a crash.

It's possible your helmet did protect you in that fall.
And it's possible it didn't. Such accidents can't be
reproduced in tests.

But the data from large populations that suddenly adopted
helmets makes things pretty clear: despite all the
interesting stories helmet proponents generate, the
protective effect against serious head injuries is barely
detectable, if at all. Such data completely belies the
most frequent claim of helmet effectiveness, the "85%
reduction" claim.

Furthermore, data on sources of serious head injuries makes
something else clear: cycling is NOT a significant source!
It's danger, either in absolute terms or relative terms, is
not significantly worse than the danger of walking near
traffic or riding in a car.

This doesn't mean that you can't wear a helmet while
cycling. Wearing a helmet is just as legal as wearing purple
bike shorts - it's up to you.

But it does open the question: why would you recommend it to
someone? Why recommend an unproven protective measure
against an imaginary hazard?

Again, misstates what I said. I think it's prudent and appropriate to let people know that there seems to be no valid support for any substantive downside to wearing a properly selected, well-fitting helmet, and--while the numbers may be suspect--there seems to be a whole bunch of anecdotal data that say helmets save lives or reduce magnitude of injury. From there, I think people should be entitled to make up their minds.

Originally posted by Frank Krygowski



Now let me qualify that a bit: if you're a person who's
going to be thrashing around woods and rocks on a mountain
bike, you almost certainly are at real risk of hitting your
head. And the hit (unlike most serious bike crashes) is
probably within the narrow window of a helmet's protection.

Personally, I avoid such riding. [snip]

From what I'm seeing on this NG, however, many new posters don't avoid such riding. Many posters engage in many different kinds of cycling--a good thing, I believe. If you would advocate helmet use for MTB riders, then--unless you qualify that in any disussion where you question their effectiveness or lampoon statistics in support, you are doing a disservice to the reader, and leaving your own assertions rather suspect.

[snip] (at least I'm trying....)

Originally posted by Frank Krygowski


Or in less biblical terms, you're disparaging cycling.
Why do the safety freaks always disparage cycling?

Again, Frank: I don't see where this poster (or I, or any
other poster) "disparaged cycling."

Someone saying cycling is so unusually dangerous that a
helmet is necessary is disparaging cycling. Sorry, but
that's the fact.

Actually, that would be an opinion. To put it forward as a fact is simply to be dogmatic. Further, it was not my opinion, nor is it an opinion that I've heard espoused here. What I have read is people saying they believe helmet use to be safer than non helmet-use. I fail to see how that is a disparaging comment. My perspective was even a bit more bland: I think people making sincere inquiry on the subject deserve a relatively objective view of the facts.

Originally posted by Frank Krygowski


Very little is accomplished by you calling names
("freaks"),

Well, I'm sorry if that offended. In that context, the word
"freak" isn't necessarily an insult. Haven't you ever called
yourself a bike freak? I certainly have.

(just staying with your "I/you" theme here) Me calling myself something is different from you calling me something. When--in your posts--you digress from rationality with baseless accusations, misstatement of others' posts, and hyperbole, it's difficult to read "name calling" in the most benign context.

Originally posted by Frank Krygowski


or leveling unfounded accusations (that anybody is
advocating either mandatory helmet legislation, or
preventing you from legally riding your bike helmet-
free).

If you don't want to wear a helmet while cycling, Frank,
that's okay. I'd be interested to hear if there's anybody
on this NG who thinks that it's not okay for you to make
that choice.

Like it or not, the positions of the two sides in this
debate are NOT symmetrical. Helmet skeptics tend to give
scientific findings from large populations, actual
assessments of actual helmet use, numerical figures from
impact tests, comparative numerical data on the safety of
cycling ... and helmet skeptics NEVER say helmet use should
be outlawed.

Helmet promoters tend to re-use only one number ("85%") from
one tiny, discredited study. They give scare stories and
anecdotes, avoid comparative data ... and DO say bareheaded
cycling should be outlawed.

The most prominent pro-helmet website is quite upfront about
its author's enthusiasm for mandatory helmet laws, and not
just for kids. Likewise, Safe Kids Inc. pushes for all-ages
helmet laws, with kids' laws being the first step. And
helmets have been mandated for kids in many states, as well
as for all ages in Australia, New Zealand, Spain, and
several US municipalities.

I think it's important to note that if the anti-helmet faction convinces an undecided newbie to ride without a helmet (and the newbie happened to be an undeclared mtb rider), then this mtb rider takes a header and cracks his scull, the outcome was tragic and avoidable.

If, on the other hand, some helmet zealots convince a newbie roadie to wear a $20 Bell from now on, and this roadie clocks 15,000 accident free miles, then the damage done will have been . . . will have been . . . . Now you see, that's where I keep getting stuck. I guess the damage will have been:
a) $20 wasted
b) some more calories burned
c) some extra sweat on hot days
d) something about 'distorted environmental sounds'

[quote][i]Originally posted by Frank Krygowski wrote:
You may think this is all fine, but I don't. Especially since
imposition of helmet laws and helmet promotion has been shown to
seriously reduce cycling.
I am consciously pro-cycling. I see overenthusiastic helmet promotion as
being anti-cycling. So I'll tell what I know about the issue, using
actual facts.
I can't generate many weird anecdotes, anyway. I've had only one super-
slow on-road fall in over 30 years, and I've never come close to hitting
my head. Not very remarkable.
Just like most cyclists' experiences, I dare say.



I'm pro- good, solid, objective information and personal choice. In
closing, two things:

1) May you have another 30yrs of accident free cycling. You are to be
commended;
2) Still trying to get somebody to tell me the downside of helmet use
(again . . . to be clear . . . that's not a position of helmet
advocacy . . . . )

Neil



--

neil0502 wrote:

{Hugh Jass Memorial Snip ---convoluted posting style and gross verbosity
amundo}[i]

[quote]Originally posted by Frank Krygowski wrote:
You may think this is all fine, but I don't. Especially since
imposition of helmet laws and helmet promotion has been shown to
seriously reduce cycling.
I am consciously pro-cycling. I see overenthusiastic helmet
promotion as being anti-cycling. So I'll tell what I know about
the issue, using actual facts.
I can't generate many weird anecdotes, anyway. I've had only one
super- slow on-road fall in over 30 years, and I've never come
close to hitting my head. Not very remarkable.
Just like most cyclists' experiences, I dare say.



I'm pro- good, solid, objective information and personal choice. In
closing, two things:

1) May you have another 30yrs of accident free cycling. You are to be
commended;
2) Still trying to get somebody to tell me the downside of helmet use
(again . . . to be clear . . . that's not a position of helmet
advocacy . . . . )

Neil

OMFG, do you honestly expect anyone to read much less follow this ridiculous
crap??? That was got to be the most unreadable post I've ever seen
(couldn't bring myself to leave it all, but it was way WORSE than what's
left above). And I'm subjected to M^V rants in AM-B!

Bill "only good thing is it's a h*lmet thread, so who cares" S.

In article , r15757
@aol.com says...

....

I got nothin'. Thanks for the citation. What really jumps out there is that .34
for peds as opposed to .17 for motor vehicles. I would be interested to see how
Robinson gathered his numbers. Do you know? The suggestion that walking around
is twice as likely as driving to result in a head injury _death_ I find
far-fetched.

I don't. Have you ever looked at the numbers of pedestrians in major
cities who cut in and out of traffic, hoping it will stop for them?
Especially kids.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

In article , r15757
@aol.com says...
Frank K wrote in part:

I can't generate many weird anecdotes, anyway. I've had only one
super-slow on-road fall in over 30 years, and I've never come close to
hitting my head. Not very remarkable.

Just like most cyclists' experiences, I dare say.


That's where you're wrong Frank. Your injury free cycling career is the
exception, not the rule.

I doubt it. My last injury was over 30 years ago as well, when I hit a
patch of ice I wasn't expecting while riding in the dark.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

S O R N I wrote:
neil0502 wrote:
{Hugh Jass Memorial Snip ---convoluted posting style and gross
verbosity amundo}

Originally posted by Frank Krygowski wrote:
You may think this is all fine, but I don't. Especially since
imposition of helmet laws and helmet promotion has been shown to
seriously reduce cycling. I am consciously pro-cycling. I see
overenthusiastic helmet
promotion as being anti-cycling. So I'll tell what I know about
the issue, using actual facts.
I can't generate many weird anecdotes, anyway. I've had only one
super- slow on-road fall in over 30 years, and I've never come
close to hitting my head. Not very remarkable.
Just like most cyclists' experiences, I dare say.



I'm pro- good, solid, objective information and personal choice. In
closing, two things:

1) May you have another 30yrs of accident free cycling. You are to be
commended;
2) Still trying to get somebody to tell me the downside of helmet use
(again . . . to be clear . . . that's not a position of helmet
advocacy . . . . )

Neil
OMFG, do you honestly expect anyone to read much less follow this
ridiculous crap??? That was got to be the most unreadable post I've ever
seen (couldn't bring myself to leave it all, but it was way WORSE than
what's left above). And I'm subjected to M^V rants in AM-B!
Bill "only good thing is it's a h*lmet thread, so who cares"
S.


Actually, Bill -- at least on my browser -- it displays in exceptionall
clean fashion. As I'm fond of saying, though: if you have som
information for me that would help me format my posts more legibly, I'
be more than willing to learn

(skewered . . . and by a fellow San Diegan . . . . sigh . . . .


-

S O R N I wrote:
OMFG, do you honestly expect anyone to read much less follow this
ridiculous crap??? That was got to be the most unreadable post I've ever
seen (couldn't bring myself to leave it all, but it was way WORSE than
what's left above). And I'm subjected to M^V rants in AM-B!


...may have figured this one out. I post and view vi
www.cyclingforums.com. Since thiis is a Usenet forum, I presume man
(Bill?) may not

So . . . though it may look like a Merlin Cielo on mine, this ma
explain why it looks like a -Mart bike to you

Is there a link you can provide so that I can create legible posts i
either environment? I'd be grateful...


-

R15757 wrote:

Frank K wrote in part:

I can't generate many weird anecdotes, anyway. I've had only one
super-slow on-road fall in over 30 years, and I've never come close to
hitting my head. Not very remarkable.

Just like most cyclists' experiences, I dare say.


That's where you're wrong Frank. Your injury free cycling career is the
exception, not the rule.

The exceptional part is that I've almost never fallen. I do have
friends who seem to fall once a year, on average.

The unexceptional part is my lack of serious injury. Contrary to the
hype, injuries beyond abrasions and bruises are very rare. Serious head
injuries are vanishingly rare. My clumsiest, one-fall-per-year friend
has never been to the ER, for example. His favorite "trick" is a slow
speed "can't get my foot out" fall, resulting in a skinned knee at worst.

We need to keep in mind, most of the baby boom grew up on bikes, riding
them every day. If bicycling were anywhere near as deadly as the
handwringers claim, that entire generation would have been lost!


--
-------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

neil0502 wrote:

[pedantry and dogmatism ignored....]

Good communication ignored, too, I see!

(If you need help configuring your newsreader, I'm sure someone can give
advice.)



I think it's important to note that if the anti-helmet faction convinces an undecided newbie to ride without a helmet (and the newbie happened to be an undeclared mtb rider), then this mtb rider takes a header and cracks his scull, the outcome was tragic and avoidable.

If, on the other hand, some helmet zealots convince a newbie roadie to wear a $20 Bell from now on, and this roadie clocks 15,000 accident free miles, then the damage done will have been . . . will have been . . . . Now you see, that's where I keep getting stuck. I guess the damage will have been:
a) $20 wasted
b) some more calories burned
c) some extra sweat on hot days
d) something about 'distorted environmental sounds'

I think it's important to note that if the anti-car-helmet faction
convinces an undecided novice driver to drive without a helmet...

Well, you probably get the point. Why does your logic apply only to
such a minor source of serious head injuries? Why does it not apply to
the source of roughly 50% of the head injury fatalities in the US?


I'm pro- good, solid, objective information and personal choice.

I am, too. But what I see is not "good solid information." I see
innuendo used to make cycling sound unusually dangerous. I see
disproven numbers quoted repeatedly, out of context, to make helmets
sound much more effective than they are.

When conflicting data exists (and especially when helmet-skeptical data
is much more robust) I see only pro-helmet data quoted.

I see laws being passed which prevent personal choice. And I see data
indicating large drops in cycling when that choice is prevented. I see
people afraid of riding because of all the fear-mongering.

Again, it's not a case of rational discussion using good information.
It's heavy propaganda trying to convince people they're likely to die if
they don't purchase a certain commercial product. And since there's no
money to be made by _not_ selling helmets, the opposing view gets almost
no publicity.


In closing, two things:

1) May you have another 30yrs of accident free cycling. You are to be
commended;
2) Still trying to get somebody to tell me the downside of helmet use
(again . . . to be clear . . . that's not a position of helmet
advocacy . . . . )

Let's look at this a different way:

For you, there may be no downside to helmet use. But to the majority of
the world's cyclists, or even America's cyclists, there MUST be a
downside to helmet use. Why? Because, absent compelling laws, they
choose not to use them!

The reasons, I'm sure, vary with individuals. I've heard people say
they believe it's a waste of money, or they sweat too much with a
helmet, or they don't like the way it looks, or they worry about theft
of the helmet, or they find it inconvenient to carry around off the
bike, etc.

But it shouldn't matter. It should be a personal decision. They should
be free to balance benefits and detriments as they see fit.

And I think the helmet promoters should just leave people alone.
Everyone knows bike helmets exist. Bell Sports really does not need an
army of do-gooders proselytizing for them.




--
-------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----

neil0502 wrote:
S O R N I wrote:

{Hugh Jass Memorial Snip ---convoluted posting style and gross verbosity
amundo}

OMFG, do you honestly expect anyone to read much less follow this
ridiculous crap??? That was got to be the most unreadable post
I've ever seen (couldn't bring myself to leave it all, but it was
way WORSE than what's left above). And I'm subjected to M^V rants
in AM-B! Bill "only good thing is it's a h*lmet thread, so who
cares" S.



Actually, Bill -- at least on my browser -- it displays in
exceptionally clean fashion. As I'm fond of saying, though: if you
have some
information for me that would help me format my posts more legibly,
I'd
be more than willing to learn.

(skewered . . . and by a fellow San Diegan . . . . sigh . . . . )

Well, at least you're not ALL bad then!

Neil, there's got to be a way to show QUOTING in your posts (I read your
second note about Cycling Forums); either configure your newsreader or just
access Usenet directly? (No idea what I just said, but it sounded good.)

Vandenut uses a silly '.' to denote quoted text, which is extremely hard to
read (especially long threads), but at least it's something. You make these
LONG posts with nothing differentiating your added words to those to which
you're replying, and it's just plain unreadable (or at least, no one with a
life should have enough time to decipher it).

Bill "maybe someone else can offer specific suggestions (that are
anatomically possible)" S.