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

Frank Krygowski wrote:


It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and
certified for only 14 mph impacts. Â*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? Â*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.

But that's not how they're sold, so to speak. They're touted (or
mandated) because of claims they prevent lots of fatalities or truly
serious brain injuries. Yet data clearly shows otherwise.

Based on that, and based on the available data showing low risk of
serious injury while cycling, my opinion is that bike helmets aren't
necessary for safety, and they don't significantly increase safety.

I find surprizing how many people ask "but were you wearing a helmet"
when they hear of various injuries I sustained from bicycling, like a
broken hip, broken ribs, nad broken thumb, among others. It's been
more than 70 years of bicycling and I expect to see that there were
hazards.

Bike helmets are an ineffective solution to an imaginary problem.

.... A crutch for the impractical riders... or non riders.

--
Jobst Brandt

On Jan 4, 10:53 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 4, 10:21 am, Jay Beattie wrote:

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.

If you want to understand whether you were risk compensating, just ask
yourself: "What would I have done if I were not wearing a helmet?"
If you would have been more careful in any way, then you were indeed
risk compensating.

Understand, this is an absolutely normal thing to do; humans do it all
the time. And it's not necessarily a problem. The problem comes, I
believe, from risk _over_ compensating. In other words, if a
protective device causes you to assume additional risk that is greater
than justified by the level of protection, that's a problem. If the
additional risk assumed is smaller than the level of protection, so to
speak, then all is well.

I think over-compensation is likely when there are excessive claims
for the protective device.

Only for people who can't think for themselves and swallow someone
else's assessment of their own risk (kind of like what you're trying
to shove down everyone else's throat by applying statisitics as
definitive of actual risk).

When people see repeated implications that
head injuries are almost the only thing that ever kills a cyclist
(claims that actually read "75% of cycling fatalities involve a head
injury"), and people see claims that helmets prevent almost all head
injuries ("85%"), then it's easy for some people to be duped into
thinking they're bulletproof in a plastic hat.


Are we denizens of RPT being so duped?

But the "involve a head injury" claim is not the same as saying
"preventing that head injury would have prevented a death." (Anyway,
I've got a paper here on pedestrian deaths that points out that 73% of
pedestrian deaths also "involved a head injury.")


So what?!

And of course, the "85%" claim was from a study that has never been
corroborated anywhere, one with extremely poor control, and where
almost all the injuries were indeed minor ones. It never came close
to claiming that bike helmets would prevent 85% of fatal head
injuries. But that doesn't prevent fans from using that disproven
1989 number to sell bike helmets, while ignoring much more robust
national data from later years.


Flay that dead horse much?

People interested in risk compensation theory and examples of risk
compensation in action should read _Risk_ by John Adams. It's not
just about bike helmets, not at all. I found it to be educational and
entertaining.


We all are interested in not doing something stupid that might get us
hurt, but don't always need a book to teach us how to think. I think
you are interested in risk compensation because you are obsessed with
anything that may reflect negatively on bicycle helmets.

On Jan 4, 11:35 am, Dan O wrote:
On Jan 4, 10:53 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


snip

... it's easy for some people to be duped into
thinking they're bulletproof in a plastic hat.

Are we denizens of RPT being so duped?


(typo - not sure what the 'P' stands for :-)

snip

Jay Beattie wrote:

It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and
certified for only 14 mph impacts. Â*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? Â*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 this:

http://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.

I don't care for your horror stories and implication that blood is
bad. Don't play football! That's a large "but if" with which you
start to develop your "the fact that" begging the question. Stop
sullying RBT!
--
Jobst Brandt

On 1/4/2011 2:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:41 pm, Duane wrote:
On 1/4/2011 1:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Jan 4, 10:04 am, wrote:

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.

We've discussed Scharf's objections before. Specifically, one
particular survey in one particular location on one particular day was
messed up because hundreds of cyclists in a bike rally happened to
pass through a counting station. Helmet law proponents used that bad
count to say "Look, there hasn't been a drop in cycling after all!"
It's kind of like determining the number of people who ride bikes for
transportation by counting bikes on the Tour de France route during
the race.

But there's _plenty_ of other data that gives results Scharf won't
like.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2024.pdf shows just a little.

Any that aren't from cyclehelmets.org ?

How about from the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention? Or
Injury Prevention? The Policy Studies Institute of London? British
Medical Association? The journal Pediatrics? The Association for the
Advancement of Automotive Medicine? The European Cyclists' Federation?

I mean, if I give full citations, what will you actually read?

Possibly. For example, you may try some of the links at this page:
http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/cdcbikeorganize.shtml

There's a resource guide listed the

American Academy of Pediatrics Publications Department 141 Northwest
Point Boulevard Box 927 Elk Grove Village, IL 60009-0927 (800) 433-9016

Materials include Physician's Resource Guide for Bicycle Safety
Education; " Bicycle Safety Camp," which is a videotape for elementary
school students concerning the importance of wearing helmets and other
safety issues while riding bicycles; and bicycle safety sheets from The
Injury Prevention Program. The safety sheets cover such topics as
encouraging children to wear helmets, myths and facts about bicycle
safety, choosing the right size bicycle for a child, and child
passengers on adults' bicycles.

