Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

On 1/4/2011 5:55 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/3/2011 9:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 3, 12:30 pm, Duane wrote:

This has led many people to wonder why the helmets aren't working as
promised. The very low impact certification standards are certainly
one possible contributing factor. There are others, of course.

Lots of people have never even heard or read that massive helmet use
hasn't helped. Of those that have heard, many still refuse to believe
it. They're kind of like people who are still taking lots of vitamin
C to prevent or cure cancer. Unfortunately, they're telling lots of
other people that they MUST use their favorite "cure" too.

Lots of people... many still refuse to believe... like people who...
Same old thing Frank. Comparing people who think that helmets are useful
to people who think vitamin C cures cancer. I'll run that one
by my doctor. She'll get a kick out of it.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20..._pauling_b.php


So I think someone needs to criticize the emperor's wardrobe.

Fine. Just don't present your opinions as proof or fact. And implying
that people who don't agree with you are ignorant (as in the vitamin C
cures cancer insinuation above) - do you do that with your students as
well?

And you don't need to add your "if you don't agree with me
you didn't read it properly" crap.

If you don't want people to suggest you read about these issues, you
shouldn't have posted here that you don't read about these issues.

I don't need to read the articles that you point to any more than
I need to read the text at
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm
and for much the same reason.

I love the language of the AHZs:

"This has led many people to wonder why the helmets aren't working as
promised."

Of course _no one_ has wondered this. No when ever believed that helmets
would be effective in 100% of crashes. If you look at ER data or whole
population data, both show a reduction in injuries and fatalities as
helmet usage goes up. When confronted with this fact, the typical claim
is that while the percentage of helmeted cyclists went up, the total
number of cyclists fell, so any reduction was due to the reduced number
of cyclists. But in fact, in places where helmet use went up, either due
to legislation or education, cycling rates did _not_ go down. When
confronted with this fact, the typical claim is that injuries and
fatalities should have fallen even further as the percentage of helmet
users has increased (or they'll try the Dutch diversion or the walking
helmet diversion). It's all quite amusing to observe until you realize
that such antics actually make it more likely that more helmet laws will
be introduced.

On 1/4/2011 9:22 AM, SMS wrote:
On 1/4/2011 5:55 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/3/2011 9:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 3, 12:30 pm, Duane wrote:

This has led many people to wonder why the helmets aren't working as
promised. The very low impact certification standards are certainly
one possible contributing factor. There are others, of course.

Lots of people have never even heard or read that massive helmet use
hasn't helped. Of those that have heard, many still refuse to believe
it. They're kind of like people who are still taking lots of vitamin
C to prevent or cure cancer. Unfortunately, they're telling lots of
other people that they MUST use their favorite "cure" too.

Lots of people... many still refuse to believe... like people who...
Same old thing Frank. Comparing people who think that helmets are useful
to people who think vitamin C cures cancer. I'll run that one
by my doctor. She'll get a kick out of it.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20..._pauling_b.php



So I think someone needs to criticize the emperor's wardrobe.

Fine. Just don't present your opinions as proof or fact. And implying
that people who don't agree with you are ignorant (as in the vitamin C
cures cancer insinuation above) - do you do that with your students as
well?

And you don't need to add your "if you don't agree with me
you didn't read it properly" crap.

If you don't want people to suggest you read about these issues, you
shouldn't have posted here that you don't read about these issues.

I don't need to read the articles that you point to any more than
I need to read the text at
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm
and for much the same reason.

I love the language of the AHZs:

"This has led many people to wonder why the helmets aren't working as
promised."

Of course _no one_ has wondered this. No when ever believed that helmets
would be effective in 100% of crashes. If you look at ER data or whole
population data, both show a reduction in injuries and fatalities as
helmet usage goes up. When confronted with this fact, the typical claim
is that while the percentage of helmeted cyclists went up, the total
number of cyclists fell, so any reduction was due to the reduced number
of cyclists. But in fact, in places where helmet use went up, either due
to legislation or education, cycling rates did _not_ go down. When
confronted with this fact, the typical claim is that injuries and
fatalities should have fallen even further as the percentage of helmet
users has increased (or they'll try the Dutch diversion or the walking
helmet diversion). It's all quite amusing to observe until you realize
that such antics actually make it more likely that more helmet laws will
be introduced.

