published helmet research - not troll

LioNiNoiL_a t_Ne t s c a pE_D 0 T_Ne T wrote:

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on Bicycling Fatalities -
Grant and Rutner.


Their statistics are sound, and their calculation of a 15% reduction in
the juvenile bicycling fatality rate during the helmet-law era appears
to be accurate, although virtually indistinguishable from the
already-existing downward trend since 1975, represented by the blue line
in their data graph:

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9715/graph.gif

Yes - if helmets were having a significant effect, that graph should
show a significant drop in juvenile fatalities, over and above the
prevailing trend, from 1991 to 1997, when (as they show) the helmet laws
became fashionable.

Incidentally, there are several sources on the web which plot cylist
fatalities and pedestrian fatalities over the decades. Despite the
increase in helmet use, the plots are stubbornly parallel... with, of
course, a certain amount of random variation superimposed.

It seems clear that a) the emergency medical people have gotten
gradually better at their job (probably in large part due to
technology), and b) helmets aren't making a significant difference in
cyclists' fatalities. If they were, the cyclist plot would drop
relative to the ped. plot.




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

It seems clear that a) the emergency medical people have gotten
gradually better at their job (probably in large part due to
technology), and b) helmets aren't making a significant difference in
cyclists' fatalities. If they were, the cyclist plot would drop
relative to the ped. plot.


This whole helmet discussion reminds of my pesticide chemistry
class when my prof. would tell the class "but the LD50 is ...
blah, blah, blah.", but never took into account that while maybe
it takes a lot of whatever chemical to kill you, no one really
knows how much it takes to cause cancer, nerve damage,
brain damage, loss of eyesight, etc....

The same thing holds true for this discussion. You're looking
at FATALITIES. What about the accidents where a helmet
prevented brain injury? It's not something that can be answered
or tested easily....

And I'll wear mine thank you, I've hit enough low hanging
tree branches while MTB riding to know they help.

On 17 Jun 2004 22:05:25 -0700, (CowPunk) wrote:

What about the accidents where a helmet
prevented brain injury? It's not something that can be answered
or tested easily....

And I'll wear mine thank you, I've hit enough low hanging
tree branches while MTB riding to know they help.

Are you saying you received minor brain injuries riding your MTB w/o a
helmet on? If not, how do you know helmets help prevent that?

JT

Are you saying you received minor brain injuries riding your MTB w/o a
helmet on? If not, how do you know helmets help prevent that?

JT


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that
cracked plastic and dented styrofoam is better than
cracked skin and a dented skull.

On 18 Jun 2004 08:46:06 -0700, (CowPunk) wrote:

Are you saying you received minor brain injuries riding your MTB w/o a
helmet on? If not, how do you know helmets help prevent that?

JT


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that
cracked plastic and dented styrofoam is better than
cracked skin and a dented skull.

I asked a very specific question in response to a specifc assertion --
that helmets protect from brain injuries hitting branches.

I'll accept that a helmet can protect from cracked skin in the
situations described. So can a wool hat.

Now what evidence do you have about helmets protecting against dented
skulls or brain injuries?

JT

"John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message
...

Now what evidence do you have about helmets protecting against dented
skulls or brain injuries?

I have an idea for an experiment. Go outside and have someone hold a brick
about 2 feet over your bare head and have him drop it. Observe the pain and
damage (assuming you're still conscious). Then try the same experiment on
your friend, but have him wear a cycling helmet. If he laughs at you, you
may be able to infer from this, experimentally, that he thought it was not
necessary to run the experiment to know that you would end up with a damaged
head and he wouldn't.

If you are unable to apply the knowledge gained from this experiment to
real-life, I would submit that it's not more experiments that you're
actually in need of.


Shayne Wissler

So can a wool hat.
That's a leap of faith.


Now what evidence do you have about helmets protecting against dented
skulls or brain injuries?

I just look at the dents and cracks in my helmets.

Proving something like that is like trying to prove global warming.
You can't do it without f*****g a lot of people up.

I'll bet you put globs of sunscreen on before you go out... don't you.

Did you know that there is no evidence that sunscreen prevents skin cancer?

Yup, it's a fact.

Or what about the fact that some of the ingredients in
sunscreen are known carcinogens?

(CowPunk) wrote in message om...

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that
cracked plastic and dented styrofoam is better than
cracked skin and a dented skull.

And a rocket scientist wouldn't compare the results against materials
with different strengths and densities.

jeff

(CowPunk) wrote in message . com...

The same thing holds true for this discussion. You're looking
at FATALITIES. What about the accidents where a helmet
prevented brain injury? It's not something that can be answered
or tested easily....

That's a fair question. But ask yourself - how many brain injuries
have occurred to cyclists over the intervening 30 years. The answer is
that there are so few that they aren't even recorded. It isn't that
they don't occur, but that your chances of having similar injuries as
a pedestrian are many times greater on a statistical basis.

The statistics also show that serious head injuries aren't helped by
helmets either since the ratio of serious head injuries to fatalities
hasn't changed in the least either. Although there are some medical
sources that claim that using complicated statistical methods they can
JUST detect some help.

And I'll wear mine thank you, I've hit enough low hanging
tree branches while MTB riding to know they help.

You can do anything you like. Though I would think that if you are
hitting low hanging branches your helmet must be interfering with your
field of vision. The only time I ever hit my head on something
overhanging was when I was riding past a structure and the helmet
blocked vision of a rafter at head height.

It is my OPINION that helmets make minor injuries even more minor or
even non-existant. That is a reason for ME to wear a helmet. That is
not a reason for laws that force helmets on children since it
coincidentally causes children to to ride a great deal less, causing
parents to drive their children to school making it more dangerous for
all children in the vicinity of schools.

(Tom Kunich) writes:

(CowPunk) wrote in message . com...

The same thing holds true for this discussion. You're looking
at FATALITIES. What about the accidents where a helmet
prevented brain injury? It's not something that can be answered
or tested easily....

That's a fair question. But ask yourself - how many brain injuries
have occurred to cyclists over the intervening 30 years. The answer is
that there are so few that they aren't even recorded. It isn't that
they don't occur, but that your chances of having similar injuries as
a pedestrian are many times greater on a statistical basis.

The statistics also show that serious head injuries aren't helped by
helmets either since the ratio of serious head injuries to fatalities
hasn't changed in the least either. Although there are some medical
sources that claim that using complicated statistical methods they can
JUST detect some help.

This is turning into a repeat of the very same discussion held 10
years ago. Go back to the archives to look if you want.

Keep in mind that serious head injuries covers a wide range of
impacts. If you make a serious injury less serious, it still gets
classified as a serious injury, and you might find it hard to
detect the fraction that drop from "serious" to "not serious" or
"prevented."


It is my OPINION that helmets make minor injuries even more minor or
even non-existant. That is a reason for ME to wear a helmet. That is
not a reason for laws that force helmets on children since it
coincidentally causes children to to ride a great deal less, causing
parents to drive their children to school making it more dangerous for
all children in the vicinity of schools.

This is not true. Children do not ride less due to helmet laws,
particularly in California, where the helmet laws are not enforced
(or rarely enforced.) If you tell a young teen to start using a
helmet when he previously didn't want to, you can expect a negative
reaction (natural rebelliousness.) Kids who started using helmets
when they started riding bicycles don't have that reaction.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB