A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question for the anti-helmet guys



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 27th 03, 01:41 AM
Mike S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for the anti-helmet guys

Nobody here, even Frank, is anti-helmet. Nobody. Some of us may be
anti-deceptive advertising, anti-hype, anti-making unwarranted
assumptions about efficacy. The utility of helmets has not as of yet
been proven and that's the point. However, the pro-helmet guys adopt
the "if you're not with us you're against us" bull**** and the
conversation goes into the toilet in terms of utility. It becomes an
issue of emotional reasoning rather than rational discourse. This is
precisely how anecdotal evidence works- it is founded on what people
*believe* to be true and not what really *is* true.

Now, on to your question. I'm a psychologist. In the past 13 years
have examined and worked with hundreds of people with brain injuries
of every type- strokes, aneurysms, gunshot wounds, assault with
hammers and bricks and clubs, anoxic encephalopathy, toxic
encephalopathy, metabolic encephalopathy, motor vehicle accidents,
bicycle accidents, falls down stairs, alcohol and drugs,
electrocution, infections, etc. I've got a lot of experience in this
area.

In the past 13 years, I've seen two people with bicycle related brain
injuries. The first happened in the 1930s and the man in question
lived out his life in state hospitals and nursing homes. He was 9 at
the time of his injury (he 'd had a prior head injury ice skating,
also, and the bike accident included a car). The second was a man who
fell off his bike in the early 70's and hit his head on the curb at
age 21. He has been disabled and unable to work, lived with his
parents until they were too old to take care of him. He now lives in
a nursing home (the same one as the first gentleman, as a matter of
fact). These were both people who could have had a much better
quality of life.

Neither I nor anyone else in this discussion are denying the
seriousness of brain injuries, nor the fact that one can sustain a
serious head/brain injury in a bicycle accident. But let's not
overdramatise the issue. Just because a serious head injury can
happen doesn't mean it will happen. If you believe that it will, then
for Pete's sake stay home in bed. In actual fact, the risk of a
having a brain injury while riding a bike is small- so small that the
vast majority of bicyclists go their entire lives without a head
injury, whether they wear a helmet or not. The risk of improved
health vastly outweighs the risk of injury.

The point that is being made by the "anti helmet guys" is that there
is little to no credible evidence, either from direct measurement or
from epidemiologically based studies, that bicycle helmets provide a
significant level of protection from brain injury. If you want to
argue that helmets provide protection against getting road rash on
your head, I won't argue that point because it seems pretty likely
that this is true.

We have to be careful not to mask the real problems facing cyclists:
that roadways are poorly designed to carry both automotive and bicycle
traffic; that most bicyclists lack the requisite level of skill to
safely operate a bicycle in traffic; that most drivers lack the skill
to safely drive around bicyclists; and that the predominant car
culture results in an impoverished environment for cyclists. Despite
this, most of us manage to get home from a bike ride without having
died or suffered a head injury whether we wore a helmet or not. If we
really want to be safer on the roads, IMHO we'd be better off
attacking the real problems.

Now, it's possible that helmets *do* provide significant protection,
and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I remain
open to that possibility. But before we say that helmets are a
significant protective factor, we have to have the data that shows
this to be the case.


Holy Cow! A rational person in the helmet debate! Elizabeth, here I come!!
(from Sanford and Son, if you're wondering)

I like that last paragraph. The problem I've had with the anti-helmet guys
is that nowhere have I seen anything that tells me exactly what injuries
occurred BEFORE MHLs vs. what injuries occurred AFTER MHLs.

I'd like to go talk to a few ERs to do a very unscientific survey... If
anyone's seen it all, its the ER guys.

Mike



Ads
  #2  
Old September 27th 03, 02:21 AM
Tom Paterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for the anti-helmet guys

From: "Mike S."

(snip)
nowhere have I seen anything that tells me exactly what injuries
occurred BEFORE MHLs vs. what injuries occurred AFTER MHLs.

I'd like to go talk to a few ERs to do a very unscientific survey... If
anyone's seen it all, its the ER guys.


For one thing, as has been pointed out, the folks who aren't badly hurt don't
go to the ER. It's very expensive and the workers there don't have much of a
patient-friendly reputation, either. So no, they haven't "seen it all" in the
ER, and your "data" would be useless.

Also, don't forget the usual pro-helmet bias in the medical community. There
was a statement quoted here (AMA?), they wanted CHU laws big time. --TP


  #3  
Old September 29th 03, 03:08 AM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for the anti-helmet guys

Mike S. wrote:


I like that last paragraph. The problem I've had with the anti-helmet guys...


Obviously, even Tim's rather eloquent post couldn't convince you to drop
the "anti-helmet" label!


is that nowhere have I seen anything that tells me exactly what injuries
occurred BEFORE MHLs vs. what injuries occurred AFTER MHLs.

I'd like to go talk to a few ERs to do a very unscientific survey... If
anyone's seen it all, its the ER guys.


FWIW, I have a close family member who's an ER physician. His state has
had a kids MHL law for a few years now. He says he's noted no changes,
and his state was listed (in that New York Times article, IIRC) as
another one in which the law caused no apparent improvement in head
injury rates.

--
Frank Krygowski

  #4  
Old September 29th 03, 07:19 AM
Mike S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for the anti-helmet guys


I like that last paragraph. The problem I've had with the anti-helmet

guys...

Obviously, even Tim's rather eloquent post couldn't convince you to drop
the "anti-helmet" label!


Must've missed that one... Where is it?

is that nowhere have I seen anything that tells me exactly what injuries
occurred BEFORE MHLs vs. what injuries occurred AFTER MHLs.

I'd like to go talk to a few ERs to do a very unscientific survey... If
anyone's seen it all, its the ER guys.


FWIW, I have a close family member who's an ER physician. His state has
had a kids MHL law for a few years now. He says he's noted no changes,
and his state was listed (in that New York Times article, IIRC) as
another one in which the law caused no apparent improvement in head
injury rates.

What KINDS of injuries?

Was there an increase in the number of cyclists in that time vs. how many
actually ended up in the ER? Or was the number of cyclists relatively
constant as were the injuries?

Mike

Frank Krygowski



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reports from Sweden Garry Jones General 17 October 14th 03 05:23 PM
Reports from Sweden Garry Jones Social Issues 14 October 14th 03 05:23 PM
Question for the anti-helmet guys G Huang Techniques 0 September 26th 03 05:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.