Paramount

On Jul 4, 11:31 am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:03:11 -0000, Qui si parla Campagnolo

wrote:
Right, remember that helmets 'may' help, never hurt. Helmets are not a
panacea to no head injury, paticularly with the ridiculously low
height and speed standards they are now tested to.

If they never hurt, why do you not wear one all the time?

If you truly believe there is no downside to wearing a helmet,
shouldn't you wear it all the time. At least when awake and moving,
or when outside? Seems to me that's the logical conclusion to your
belief.

http://tinyurl.com/2m2vzv

EYETHCREAM EYETHCREAM, WOO WOOO!

In article
.com
,
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

Right, remember that helmets 'may' help, never hurt. Helmets are not a
panacea to no head injury, paticularly with the ridiculously low
height and speed standards they are now tested to.

Helmets may hurt. Larger target, rotational neck injury.
Bloody scalp is slicker than high tensile foam.

--
Michael Press

In article
,
Tim McNamara wrote:

In article . net,
"Bruce Gilbert" wrote:

Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work. I had a few friends
from back then that are still staring at the walls because of crash
injured brains. The helmet argument stops the first time you have to
change an adult diaper...

Ah, must be time for the helmet rants. We haven't had one in a while.
(No) thanks for bringing this up.

The short answer is: it's a beer cooler. On your head. Designed for
impacts of about 10 mph. Faster than about 14 mph it's not very useful.
As a result, a helmet is probably of greater benefit for children than
adults- children are more likely to be riding a bike within the
limitations of a helmet- low speed and low head eheight fromwhich to
fall. A helmet might keep road rash off your head, which is nice, but
it's not likely to add much in terms of brain protection- a bit perhaps
in straight line impacts and nothing to prevent shearing injuries of the
brain. Interestingly, the decisive factor in the severity of brain
injuries is not the trauma itself but the things that happen afterwards-
cytotoxic edema in which a number of brain-damaging chemicals are
released into the brain as the blood-brain barrier is disrupted.

For perspective, I am a psychologist. I work in nursing homes and have
had hundreds of clients with traumatic brain injuries over the past 17
years. Of those, two had cycling-related brain injuries. In one case,
the patient was struck by a car while riding his bike and hurled into
the curb- he was about 6 years old at the time (it was about 1930 when
this happened). In the other case, the patient was 21 and crashed, also
striking his head on the curb. In his case, his cognitive status has
been progressively impaired by a poorly controlled seizure disorder and
he also has paranoid schizophrenia, so it is very hard to estimate which
cognitive deficits were acquired when. The vast majority of my clients
with brain injuries sustained them in motor vehicle accidents and falls,
followed by anoxic brain injuries suffered during heart attacks,
seizures, etc.

According to the NIH, motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of
brain injuries in the US (50%), followed by falls of all types (20-30%,
biased towards people over 75 and under 5 years of age), and firearms
(12%). The rest are from miscellaneous causes. About 45-50% of TBIs
are work-related, at least half of those being from falls. A study by
the Minnesota Department of Health found that motor vehicle accidents,
falls, gunshots, etc. had far higher incidence of brain injuries than
cycling, and that road cycling had a lower incidence of brain injuries
than off-road cycling.

Thanks for this. Are the figures in the final paragraph
adjusted for rates of participation in the activities?

--
Michael Press

On Jul 4, 11:07 am, Bill Sornson wrote:
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

On Jul 4, 7:17 am, Bruce Gilbert wrote:
...Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work.
WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE STATISTICAL PROOF?

Yawn.

I had a few friends from back then that are
still staring at the walls because of crash injured brains. The
helmet argument stops the first time you have to change an adult
diaper...
Male bovine..., there is no proof that these persons would have been
any better off if they had been wearing a CPSC or even Snell rated
foam hat, unless of course their identical twins had EXACTLY similar
head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Where did Bruce say his friends' crashes weren't low-speed falls? Lose
balance due to uneven surface and smash melon into curb edge -- you want
properly fitted plastic & foam protection or not?

Get a clue, Tommy. (Today's catch-phrase...for a WIDE range of topics,
apparently.)