If you're just going to show me stats then I'm probably not going to
bother. I know that the probability of a fatal head injury while
cycling is low. I'm not sure if that enters into it when I decide
whether or not to wear a helmet.

I'm more likely to pay attention to my physician who has a PHD in
medicine, years of experience working in a trauma center and tells me
that I should wear a helmet when cycling. And even in her case, it's
going to depend on how I feel that day, where I'm riding, who I'm with,
etc.

On Jan 4, 11:27*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:47*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Jan 4, 10:07*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

But seriously - are you pretending that such injuries happen only
while cycling? *Are you that willing to disregard the vast bulk of
national data regarding head injuries?

Let's review. *First, since fatality data is far stronger than injury
data: *What percentage of US head injury fatalities are cyclists? *Do
you guess 50%? *or 35%? *20%? *10%? *5%?

My simple point (perhaps too simple): helmets actually prevent certain
types of scalp injuries -- exactly the types shown in the pictures
(all of which were in areas covered by helmets).

Right. *They could prevent those sorts of injuries no matter what
activity causes the injuries. *And way over 95% of such injuries have
nothing to do with bikes.

Do people have to wear helmets? *No, that is a personal choice. *

Which is fine by me. *Similarly, I actually do know a cyclist who
always rides with a St. Christopher medal. *I would never try to talk
her out of it.

On the other hand, if she should try to explain to me why it's so
valuable, especially in a public discussion, I would probably
disagree. *She'd know better than to try that, though, since she's
aware her position isn't logically defensible.

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.

All you're saying, Jay, is that the market has not yet jumped on the
opportunity to develop articulated, stylish, well-ventilated, garishly-
colored, oddly-contoured knee protectors to save us from the horror of
knee injuries.

No. *There is no giant knee guard conspiracy because there is no
perception that knee injuries will prove fatal or even serious.

Seriously, there is an inherent difference. *If you read on the
psychology of fear, you'll learn that there are psychological factors
that influence people's dread of a particular event. *People claim
they would prefer to die of a heart attack than a shark attack, for
example, maybe because it's visualized as involving less gore. *I
think there's a vaguely similar reaction to a cut on the head vs. one
on the knee - an inborn psychological reaction.

But if you scour bicycling literature in the pre-helmet days, it's
damned hard to find anything like the modern fixation on head
injuries. *For example, the book _The Best of Bicycling!_ published in
1970 has no index entry for head injury at all. *In fact, I can find
no mention of "safety" and no warnings about crashes. *Other books
from the same period are similar. *Very little "safety" talk except
instructions on how to ride properly, no fear mongering at all, and
certainly no emphasis on head injuries.

After Bell's big push in the early to mid 1970s, things began to
change. *Now it's as hard to find a bicycling book that doesn't imply
that riding without a helmet is riding to the morgue, or worse.

How on earth did all those cyclists get by before 1975?

*I do not rely on "averages" when deciding what protective measures to
take -- no more than I would rely on the average temperature of the
United States in deciding what jacket to wear on my morning commute in
PDX.

Data has to be interpreted with intelligence. *Saying "I'm different
than the average American because I ride a bike a lot" may have some
validity, depending on the interpretation, and we can discuss that.
OTOH, saying "I'm different than the average dedicated bicycle
commuter" is a lot shakier, IMO. *And we've got decent data that those
bike commuters ride over 30,000 miles between even relatively minor
injuries. *I don't know of any data showing that number got better
once bike helmets came on the scene.

I doubt that the average dedicated commuter in San Diego rode in to
work this morning over sheet ice, or any ice. Forecast tomorrow:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40907968...blication_id=0
Wearing my helmet! What does your data say about the national
weather picture? Will it be dry on average?

I don't need to interpret data. I just look out the window -- or at
my personal experience, as the case may be. -- Jay Beattie.

On 1/4/2011 3:06 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:27 am, Frank wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:47 pm, Jay wrote:

On Jan 4, 10:07 am, Frank wrote:

snip

But seriously - are you pretending that such injuries happen only
while cycling? Are you that willing to disregard the vast bulk of
national data regarding head injuries?

Let's review. First, since fatality data is far stronger than injury
data: What percentage of US head injury fatalities are cyclists? Do
you guess 50%? or 35%? 20%? 10%? 5%?

My simple point (perhaps too simple): helmets actually prevent certain
types of scalp injuries -- exactly the types shown in the pictures
(all of which were in areas covered by helmets).

Right. They could prevent those sorts of injuries no matter what
activity causes the injuries. And way over 95% of such injuries have
nothing to do with bikes.

Do people have to wear helmets? No, that is a personal choice.

Which is fine by me. Similarly, I actually do know a cyclist who
always rides with a St. Christopher medal. I would never try to talk
her out of it.

On the other hand, if she should try to explain to me why it's so
valuable, especially in a public discussion, I would probably
disagree. She'd know better than to try that, though, since she's
aware her position isn't logically defensible.

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.

All you're saying, Jay, is that the market has not yet jumped on the
opportunity to develop articulated, stylish, well-ventilated, garishly-
colored, oddly-contoured knee protectors to save us from the horror of
knee injuries.

No. There is no giant knee guard conspiracy because there is no
perception that knee injuries will prove fatal or even serious.

Seriously, there is an inherent difference. If you read on the
psychology of fear, you'll learn that there are psychological factors
that influence people's dread of a particular event. People claim
they would prefer to die of a heart attack than a shark attack, for
example, maybe because it's visualized as involving less gore. I
think there's a vaguely similar reaction to a cut on the head vs. one
on the knee - an inborn psychological reaction.

But if you scour bicycling literature in the pre-helmet days, it's
damned hard to find anything like the modern fixation on head
injuries. For example, the book _The Best of Bicycling!_ published in
1970 has no index entry for head injury at all. In fact, I can find
no mention of "safety" and no warnings about crashes. Other books
from the same period are similar. Very little "safety" talk except
instructions on how to ride properly, no fear mongering at all, and
certainly no emphasis on head injuries.

After Bell's big push in the early to mid 1970s, things began to
change. Now it's as hard to find a bicycling book that doesn't imply
that riding without a helmet is riding to the morgue, or worse.

How on earth did all those cyclists get by before 1975?

I do not rely on "averages" when deciding what protective measures to
take -- no more than I would rely on the average temperature of the
United States in deciding what jacket to wear on my morning commute in
PDX.

Data has to be interpreted with intelligence. Saying "I'm different
than the average American because I ride a bike a lot" may have some
validity, depending on the interpretation, and we can discuss that.
OTOH, saying "I'm different than the average dedicated bicycle
commuter" is a lot shakier, IMO. And we've got decent data that those
bike commuters ride over 30,000 miles between even relatively minor
injuries. I don't know of any data showing that number got better
once bike helmets came on the scene.

I doubt that the average dedicated commuter in San Diego rode in to
work this morning over sheet ice, or any ice. Forecast tomorrow:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40907968...blication_id=0
Wearing my helmet! What does your data say about the national
weather picture? Will it be dry on average?

I don't need to interpret data. I just look out the window -- or at
my personal experience, as the case may be. -- Jay Beattie.

I think that what gets most people at odds with Frank is his insistence
that the data trumps personal experience.

On Jan 4, 11:46*am, wrote:
Jay Beattie 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 this:

*http://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.

I don't care for your horror stories and implication that blood is
bad. *Don't play football! *That's a large "but if" with which you
start to develop your "the fact that" begging the question. *Stop
sullying RBT!

I'm not implying that blood is bad. I love blood and have about five
litres of my own, which I try to keep inside my body -- particularly
now that I am on blood thinners.

All I am saying is that helmets prevent scalp lacerations, which can
result in the unintended release of blood from one's body and
significant medical expenses. If you are at risk for scalp
laceration, wear a helmet. If not, don't. Very simple choice that
anyone can make -- well, anyone over the age of 16 in Oregon. Only on
this NG is that simple choice turned in to a religious war. You would
think we were discussing abortion or proper tire patching. -- Jay
Beattie.

On 1/4/2011 3:23 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:46 am, wrote:
Jay Beattie 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 this:

http://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.

I don't care for your horror stories and implication that blood is
bad. Don't play football! That's a large "but if" with which you
start to develop your "the fact that" begging the question. Stop
sullying RBT!

I'm not implying that blood is bad. I love blood and have about five
litres of my own, which I try to keep inside my body -- particularly
now that I am on blood thinners.

All I am saying is that helmets prevent scalp lacerations, which can
result in the unintended release of blood from one's body and
significant medical expenses. If you are at risk for scalp
laceration, wear a helmet. If not, don't. Very simple choice that
anyone can make -- well, anyone over the age of 16 in Oregon. Only on
this NG is that simple choice turned in to a religious war. You would
think we were discussing abortion or proper tire patching. -- Jay
Beattie.

I can't argue with Jobst's plea to stop sulleying RBT though. Most of
the bandwidth here is wasted on this nonsense. I'm as guilty as anyone
so I will try to take his advice.

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.

That's a start.

Bike helmets are an ineffective solution to an imaginary problem.

Right, if you don't like me saying that in a race I'm constantly
accelerating (even though I proved that it is true with changes in both
speed and direction), I cannot let you get away with saying that there
is an imaginary problem.

If it was imaginary it would not exist - at all. Zero, ziltch, zip.
However cyclists do occasionally suffer head injuries, therefore the
problem cannot be imaginary.

You should say, given your belief system, that bicycle helmets are an
ineffective solution to the prevention of head injuries when the impact
speed greatly exceeds their rated test impact speed.

I use the word "greatly" intentionally to be inaccurate, because we do
not know at what speed precisely above 14mph a helmet becomes completely
ineffective.

Furthermore, the study that Andre often has spoken about, I believe
demonstrates that bicycle helmets do have a positive impact/effect
(excuse the pun, and it's not the place to use affect) on preventing
serious head injuries.

(Don't argue Andre's conclusions with me though, contest them with him.)

JS.