In Canada, the government supplies the health care (FWIW) and is
interested in anything that will reduce those costs. As long as
the medical community is convinced that helmets reduce serious
injuries, there is going to be a push to at least educate cyclists.
They've tried mandatory laws in Quebec for children but they didn't
get passed. There are mandatory laws in Ontario. In Quebec, about
40% of cyclists use helmets. Probably more of the roadie type than the
casual riders though most children do. There are more cyclists in
Quebec than Ontario but it's likely not due to the MHLs there.
Velo-Quebec's studies indicate that the higher cycling presence in
Quebec is due to the facilities. They think that Ontario didn't pursue
facilities because they invoked mandatory helmet laws instead. I'm not
sure but Velo-Quebec has the resources to do this analysis and interpret
it so I don't discount it. At any rate, VQ's tact is to increase
facilities and cycling culture and this seems to be working.
They recommend helmet use but advise the government against mandatory
laws, even for children. In this, they are at odds with the medical
community here.

Contrary to Frank's annoying innuendo, I have actually read studies that
claim that cycling use has decline with MHLs but I've also read those
that claim the opposite. Sometime both are based on the same data set.
I don't think that there are statistics available to accurately measure
this. I'm happy to let VQ and the medical community come up with
whatever they do. I know that VQ is going to act to represent cyclists.


I don't think helmet use is a real concern, at least not here. I don't
think there will be a mandatory helmet law for adults in Quebec. Maybe
for kids but I don't think that it will reduce cycling. Most kids wear
them anyway.

They (mostly the vehicular cycling enthusiasts) say the same thing about
facilities being more dangerous and reducing cycling. Here the
facilities are increasing and it, at least, looks like there's a
correlation to the increased cycling and decreased injuries.
The general consensus is that the facilities increase cycling and
increased cycling reduces cycling injuries. Makes sense and you can
actually see it first hand.

It's certainly true that cycling isn't decreasing in Quebec. And it's
also true that Quebec, with it's hundreds of kilometers of facilities
has less cycling injuries per capita than most of North America.

On Jan 3, 10:58*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 3, 8:23*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:









On Jan 3, 11:02*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Jan 3, 6:46*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jan 3, 9:27*pm, James wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 3, 12:30 pm, Duane H bert wrote:
On 1/3/2011 11:13 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and
certified for only 14 mph impacts. *It's not just my opinion.

On 1/4/2011 6:56 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

In Canada, the government supplies the health care (FWIW) and is
interested in anything that will reduce those costs.

Have they tried banning poutine? That would probably save a lot more
money than a helmet law.

Contrary to Frank's annoying innuendo, I have actually read studies that
claim that cycling use has decline with MHLs but I've also read those
that claim the opposite.

I have seen claims of a reduction in cycling following MHLs but calling
the statistics they were based on "studies" is a real stretch. When you
intentionally avoid counting some riders with a lame justification, it
just shows that you're looking for a certain outcome and will do
whatever it takes to get it.

It's certainly true that cycling isn't decreasing in Quebec. And it's
also true that Quebec, with it's hundreds of kilometers of facilities
has less cycling injuries per capita than most of North America.

You have to be careful about correlation versus causation, no matter
which way it goes.

On Jan 4, 6:57*am, landotter wrote:
On Jan 3, 10:58*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:





On Jan 3, 8:23*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jan 3, 11:02*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Jan 3, 6:46*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jan 3, 9:27*pm, James wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 3, 12:30 pm, Duane H bert wrote:
On 1/3/2011 11:13 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and
certified for only 14 mph impacts. *It's not just my opinion.
If you would do more reading, you would understand the difference.
And it's your opinion that since it's tested for a 14mph impact it
is useless in most actual cases where there's an impact to the head.

Actually, I don't believe I've ever said "useless."

So, what is your opinion? *Useless or not?

I think "useless" implies absolute zero protection, and I don't think
bike helmets (or ski helmets) provide absolute zero protection.
They're not totally useless, since as many of us have said, they
obviously prevent certain minor bumps and scrapes, if nothing else.

Minor bumps and scrapes like this?http://www.flickr.com/photos/eprescott/376804073/
or thishttp://www.flickr.com/photos/chadvonnau/4302945156/?

How about this:http://www.flickr.com/photos/twolaw/781335417/?*I
don't know about you, but if wearing a helmet means avoiding *"minor
bumps and scrapes" that land me in the ER, I'll wear a helmet. *I
don't like getting stitched up, and tetanus boosters make my shoulder
really sore.

Right, Jay. *Let's keep in mind that such injuries are not a part of
any "normal" cycling, any more than they are of walking city streets,
descending stairs, working on ladders, or a hundred other activities.
Cycling's unusually big risk of head injury is fiction.

And let's keep in mind that those injuries are no more serious than
similar looking injuries to your knees, elbows, etc.

I want to avoid injuries like that to my knees, and from what I've
seen, knee injuries are the most common injury of cyclists. *But I
ride without knee protectors. *How about you?

Well, it was part of "normal" cycling for everyone in those pictures
-- which were located with a casual search of Flickr. *It was part of
"normal" cycling for my workmate who had a lovely degloving scalp
injury and a dozen staples from a collision with another cyclist on
the Springwater Corridor. *It was "normal" for me when I landed on my
face on ice and had a laceration that stopped at my helmet line. *All
of those scalp injuries in the pictures were entirely avoidable by
wearing a helmet. Now, I'm not saying anyone has to wear a helmet --
but your "bumps and scrapes" statement ignores the significant
protective benefits of helmets in the event one does fall on one's
head. *And as far as knee guards go, no, I don't wear them because a
scraped knee is no big deal to me, and they would interfere with
pedalling, unlike a helmet. But, my brother does wear knee guards when
racing downhill. He is in a risk group that benefts from knee
guards.-- Jay Beattie.

I understand the benefits of impact resistant gear for downhill. Now--
the real discussion *is how you're going to do advocacy for helmets
for activities which are just as risky as everyday cycling.
Compartmentalizing hysteria to one activity where society has allowed
us to wear a funny hat is one thing--but to advocate for bathing and
winter pedestrian helmets--that's consistency I can (sorta) respect.- Hide quoted text -

Bathing for me is not as risky as cycling, nor is walking. I've never
suffered a head injury while doing either of those things. I have
suffered head injuries on my bike -- several times. No, I was not
risk compensating, unless riding home at night on a bad road or riding
on unexpectedly icy pavement amounts to risk compensating. I've never
injured my head in a car accident either. I ride five or six days a
week, and my risk profile does not fit the national average,
particularly during winter when I'm riding in the dark, in the rain or
ice or snow and on bad roads. -- Jay Beattie..

On Jan 4, 5:55 am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/3/2011 9:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Jan 3, 12:30 pm, Duane H wrote:
On 1/3/2011 11:13 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jan 3, 8:50 am, Duane H wrote:
On 12/24/2010 8:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 24, 1:47 pm, "Duane wrote:
"Frank wrote in message

Telling his son that ski helmets are tested and certified for only 14
mph impacts will hopefully let his son know that he shouldn't adopt
extreme risks - like blasting through dense trees at 25 mph - thinking
his helmet will protect him. That's what it's supposed to achieve.

Telling him to do anything WRT his son presumes that you're
in some position of authority with certified knowledge.

Duane, get a grip. This is a discussion group. We discuss things.
You seem to have posted many dozens of posts with no certified
knowledge.

I post my opinions. You try to imply that your opinions are fact.

It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and
certified for only 14 mph impacts. It's not just my opinion.

If you would do more reading, you would understand the difference.

And it's your opinion that since it's tested for a 14mph impact it
is useless in most actual cases where there's an impact to the head.