Yo Billy,

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Jul 4, 10:37 am, Tim McNamara wrote:
...
According to the NIH, motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of
brain injuries in the US (50%), followed by falls of all types (20-30%,
biased towards people over 75 and under 5 years of age), and firearms
(12%). The rest are from miscellaneous causes. About 45-50% of TBIs
are work-related, at least half of those being from falls. A study by
the Minnesota Department of Health found that motor vehicle accidents,
falls, gunshots, etc. had far higher incidence of brain injuries than
cycling, and that road cycling had a lower incidence of brain injuries
than off-road cycling.

I though the leading cause of brain damage was watching too much
commercial television!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Jul 4, 11:41 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
..Not since the late 80s/early 90s has anything come to market that really makes
cycling 'better'.

Nonsense. There has been great progress in the design and availability
of recumbent bicycles and trikes.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Jul 4, 1:53 pm, "landotter" who? wrote:
On Jul 4, 11:31 am, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:03:11 -0000, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
Right, remember that helmets 'may' help, never hurt. Helmets are not a
panacea to no head injury, paticularly with the ridiculously low
height and speed standards they are now tested to.

If they never hurt, why do you not wear one all the time?

If you truly believe there is no downside to wearing a helmet,
shouldn't you wear it all the time. At least when awake and moving,
or when outside? Seems to me that's the logical conclusion to your
belief.

http://tinyurl.com/2m2vzv

EYETHCREAM EYETHCREAM, WOO WOOO!

Nice picture of Fabrizio Mazzoleni!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

David L. Johnson wrote:
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Yeah. Works for that, though. Won't help if you head-on into a Mack
truck, despite the claim of "saving lives".

You can fall going 40 mph and not have a "40 mph impact". HTH (but doubt
it).

In article ,
"Bill Sornson" wrote:

David L. Johnson wrote:
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed
to protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Yeah. Works for that, though. Won't help if you head-on into a
Mack truck, despite the claim of "saving lives".

You can fall going 40 mph and not have a "40 mph impact". HTH (but
doubt it).

It would suck either way! ;-)

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Tim McNamara wrote:

In article . net,
"Bruce Gilbert" wrote:

Let's face it, brain injuries suck, helmets work. I had a few
friends from back then that are still staring at the walls
because of crash injured brains. The helmet argument stops the
first time you have to change an adult diaper...

Ah, must be time for the helmet rants. We haven't had one in a
while. (No) thanks for bringing this up.

The short answer is: it's a beer cooler. On your head. Designed
for impacts of about 10 mph. Faster than about 14 mph it's not
very useful. As a result, a helmet is probably of greater benefit
for children than adults- children are more likely to be riding a
bike within the limitations of a helmet- low speed and low head
eheight fromwhich to fall. A helmet might keep road rash off your
head, which is nice, but it's not likely to add much in terms of
brain protection- a bit perhaps in straight line impacts and
nothing to prevent shearing injuries of the brain. Interestingly,
the decisive factor in the severity of brain injuries is not the
trauma itself but the things that happen afterwards- cytotoxic
edema in which a number of brain-damaging chemicals are released
into the brain as the blood-brain barrier is disrupted.

For perspective, I am a psychologist. I work in nursing homes and
have had hundreds of clients with traumatic brain injuries over the
past 17 years. Of those, two had cycling-related brain injuries.
In one case, the patient was struck by a car while riding his bike
and hurled into the curb- he was about 6 years old at the time (it
was about 1930 when this happened). In the other case, the patient
was 21 and crashed, also striking his head on the curb. In his
case, his cognitive status has been progressively impaired by a
poorly controlled seizure disorder and he also has paranoid
schizophrenia, so it is very hard to estimate which cognitive
deficits were acquired when. The vast majority of my clients with
brain injuries sustained them in motor vehicle accidents and falls,
followed by anoxic brain injuries suffered during heart attacks,
seizures, etc.

According to the NIH, motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause
of brain injuries in the US (50%), followed by falls of all types
(20-30%, biased towards people over 75 and under 5 years of age),
and firearms (12%). The rest are from miscellaneous causes. About
45-50% of TBIs are work-related, at least half of those being from
falls. A study by the Minnesota Department of Health found that
motor vehicle accidents, falls, gunshots, etc. had far higher
incidence of brain injuries than cycling, and that road cycling had
a lower incidence of brain injuries than off-road cycling.

Thanks for this. Are the figures in the final paragraph adjusted for
rates of participation in the activities?

The MNDoT ones were not, as I recall. My old URL for that report (it
was available in a PDF) no longer works, but you might be able to find
it still on their Web site. And maybe an updated version, too, the one
I read would be several years old now.