Another Helmet Thread

On Jun 20, 10:18*am, sms wrote:

So many proclamations, so few citations!

Before I make specific comments, let me link to a CTC document that
rebuts Scharf's claims:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/...videncebrf.pdf


This is what it boils down to:

1. Helmeted cyclists fare much better in head impact crashes than
non-helmeted cyclists.

How, then, to explain things like the Scuffham study, that found no
reduction at all in the percentages hospitalized due to head injury?
Or the Philips study of Ireland, that found no correlation between
helmet use and injury level? Why is it that in the U.S., Australia,
Spain, and other countries, head injuries per cyclist _rose_ after
helmet use jumped?

2. Helmets don't completely eliminate the need for medical treatment,
they just reduce the severity of injury.

Again, where is the evidence? Why so much counter-evidence?


3. The number of head-impact crashes while cycling is relatively low.

Why, thank you!

4. Changes in hospitalization rates are caused by factors other than the
implementation of an MHL.

And of course, since reductions in hospitalization are one of the main
objectives of MHLs, this indicates a failure of the helmets being
used. Again, the previously cited Scuffham paper makes this crystal
clear.


5. There is no evidence that MHLs and helmet promotion reduce cycling rates.

Absolutely false, and an intentional lie. The evidence is well known
and has been cited often, in most discussions of MHL effects here and
elsewhere. The drops in cycling that occurred have been exactly
simultaneous with imposition of helmet laws, and recovery has never
occurred to the same pre-law per-capita levels of cycling.

(BTW, this is still shown in, for example, the dismal failure of
Melbourne's and Brisbane's bike share scheme, compared to all decent
bike shares in non-MHL jurisdictions.)


6. *There is no evidence that MHLs and helmet promotion increase obesity.

Did anyone here say they did?

7. The relative dangers of other activities are irrelevant when it comes
to he use or non-use of bicycle helmets.

Balderdash. Do doctors recommend sunscreen when going out at night?
Do they recommend seat belts when sitting in an easy chair? Do they
recommend protecting ears from 90+ decibel sounds while sleeping? Of
course not! Protective measures are _normally_ advised only when the
risk of a certain injury is greater than normal. The sole exception,
AFAIK, is the bicycle helmet, which is strongly recommended for an
activity with even less TBI risk than walking.

8. Helmet wearing does not cause more car/bicycle accidents.

Unless, perhaps, the phenomenon of Risk Compensation applies to
bicycling just as it's been shown to apply to so many other
activities. And unless one actually reads the studies that
demonstrate risk compensation among bicyclists.

9. The chance that the wearing of helmet will cause a head impact that
would not otherwise occur due to the extra inch of helmet are
vanishingly small.

In your opinion, of course. But how to explain the large number of
"My helmet was dented, so it saved my life" stories - a number that
seems to exceed the all-time record for cycling fatalities?

10. The Netherlands is different than the U.S..

Meaning what? That only in the Netherlands can a person ride with no
hat, yet survive?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Jun 20, 10:18Â*am, sms wrote:
7. The relative dangers of other activities are irrelevant when it comes
to he use or non-use of bicycle helmets.

Balderdash. Do doctors recommend sunscreen when going out at night?
Do they recommend seat belts when sitting in an easy chair? Do they
recommend protecting ears from 90+ decibel sounds while sleeping? Of
course not! Protective measures are _normally_ advised only when the
risk of a certain injury is greater than normal. The sole exception,
AFAIK, is the bicycle helmet, which is strongly recommended for an
activity with even less TBI risk than walking.

Your reply to this comment is not relevant. I disagree with
Scharf's assertion, but this fails to counter it, at least not
clearly.

Scharf's point isn't entirely incorrect. As humans we aren't perfectly
consistent. We willing partake in some activities that have more risk
than others. Attempting to reduce the risk---whether effectively or
not---in some and not others is natural.

I suspect you wear a seatbelt when in a car, however, the probability
of needing it is quite low. Yes, the seatbelt is undoubtedly more
effective than a bike helmet, however, I don't think that you would
decide to quit wearing the seatbelt just because you also did some
other activity that had a substantially higher risk of injury.


--
Joe Riel

On 6/20/2013 10:59 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Jun 20, 10:18 am, sms wrote:
7. The relative dangers of other activities are irrelevant when it comes
to he use or non-use of bicycle helmets.

Balderdash. Do doctors recommend sunscreen when going out at night?
Do they recommend seat belts when sitting in an easy chair? Do they
recommend protecting ears from 90+ decibel sounds while sleeping? Of
course not! Protective measures are _normally_ advised only when the
risk of a certain injury is greater than normal. The sole exception,
AFAIK, is the bicycle helmet, which is strongly recommended for an
activity with even less TBI risk than walking.

Your reply to this comment is not relevant. I disagree with
Scharf's assertion, but this fails to counter it, at least not
clearly.

Scharf's point isn't entirely incorrect. As humans we aren't perfectly
consistent. We willing partake in some activities that have more risk
than others. Attempting to reduce the risk---whether effectively or
not---in some and not others is natural.

The advantage of cycling helmets is that in the unlikely event of head
impact crash, injury severity has been proven to be reduced. This is
independent of whether it is possible to reduce the risk of injury of
other activities.

For most other activities, the risk of injury, whether larger or smaller
than bicycling, is mostly under the control of the person engaging in
the activity. If I garden, and a tree limb falls on my head after I cut
it with a chainsaw, that's my own fault. If a motorist runs a red light
and hits a cyclist, or sideswipes a cyclist, it's not the cyclist's fault.

Pedestrian helmets are always one of Frank's favorite topics, and it's
true, at least on a per-mile basis, walking is more dangerous than
bicycling, but that's not a good comparison because the distance
traveled on a bicycle is much greater. At a per hour rate, bicycling is
about 2.5 times as dangerous (according to a UK study, see
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pedestrians/crash_characteristics_where_and_how/data_considerations.htm).
There's another issue with pedestrian injuries and fatalities as well,
at least in urban areas in the U.S.. Last year, U.S. Transportation
Secretary Ray LaHood stated that “nearly 80 percent (of fatalities)
happened because someone was jaywalking.� That seems high, in NYC it is
estimated to be 25%.

On Jun 20, 2:58*pm, sms wrote:

The advantage of cycling helmets is that in the unlikely event of head
impact crash, injury severity has been proven to be reduced. This is
independent of whether it is possible to reduce the risk of injury of
other activities.

Be honest. Your "proven" is extremely optimistic, and ignoring much
data.

For most other activities, the risk of injury, whether larger or smaller
than bicycling, is mostly under the control of the person engaging in
the activity.

And yet somehow, in the U.S., about 4000 pedestrians are killed every
year, but only about 750 bicylists. Over a third of the killed
bicyclists are drunk. Many of them are without lights at night, or
violating other very basic traffic laws, including even the one about
riding on the proper side of the road. Cyclists taking even the
minimal precautions of obeying the laws are far, far less likely to
have trouble than "average" cyclists.

Pedestrian helmets are always one of Frank's favorite topics, and it's
true, at least on a per-mile basis, walking is more dangerous than
bicycling, but that's not a good comparison because the distance
traveled on a bicycle is much greater. At a per hour rate, bicycling is
about 2.5 times as dangerous (according to a UK study, see
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pedest...).

That's British data, of course. But U.S. data (gathered by John
Pucher and frequently cited here) shows that per mile, walking is
about 3.2 times more dangerous than cycling.

Which is more appropriate, the per-mile data or the per-hour data? It
depends whether your reason for getting on the bike is to get
somewhere or to kill time. If your objective is getting somewhere (to
the store, to work, to the park, to the library) then biking is safer.

I should add, though, that in reality both activities have extremely
low risk. For example, there are millions upon millions of miles
ridden between cyclist fatalities. The number is far, far higher if
you count only the miles and fatalities of competent cyclists - that
is, omitting the drunks, salmon, no-lights, red-light-runners, etc.
There's simply no good reason to fear cycling _or_ walking. But only
the cyclists have to deal with the "Danger! Danger! You've gotta wear
protection!" propaganda.

- Frank Krygowski

Phil W Lee writes:

snip


Although the plural of anecdote is not data, I know for certain that I
was saved a hard head impact by the fact that I was not wearing a foam
hat. The reason I know for certain is because I was able to see my
hair stuck in the jagged broken off tree stump that I'd just slid past
horizontally. I was still sliding fast enough when I hit the next
tree to break two ribs, so the impact would have been fairly
non-trivial, to say the least.
Probably well into the range of "my helmet saved my life" stories.

Sounds like another inch and it might have been "a helmet _could have_
saved [his] life" story.

snip

On 21/06/13 10:41, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Thu, 20 Jun 2013
10:10:05 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Jun 20, 10:18 am, sms wrote:


5. There is no evidence that MHLs and helmet promotion reduce cycling rates.

Absolutely false, and an intentional lie. The evidence is well known
and has been cited often, in most discussions of MHL effects here and
elsewhere. The drops in cycling that occurred have been exactly
simultaneous with imposition of helmet laws, and recovery has never
occurred to the same pre-law per-capita levels of cycling.

(BTW, this is still shown in, for example, the dismal failure of
Melbourne's and Brisbane's bike share scheme, compared to all decent
bike shares in non-MHL jurisdictions.)

Yes, the racks of unused bicycles rusting in peace in Australian
cities are a grim reminder.

Please show me the rusting bicycles. I see them in use fairly often.

While you rely on shonky reporting and statistics, I watch people riding
the bike share bikes around town.

Almost half the bikes are currently in use, one dock is empty, two are full.

Considering it is mid winter, and Melbourne does not present as a
particularly good place to ride a bike, despite propaganda you may have
read, I'd say it's doing as well as can be expected - MHLs or not.

--
JS.

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:30:06 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 21/06/13 10:41, Phil W Lee wrote:

Yes, the racks of unused bicycles rusting in peace in Australian

cities are a grim reminder.



Please show me the rusting bicycles. I see them in use fairly often.



While you rely on shonky reporting and statistics, I watch people riding

the bike share bikes around town.



Almost half the bikes are currently in use, one dock is empty, two are full.



Considering it is mid winter, and Melbourne does not present as a

particularly good place to ride a bike, despite propaganda you may have

read, I'd say it's doing as well as can be expected - MHLs or not.

James, there have been probably 100 articles in the internet, in magazines and in newspapers noting that Melbourne's and Brisbane's bike shares are doing FAR worse than most others around the world. Googling is easy:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bi...531-1fdto.html
The fact that you see some people using some of the bikes doesn't change that.

We used and observed the bike share scheme in Paris. Those bikes were literally everywhere, all the time. We'd see several passing per minute as we ate at outdoor cafes.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Jun 20, 10:18Â*am, sms wrote:

So many proclamations, so few citations!

Before I make specific comments, let me link to a CTC document that
rebuts Scharf's claims:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/...videncebrf.pdf


This is what it boils down to:

1. Helmeted cyclists fare much better in head impact crashes than
non-helmeted cyclists.

How, then, to explain things like the Scuffham study, that found no
reduction at all in the percentages hospitalized due to head injury?
Or the Philips study of Ireland, that found no correlation between
helmet use and injury level? Why is it that in the U.S., Australia,
Spain, and other countries, head injuries per cyclist _rose_ after
helmet use jumped?


One click from the document you linked above:

"Critics of helmet legislation cite 2 ecologic studies from Australia
and New Zealand in which the observed proportion of cyclists with head
injuries was no different from the downward trend predicted from helmet
use rates before legislation.15,16 However, the first study15 was a
presentation of a work in progress. In the final published analysis the
authors concluded that mandatory helmet use had a positive and persistent
effect on the number and severity of head injuries.8 The second ecologic
study was restricted to 1 year of postlegislation data;16 subsequent
analysis of 3 years of postlegislation data by the same principal author
showed that the helmet law led to a 19% reduction in the rate of head
injury.14"

(I'm just guessing that you are referring ot one of these two studies,
since "critics of helmet legislation cite" it, and they really tend to
zero in and latch on to the few anomolies that tenuaously *appear* to
support their wacky version of reality.)

snip

On 21/06/13 13:09, wrote:
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:30:06 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 21/06/13 10:41, Phil W Lee wrote:

Yes, the racks of unused bicycles rusting in peace in Australian

cities are a grim reminder.



Please show me the rusting bicycles. I see them in use fairly
often.



While you rely on shonky reporting and statistics, I watch people
riding

the bike share bikes around town.



Almost half the bikes are currently in use, one dock is empty, two
are full.



Considering it is mid winter, and Melbourne does not present as a

particularly good place to ride a bike, despite propaganda you may
have

read, I'd say it's doing as well as can be expected - MHLs or not.

James, there have been probably 100 articles in the internet, in
magazines and in newspapers noting that Melbourne's and Brisbane's
bike shares are doing FAR worse than most others around the world.
Googling is easy:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bi...531-1fdto.html

Frank, a two year old article is out of date. There are now 50% more
bikes available and still almost 50% in use at the moment - as in while
I'm typing.

I did say as well as can be expected - not compared with some other country.

And you are likely comparing with countries where bike riding is part of
the culture. Here it really isn't. We have about 3-4 generations of
road users for which the bicycle is seen as a kids toy and nothing more,
and not a normal vehicle for adults to ride on the road. Heck, we don't
even have a minimum safe passing distance law, as they do in many other
countries, like Spain, where I believe it is 1.5m - but we're working on
it. The QLD state govt is reviewing laws AWS.

The fact that you see some people using some of the bikes doesn't
change that.

Yes, it would be hard to be watching the whole city at once ... hang on,
not really that hard...

http://bikes.oobrien.com/melbourne/

We used and observed the bike share scheme in Paris. Those bikes
were literally everywhere, all the time. We'd see several passing
per minute as we ate at outdoor cafes.


Ah - the fact that you saw some people using some of the bikes doesn't
prove anything.

And let's not forget, France is the home of several of the biggest bike
races in the world, where a larger portion of the people ride a bike as
part of normal everyday life - it's in their blood!

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.g...ar09_WE B.pdf

Hey, check it out on page 4, we have more people riding bikes (modal
share) than they do in the USA - despite us having MHLs!!! That proves
it...

Frank, you disgust me. You should be actively supporting MHLs so that
people feel safe on the road and more people would ride a bike in the
US, as they do in Australia. ;-)

--
JS

Dan writes:

The second ecologic
study was restricted to 1 year of postlegislation data;16 subsequent
analysis of 3 years of postlegislation data by the same principal author
showed that the helmet law led to a 19% reduction in the rate of head
injury."

Haven't seen that on any helmet promotions: reduces head injury
rate by nearly 20%!

--
Joe Riel