|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |