First Helmet : jury is out.

neil0502 wrote:

People should have ready access to the information to make a cost-
benefit decision regarding helmets. If the costs are soooo minimal, and
if there is any benefit whatsoever to be derived from helmet use (or, if
there is simply no reduction in safety due to helmet use), people should
know this. Then, the choice should be theirs.

I know you're wanting to ignore statistics, but I'm afraid we can't do
that. Statistics are the ONLY way to tell what benefits of helmet use.
Otherwise, we have to rely on speculation and anecdotes. Logic 101
should have taught you the weaknesses there.

Regarding costs and benefits, a large study was done to evaluate the
costs versus benefits regarding helmets. Actually, it was the cost to
benefit ratio of Australia's all-ages mandatory helmet law. "An
Economic Evaluation of the Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Legislation in
Western Australia" by D. Hendrie et. al.

Briefly, it indicates that the helmets, or the helmet law, were probably
not worth the expense. There was some uncertainty in the findings, but
they figured the outcomes ranged from a possible benefit over six years
of $2 million, to a possible detriment of $10.5 million. However, they
point out that their figures do not include the losses to public health
caused by the very significant reduction in cycling that came with the
law.

In other words, that legislative experiment was a failure. Not that the
legislators are likely to change it, though. It takes a lot for a
legislator to say he was wrong!

Now, the same principle holds closely for helmet promotions. The more
people push helmets, the more money is spent on them. But the
reductions in head injuries don't seem to appear as promised, except
perhaps by dissuading people from riding. And I can't accept a strategy
that protects cyclists by encouraging them to give up cycling!



Back to Stephen Harding... (I'm trying to learn proper posting here. Is
it working?)

Focusing only on the dangers to one's head on a bike seems a negative
portrayal of the activity to me.


Three answers:

1) This _is_ a bike forum. I tend to think that focus on bikes is
appropriate here.

But the _only_ way to rationally evaluate danger is by comparison with
other activities!


In threads about helmet use, focusing on the potential effects of
helmet use on cyclist safety hardly seems like a negative portrayal.
Again, red herring.

I think you misunderstood someone. What Stephen was talking about, I
believe, was helmet proponents' habit of harping on the supposed dangers
of bicycling. That's quite separate from "focusing on the potential
effects of helmet use!"



--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski wrote in message ...
R15757 wrote:



[1] Frank K misquoted the 1976 Kaplan study of LAW
cyclists' accidents. He said they suffered an injury or
bike damage more than 50$ (no small amount in '76)
about every 15,000 miles or every seven years. In
fact Kaplan found that LAW cyclists rode 2400 miles
per year on average and hurt themselves every 4
years/10.000 miles.

"R15757" is looking at the wrong study. It took me a while to find my
copy, but the one I was referring to was by Dr. Bill Moritz, in 1996,
from a national survey of League of American Bicyclists members.

My apologies, I thought you were misquoting Kaplan, not Moritz. I have
heard tell of his studies, but I understood they were more concerned
with the relative danger of different types of facilities, plus I
thought it was more of an in-house LAB thing. Do you have a link?


snip
From the abstract: "Based on the experience reported by these
cyclists, the 'average' cyclist in this group could be expected to ride
for 11 years before having such a crash. Falls accounted for 59% of the
incidents while running into a fixed object happened 14% of the time.
Moving motor vehicles were involved in 11% of the crashes and another
bicycle in 9%."

Do you think these numbers, from what in '96 were probably among the
most conservative cyclists anywhere, suggest that real injuries are
"vanishingly rare?" They obviously don't, especially when you take
into account that a cyclist with ten years of experience is one fifth
as likely to crash as a beginner. Even at the LAB rate I would already
have been injured six or seven times in my short career.

For those crashes, median property damage was $100. That's roughly
equivalent to a bent front wheel.

Any crash that ruins a wheel is likely to cause injury.

Median medical cost was $155, which
would probably be less than a trip to an ER for road rash...
snip
OK, there you are. Eleven years at 2900 miles per year, roughly 32,000
miles, to rack up $100 in (say) a broken wheel, plus enough road rash
for a scrubbing at the ER.

Your implication that most adult cyclists who go to the ER are there
for road rash is irresponsible. What kind of Attention Whore goes to
the ER for road rash? I have a month's worth of the NEISS raw data
right here (March 2002), over which I have been pouring with renewed
interest. First of all, most people who go to the ER after a bike
accident are children. I haven't seen the study you cited earlier, but
I think it might be bunk because even among children, CT/AB
(contusions and abrasions) are nowhere near the most frequent injuries
seen at ERs. Among adults 20 yrs. old and older, the most popular
diagnoses at the ER are LAC and FRACT. After that, I-O-I HEAD
(internal organ injury, head), CT/AB, and ST/SP, then DISL, and a
miscellaneous category with stuff like avulsions, non-head hematomas
and amputations follow in about equal amounts. One must also assume
that many of the adult CT/AB and LAC injuries are unusually serious in
that category. A glance through the comments included with each case
bears that out.

Robert

wrote:
neil0502 wrote:

DISCLAIMER (that, seemingly, needs to be a part of all of my posts): I
am neither anti- nor pro-helmet. I absolutely do not advocate new laws
forcing helmet use. end quote
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It doesn't matter a toss what you claim your position to be - if you
argue for a position that supports the position what we are arguing
against then it will be rebutted. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a
duck...follow?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
neil0502 wrote: Now . . . .
While I take your point, I'll tell you why I think it does little to
bolster your case: (without going to the years and statistics) In the
States, auto makers were required decades ago to put seat belts in cars.
In something like 48 states, seat belt use is mandatory. My particular
hunk o'-steel ha four airbags in addition. Lots of the new ones are
going that way.
The reason I think that it weakens your argument to point this out is:
it's very easy for somebody to say, "You're right! Driving is more
dangerous. Luckily, there are laws to . . . . . " So I say--for all our
sakes--sticking to bikes keeps it cleaner. end quote
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neil has completely missed the point - the comparisons to pedestrians
and motorists regards the comparative incidence of the particular
malaise (HI) - the comparison -rather than being an irrelevant "red
herring" - is brought up in order to get concern about HI in proportion
and perspective. If you use a little abstraction - consider a certain
un-named malaise that occurs in a population and occurences of this
malaise tend to be grouped, arbitrarily (for reporting purposes) by some
aspects of the type of activity being engaged in when the malaise
occured. Now do we single out for special attention some of these
arbitrarily grouped activities? Next question - what is discrimination?
What is persecution? Maybe this is too abstract?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
neil0502 wrote:

Also--unless I'm forgetting something--I've never called anybody anti-
helmet. That's a mischaracterization (the likes of which I'm seeing so
frequently). end quote
Neil has forgotten something - earlier he posted
I think it's important to note that if the anti-helmet faction convinces
an undecided newbie to ride without a helmet (and the newbie happened to
be an undeclared mtb rider), then this mtb rider takes a header and
cracks his scull, the outcome was tragic and avoidable. end quote

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'd suggest that Neil could put to use his Logic 101 knowledge to do
little more critical analysis of what he has written above - he migh
notice his use of the informal fallacy - petitio principii - taking fo
granted that which is at issue in the debate - the ability of helmets t
prevent skull fractures, let alone serious intracranial injury, is no
only contentious but one of the central issues under debate. Neil'
statement also employs another type of fallacious "reasoning" - tryin
to play on our conscience - to induce a sense of responsibility/guil
for the outcome he describes in his question begging statement

Roge


-

RobertH wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote in message ...

R15757 wrote:



[1] Frank K misquoted the 1976 Kaplan study of LAW
cyclists' accidents. He said they suffered an injury or
bike damage more than 50$ (no small amount in '76)
about every 15,000 miles or every seven years. In
fact Kaplan found that LAW cyclists rode 2400 miles
per year on average and hurt themselves every 4
years/10.000 miles.

"R15757" is looking at the wrong study. It took me a while to find my
copy, but the one I was referring to was by Dr. Bill Moritz, in 1996,
from a national survey of League of American Bicyclists members.


My apologies, I thought you were misquoting Kaplan, not Moritz. I have
heard tell of his studies, but I understood they were more concerned
with the relative danger of different types of facilities, plus I
thought it was more of an in-house LAB thing. Do you have a link?

A not-very-printable version is at
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

By the way: more apologies on my part. In my initial mention of the
study, I said Moritz's definition of a "serious" crash was $50 property
damage, or [unspecified] medical treatment. In my just-previous post, I
mistakenly said $75. The first number, $50, is correct - and, of
course, makes my point more strongly.

To put the $50 in context, the survey population averaged spending
$1,100 on bicycling during the previous year. IOW, their "serious"
crash caused hardly a blip in their bike-related spending.

From the abstract: "Based on the experience reported by these
cyclists, the 'average' cyclist in this group could be expected to ride
for 11 years before having such a crash. Falls accounted for 59% of the
incidents while running into a fixed object happened 14% of the time.
Moving motor vehicles were involved in 11% of the crashes and another
bicycle in 9%."


Do you think these numbers, from what in '96 were probably among the
most conservative cyclists anywhere...

??? Why do you think these are the most conservative cyclists anywhere?
Nearly ten percent did road racing. 35% did mountain biking.

I'm afraid you're grasping at straws again - and self-invented straws,
at that!

... suggest that real injuries are
"vanishingly rare?"

Injuries costing over $50 [median cost = $100] happened once every 11
years. Median medical cost was $155 every 11 years. Deal with it.

I know you prefer to say cycling is full of horror, but it's not.


OK, there you are. Eleven years at 2900 miles per year, roughly 32,000
miles, to rack up $100 in (say) a broken wheel, plus enough road rash
for a scrubbing at the ER.


Your implication that most adult cyclists who go to the ER are there
for road rash is irresponsible.

Reporting the results of scientific papers is irresponsible??


... and amputations...

:-) There you go! You can start horrifying people with tales of
amutations!

BTW, why am I still the only one giving numbers with citations? Give a
link to the data you're looking at.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Originally posted by RogerDodge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger: It doesn't matter a toss what you claim your position to be - i
you argue for a position that supports the position what we are arguin
against then it will be rebutted. If it walks like a duck, quacks like
duck...follow
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

** Neil: I follow . . . about as well as I followed Geo. Bush's "...wit
us or with the terrorists" speeches . . . . *

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger: Neil has completely missed the point - the comparisons t
pedestrians and motorists regards the comparative incidence of th
particular malaise (HI) - the comparison -rather than being a
irrelevant "red herring" - is brought up in order to get concern abou
HI in proportion and perspective. [snip
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

** Neil: May want to evaluate your self-selecting samples -- E
studies?? What about the totality of crashes -- helmet vs. non-helme
outcomes. In my last (off-road, helmeted) crash, I landed squarely o
-- and pierced -- my helmet. I walked away. I would think that _this
is the body that needs to be evaluated: Who crashes? What is th
outcome? *

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger: [snip] that which is at issue in the debate - the ability o
helmets to prevent skull fractures, let alone serious intracrania
injury [snip]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

** Neil: Your definition, not mine. To repeat

If the costs are soooo minimal, and if there is any benefit whatsoeve
to be derived from helmet use (or, if there is simply no reduction i
safety due to helmet use), people should know this. Then, the choic
should be theirs. And . . . I'll (still) vote against any bill seekin
to make bicycle helmet use mandatory

I apologize for forgetting the use of the term 'anti-helmet' in a
earlier post, and thank you for reminding me. I may need to stop usin
aluminum cookware . . . . *


-

Frank Krygowski wrote:


To put the $50 in context, the survey population averaged spending
$1,100 on bicycling during the previous year. IOW, their "serious"
crash caused hardly a blip in their bike-related spending.

It is difficult to imagine how I would do 50$ in damage
to my expensive bicycle in a crash and not hurt
myself. Maybe I could rack up the STI or, like you said,
rip a derailleur off and still emerge unscathed. In
general, if you do real damage to a bike in a wreck,
that wreck is going to hurt.

??? Why do you think these are the most conservative cyclists anywhere?
Nearly ten percent did road racing. 35% did mountain biking.

Give us a break Frank. We're talking about LAB
members in 96. According to Moritz: "Road (49%)
[42%/-] and touring (21%) [25%/-] bikes were used
most often with mountain bikes at 12% [15%/-]." Also
according to Moritz: "The 'average' respondent was a
48 year-old, married (66%) male (80%) professional
(48%)..." And almost 10% of these folks reported
crashing seriously in 1996 while riding only 3000 miles
on average!!!

These numbers which are the best you can come up
with aren't helping your argument. To put it in
perspective: cyclists with just one decade of
experience are one fifth as likely to crash as beginning
cyclists, according to John Forester, and the LAB
respondents reported 14+ years experience on
average. And at the supposedly stellar LAB crash rate,
I would have already injured myself roughly seven
times in my short career!

I know you prefer to say cycling is full of horror, but it's not.

I know you prefer to oversimplify my arguments,
but I won't let you. Cycling in traffic has the very real
potential to be full of horror. You disagree?

Your implication that most adult cyclists who go to the ER are there
for road rash is irresponsible.

Reporting the results of scientific papers is irresponsible??

Maybe, I haven't seen your ER study but I do have the
March 2002 NEISS bicycle injury numbers (excluding
mtn. bike injuries) right here, and they contradict what
you repeatedly have implied about the chintziness of
ER injuries.

Among all ER patients with bike-related injuries, most
of whom are young children that get hauled in by their
worried parents, CT/AB (contusions and abrasions)
account for only about 25% of injuries, and many of
those CT/AB are quite serious according to included
comments. Fractures and lacerations each seem to be
just as frequent as CT/AB.

Maybe you could post some more information about
the study you cited so we can determine whether or
not it is complete bull****.

BTW, why am I still the only one giving numbers with citations? Give a
link to the data you're looking at.

I'm looking at a stack of paper about six inches high,
there is no link. It's the raw data for the National
Electronic Injury Surveillance System, for (non-
mountain) bicycle-related injuries for the month of
March, 2002. You can get your very own stack by
contacting the USCPSC's National Injury Information
Clearinghouse. Write me an email and I'll give you a
phone number, if you want.

You would probably enjoy the comments that are
included with each case. There is a lot of "PT fell off
bike, fx wrist, no helmet" type of stuff. Classic.

Now I'm off to do some relatively risky mountain
biking.

Robert

First, I'm fairly sure that almost nobody is reading this thread but
"R15757" and I, so unless I hear otherwise, I'll probably drop this one.

But:


R15757 wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:


To put the $50 in context, the survey population averaged spending
$1,100 on bicycling during the previous year. IOW, their "serious"
crash caused hardly a blip in their bike-related spending.

It is difficult to imagine how I would do 50$ in damage
to my expensive bicycle in a crash and not hurt
myself. Maybe I could rack up the STI or, like you said,
rip a derailleur off and still emerge unscathed. In
general, if you do real damage to a bike in a wreck,
that wreck is going to hurt.

Funny that you say that in direct opposition to the evidence! Do you
really imagine that the 1,956 respondents were lying?

Ways to do over $50 damage without seriously hurting yourself:

Taco any decent wheel. Break or bend a derailleur. Bash an STI
shifter. Rip a good pair of cycling shorts. Rip a good jersey. Break
a fancy bike computer. Break a rechargeable headlight set. Break a
wris****ch. Scratch up a fancy pair of shades. Ruin an expensive tire...

I've seen several of these happen, and others as well. In the case of
two wheel failures and the derailleur, the victims were absolutely
unscathed. In the case of the bike shorts, the victim had a tiny
abrasion - the kind a large bandaid would cover.


??? Why do you think these are the most conservative cyclists anywhere?
Nearly ten percent did road racing. 35% did mountain biking.

Give us a break Frank. We're talking about LAB
members in 96. According to Moritz: "Road (49%)
[42%/-] and touring (21%) [25%/-] bikes were used
most often with mountain bikes at 12% [15%/-]." Also
according to Moritz: "The 'average' respondent was a
48 year-old, married (66%) male (80%) professional
(48%)..." And almost 10% of these folks reported
crashing seriously in 1996 while riding only 3000 miles
on average!!!

Apparently your image of "real cyclist (tm)" is very distorted.

And this leads to the probable explanation for your hyper-paranoid
views: You (as described earlier) ride more than probably 99% of the
population. And judging by the gory accidents you describe for you and
your friends, your riding is either not particularly cautious, or not
particularly skilled. (I know you won't like that, but you need to face
facts - or revise your tales.)

Like many "extreme" sports enthusiasts, you feel anyone who dedicates
less time, or less willing to risk injury, isn't "real." It's like the
big wall climbers who make fun of people bouldering, or whitewater
kayakers who cut down people in recreational boats.

So for you, riding may be risky. Fine. If it makes you feel macho, do
it. But don't pretend that your accident experiences are pertinent for
someone who rides in a more rational way.

Personally, I think most people would call 3000 miles per year
respectable mileage. I think a national survey of 1956 dedicated
cyclists accurately portrays the experiences of most dedicated cyclists.
And I think those experiences are likely to mirror those of the people
who read rec.bicycles.misc - and do so better than the blood-and-gore
tales of some adrenalin junkies.

These numbers which are the best you can come up
with aren't helping your argument. To put it in
perspective: cyclists with just one decade of
experience are one fifth as likely to crash as beginning
cyclists, according to John Forester, and the LAB
respondents reported 14+ years experience on
average. And at the supposedly stellar LAB crash rate,
I would have already injured myself roughly seven
times in my short career!

Did you mean seven "serious" injuries, each with a median cost of $155?
Or did you mean seven "minor" injuries, needing no medical treatment?

Heck, based on your previous tales, I thought you've long since exceeded
either one! So, it sounds like cycling isn't so dangerous for you, either!


I know you prefer to say cycling is full of horror, but it's not.

I know you prefer to oversimplify my arguments,
but I won't let you. Cycling in traffic has the very real
potential to be full of horror. You disagree?

Oh, _everything_ has the _potential_ for horror. I'm unable to
understand why you're so dedicated to making cycling sound especially
bad. Why not go elsewhere and harp on the _potential_ horrors of motoring?

IOW, are you _sure_ you don't want to take up a different activity?



Your implication that most adult cyclists who go to the ER are there

for road rash is irresponsible.


Reporting the results of scientific papers is irresponsible??

Maybe, I haven't seen your ER study but I do have the
March 2002 NEISS bicycle injury numbers (excluding
mtn. bike injuries) right here, and they contradict what
you repeatedly have implied about the chintziness of
ER injuries.
...

Maybe you could post some more information about
the study you cited so we can determine whether or
not it is complete bull****.

Once again, it's "Bicycle Accidents: An Examination of Hospital
Emergency Room Reports and Comparison with Police Accident Data" by Jane
C. Stutts, et. al, Transportation Research Record 1168.


BTW, why am I still the only one giving numbers with citations? Give a
link to the data you're looking at.

I'm looking at a stack of paper about six inches high,
there is no link. It's the raw data for the National
Electronic Injury Surveillance System, for (non-
mountain) bicycle-related injuries for the month of
March, 2002. You can get your very own stack by
contacting the USCPSC's National Injury Information
Clearinghouse. Write me an email and I'll give you a
phone number, if you want.

What, is it secret? Post it here.


You would probably enjoy the comments that are
included with each case. There is a lot of "PT fell off
bike, fx wrist, no helmet" type of stuff. Classic.

I'm sure. Classic accident pornography.


OK, once again: if there are no responses to this sub-thread from other
readers, I'm done.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:


First, I'm fairly sure that almost nobody is reading this thread but
"R15757" and I, so unless I hear otherwise, I'll probably drop this one.

(Don't worry folks, Frank will pop up in another thread spewing the
exact same stuff, completely undeterred by the dissenting views of
those with vastly more time on the bike than himself.)

Ways to do over $50 damage without seriously hurting yourself:

Taco any decent wheel. Break or bend a derailleur. Bash an STI
shifter. Rip a good pair of cycling shorts. Rip a good jersey...

All these mishaps are likely to involve at least some degree of
injury.


Apparently your image of "real cyclist (tm)" is very distorted.

And this leads to the probable explanation for your hyper-paranoid
views: You (as described earlier) ride more than probably 99% of the
population. And judging by the gory accidents you describe for you and
your friends, your riding is either not particularly cautious, or not
particularly skilled. (I know you won't like that, but you need to face
facts - or revise your tales.)

This is offensive. My experiences do not fit your fantasy version of
reality, so my experiences need to be "revised." Your condescension is
reaching new heights, which is really saying something. It is not my
experience but your wacky theories that need to be revised. First of
all, since my accident/injury rate and that of my "extreme"
"adrenalin junky" friends is actually better by several orders of
magnitude than the accident/injury rate identified by any study,new,
old or imagined, of American or British club cyclists, it would seem
that these club cyclists are in fact the ones who are not particularly
cautious or skilled.

RIGHT??! How do you explain the mediocre accident rate of CTC and LAB
cyclists? My guess is it's due to their propensity toward daredevilism
and pernicious lawlessness! For what else could possibly explain the
difference?


Like many "extreme" sports enthusiasts,

What?

you feel anyone who dedicates
less time, or less willing to risk injury, isn't "real."

Eh? You lost me. It's obvious to me that you are more willing to risk
injury than I am.


So for you, riding may be risky. Fine. If it makes you feel macho, do
it. But don't pretend that your accident experiences are pertinent for
someone who rides in a more rational way.

Again, offensive. Dont pretend to understand the "rational way"
someone who has already had a near-death experience navigates through
traffic. These riders give new meaning to the word conservative. A
profound caution that you can't begin to fathom is behind every one of
their movements in traffic. Experience brings out new levels and
nuances of caution in traffic that you apparently can't wrap your mind
around. To you, everything is reeaaal simple. Teach a child to do it,
right?

But it aint real simple. Fact is, the rider who has competely
eliminated his or her own mistakes will still be vulnerable to the
mistakes of others. Fact is, your claim that simply riding lawfully
will make collisions and injuries "vanishingly rare" is not supported
by statistics, nor is it supported by the experiences of those who
actually ride their bikes a lot.

Personally, I think most people would call 3000 miles per year
respectable mileage. I think a national survey of 1956 dedicated
cyclists accurately portrays the experiences of most dedicated cyclists.
And I think those experiences are likely to mirror those of the people
who read rec.bicycles.misc - and do so better than the blood-and-gore
tales of some adrenalin junkies.

There are a lot of brand new cyclists on this forum who just caught
the bug, and they are statistically five times as likely to wreck as
an experienced cyclist. They should hear from those who have been
there and back, not from those who haven't been there but who have
crazy unsupported theories about what it's like.

These numbers which are the best you can come up
with aren't helping your argument. To put it in
perspective: cyclists with just one decade of
experience are one fifth as likely to crash as beginning
cyclists, according to John Forester, and the LAB
respondents reported 14+ years experience on
average. And at the supposedly stellar LAB crash rate,
I would have already injured myself roughly seven
times in my short career!

Did you mean seven "serious" injuries, each with a median cost of $155?
Or did you mean seven "minor" injuries, needing no medical treatment?

At their rate I would have had seven "serious" wrecks based on the
parameters of Moritz' study. In short, ouch. Why do those guys suck so
bad, Frank? Why?



IOW, are you _sure_ you don't want to take up a different activity?

Yeah, I rode 300 miles this week and hated every minute of it. I've
got tomorrow off and I'm going on a long ride through the mountains.
Boy, am I depressed. And scared!


Once again, it's "Bicycle Accidents: An Examination of Hospital
Emergency Room Reports and Comparison with Police Accident Data" by Jane
C. Stutts, et. al, Transportation Research Record 1168.

It would be nice if you could outline the study very briefly so I
could skewer it.

Write me an email and I'll give you a
phone number, if you want.

What, is it secret? Post it here.

Nah there is a singular human being on the other end of the line. It's
her job to deal with random jackasses like me and you but she
deserves to do so one at a time. Write an email or look on the CPSC
website. National Injury Information Clearinghouse.


OK, once again: if there are no responses to this sub-thread from other
readers, I'm done.

Oh, cue the trumpets.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:32:56 +0200, Walter Mitty
wrote:


Hmm. Just bought a cycling helmet for my last short tour which
encompassed quite a bit of city cycling. Never wore one before : don't
think I will again.

The added noise and irritation that the helment causes more than offsets
the "possible" help it gives in case of a spill by deducting from my
usual spacial awareness.

I don't know. I still refuse to believe that the helmet won't help in a
spill, but wonder if the %chance of it helping offsets the % increase
in likelihood of an accident due to lower awareness levels.

Just how does a helmet lower your "awareness" level?

Here's three possible ways:

if something reduces one of your senses (hearing)

or if additional sweat goes into your eyes and hampers your vision

or if it irritates, and thus takes up some of your mental pathways so you
have fewer paths to allocate to other mental processes (similar to one of
the reasons cell phones reduce your dirivng ability)

we live as immortals until faced with our mortality. some people don't
understand what mortality is until something makes it real for them. if your
riding in a group you definitely need a helmet, cause you can never guess
what the other guy is going to cut you off.
if your getting sweat in your eyes then wear a sweat band under your helmet.
I believe that the noise is less with a helmet as compared to no helmet.
helmets can provide shade from the sun beating down on your head.
I believe I heard it said that the aerodynamics of wearing a helmet reduces
your overall ride time.
I believe wearing a helmet reduces fatigue factor on the rider, which makes
the ride more enjoyable.
on and on -
I didn't wear a helmet for the longest time either. I got used to wearing it
and fell more confident wearing one. now I won't go riding without a helmet.
I used to ride motorcycle, for 10 years. the times that I went riding
without a helmet I regretted because of the comfort that my helmet provided
me.
now the details I won't bother you with, but 10 months ago my helmet saved
my head. not only the fact that I did not die, but without a helmet I would
most likely be missing part of the left side of my face - like my left ear
or something - assuming I would have lived. and factor in the amount of
money that it saved me. I spent 2500 dollars in doctor bills for emergency
room, and I have no insurance. figure that without the helmet 50,000 dollars
or more.
now I am always thinking that something can happen - like a deer jumping out
of the bushes or something. you know a deer when it sees you is either going
to run or just sit there looking at you.
I hit a dog once, it ran in front of me and then darted right back again and
I hit it causing me to crash.
so when speaking of AWARENESS LEVEL, can you predict what will happen. I was
in the city on my mountain bike and waiting for a green light, truck on left
blocking my left view, light turns green and I bolt on the green. car
running red light stops 2 feet from running me over, and pedestrians as well
in crosswalk on right of me.
I say people should consider wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle.
I have had:
a fractured skull - woke up in hospital
a concussion - woke up in ambulance
broke my 4 font teeth - person gave me a ride home
smashed up last year - broke collar bone, punctured lung, helmet saved my
life - no health insurance ! person gave me a ride home.
Good Luck
Hey don't discourage people wearing helmets
Greg

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:32:56 +0200, Walter Mitty
wrote:


Hmm. Just bought a cycling helmet for my last short tour which
encompassed quite a bit of city cycling. Never wore one before : don't
think I will again.

The added noise and irritation that the helment causes more than offsets
the "possible" help it gives in case of a spill by deducting from my
usual spacial awareness.

I don't know. I still refuse to believe that the helmet won't help in a
spill, but wonder if the %chance of it helping offsets the % increase
in likelihood of an accident due to lower awareness levels.

Just how does a helmet lower your "awareness" level?