Actually, I don't believe I've ever said "useless." However, there is
the fact that massive increases in helmet use since about 1990 have
not produced a reduction in the number of serious head injuries per
American cyclist. The same lack of improvement has been seen and
documented in other countries.

So you've found some literature that supports your opinion.

This has led many people to wonder why the helmets aren't working as
promised. The very low impact certification standards are certainly
one possible contributing factor. There are others, of course.

Lots of people have never even heard or read that massive helmet use
hasn't helped. Of those that have heard, many still refuse to believe
it. They're kind of like people who are still taking lots of vitamin
C to prevent or cure cancer. Unfortunately, they're telling lots of
other people that they MUST use their favorite "cure" too.

Lots of people... many still refuse to believe... like people who...
Same old thing Frank. Comparing people who think that helmets are
useful to people who think vitamin C cures cancer. I'll run that one
by my doctor. She'll get a kick out of it.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20..._cancer_has_li...

So I think someone needs to criticize the emperor's wardrobe.

Fine. Just don't present your opinions as proof or fact. And implying
that people who don't agree with you are ignorant (as in the vitamin C
cures cancer insinuation above) - do you do that with your students as
well?


I rather liked his "garlic to ward off vampires" metaphor.

And you don't need to add your "if you don't agree with me
you didn't read it properly" crap.


Why don't you just ride properly like a normal person? :-)

If you don't want people to suggest you read about these issues, you
shouldn't have posted here that you don't read about these issues.

I don't need to read the articles that you point to any more than
I need to read the text athttp://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
and for much the same reason.

Frank is concerned with injury statistics, whereas most other cyclists
are concerned with the injuries themselves.

On 1/4/2011 10:04 AM, SMS wrote:
On 1/4/2011 6:56 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

In Canada, the government supplies the health care (FWIW) and is
interested in anything that will reduce those costs.

Have they tried banning poutine? That would probably save a lot more
money than a helmet law.


I've tried banning poutine and my son revolted. It's a nationalist thing.

Contrary to Frank's annoying innuendo, I have actually read studies that
claim that cycling use has decline with MHLs but I've also read those
that claim the opposite.

I have seen claims of a reduction in cycling following MHLs but calling
the statistics they were based on "studies" is a real stretch. When you
intentionally avoid counting some riders with a lame justification, it
just shows that you're looking for a certain outcome and will do
whatever it takes to get it.

Yeah that's why I told Frank that I didn't need to read his articles.
He interpreted that as my not having to read anything. Whatever...


It's certainly true that cycling isn't decreasing in Quebec. And it's
also true that Quebec, with it's hundreds of kilometers of facilities
has less cycling injuries per capita than most of North America.

You have to be careful about correlation versus causation, no matter
which way it goes.

Absolutely.

On 1/4/2011 8:02 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

I've tried banning poutine and my son revolted. It's a nationalist thing.

Geez, even Costco in Canada sells poutine in the snack bar. My home town
in Florida is essentially southern Quebec during the winter, and poutine
is widely available there.

Yeah that's why I told Frank that I didn't need to read his articles. He
interpreted that as my not having to read anything. Whatever...

His articles are designed for those that lack critical thinking skills.

On 1/4/2011 11:09 AM, SMS wrote:
On 1/4/2011 8:02 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

I've tried banning poutine and my son revolted. It's a nationalist thing.

Geez, even Costco in Canada sells poutine in the snack bar. My home town
in Florida is essentially southern Quebec during the winter, and poutine
is widely available there.

Yeah we call them snowbirds here as they fly away from the snow.

It's funny to watch the Habs play the Panthers. It's like a home game.
I wonder how the Panthers feel about that...

Quebec has a lot to offer culturally but poutine is not one of them IMO.

On Jan 3, 11:58*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 3, 8:23*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Jan 3, 11:02*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Jan 3, 6:46*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jan 3, 9:27*pm, James wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 3, 12:30 pm, Duane H bert wrote:
On 1/3/2011 11:13 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and
certified for only 14 mph impacts. *It's not just my opinion.