Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

I submit that on or about 27 Jul 2005 00:56:05 -0700, the person known
to the court as made a statement
s.com in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

I have some data.

Perhaps you could post it then.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

I submit that on or about 27 Jul 2005 01:25:03 -0700, the person known
to the court as made a statement
s.com in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

estimating from what you've posted above, there are about 500,000
ER visits per year by cyclists.

To put that in context, that's 20% more than the figure for children
under 5 seeking ER attention following trips and falls around the home
in England, a country with a population of under 50m.

Doesn't sound too dangerous to me!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

I submit that on or about Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:50:52 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

It's these stupid soundbites that are going to end up resulting in more
helmet laws. The personal freedom aspect is what has been used to get
motorcycle helmet laws repealed, even though the states that have
repealed the laws have seen a big increase in motorcycle related
injuries and fatalities.

Health warning: Scharf is single mindedly pursuing an evidence-free
agenda in order to preserve his cherished beliefs. For a more
rigorous view see http://www.cyclehelmets.org

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

SMS wrote:
wrote:

Anybody here ever go to the ER for skinned knees?

The 'skinned knees' thing is a nice soundbite but it
don't hold water.


It's these stupid soundbites that are going to end up resulting in more
helmet laws. The personal freedom aspect is what has been used to get
motorcycle helmet laws repealed, even though the states that have
repealed the laws have seen a big increase in motorcycle related
injuries and fatalities.

Laws should be reserved for the relationship between an individual and
other individuals. For example, smoke free workplaces, and laws that
require headlights to be operating under certain conditions, are good,
because they involve others. Even a requirement for a bell or horn on a
bike fall into this category, because you use it to warn others.

Mandatory helmet laws, specifically those aimed at adults, do not
involve the relationship between the rider and anyone else, it should be
a personal decision, let both sides put their arguments forth to the
individual rider, and if the rider wants a helmet, they can get one. As
for children, then shouldn't this be a parental decision? Parents seem
to be the first ones to want to abdicate their responsibility to state
sanctions, and it's kinda sad really. In the case of sanctioned rides,
then really, shouldn't this be part of the waver form?

W

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" wrote in
message news:2oMFe.8$PX4.7@trndny08...
wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:


I have figures for hospital admissions of cyclists in the UK.
30% are
head injuries, the balance are broken legs, clavicles, arms
and the
like.


Around here you wouldn't be admitted for a garden
variety fracture. Probably be lucky to get hospitalized
with a compound fracture.

Don't know where "around here" is. Even with managed care,
this is not
necessarily true. Depends on the location and nature of the
fracture.

Simple fracture of the radius -- set and out the door. My wife
was racing in the TreeTop Classic in Yakima, Wa. (a large Western
regional race) and got in a big pile-up. She was knocked out
(helmet saved her life, of course) and broke her arm. All
treated in the E.R. -- along with about a dozen other people, at
least. That was a problem-filled race, and they had ambulances
running on that course all day.

Also, I really doubt the reliability of E.R. statistics. My son
has had (non-bicycling-related) head lacerations worthy of one or
two stitches which I treated by tying his hair together or using
steri-strips. Same goes with my own lacerations. Those
injuries -- even if bicyling-related -- would not result in an
E.R. visit. I am not saying there is an epidemic of unreported
bicycle-related injuries or that bicycling is dangerous, but I
would not rely on E.R. records to give an accurate account of
bicyle-related injury patterns.-- Jay Beattie.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

And because they don't work.

All the evidence shows that helmets do exactly what they are intended to
do. In the event of a head impact crash they reduce the severity of
injury to the head.

No matter how many times you say that they don't work, it still won't be
true.

The Wogster wrote:

Laws should be reserved for the relationship between an individual and
other individuals. For example, smoke free workplaces, and laws that
require headlights to be operating under certain conditions, are good,
because they involve others. Even a requirement for a bell or horn on a
bike fall into this category, because you use it to warn others.

snip

Many places require a bell or horn, but it may be one of the least
nforced laws on the planet.

During the Ontario debate, the issue of the cost to the health care
system was raised, though if the government took that to its logical
conclusion then they could legislate the foods people eat as well.

In the case of sanctioned rides,
then really, shouldn't this be part of the waver form?

Waiver. It may be an insurance thing. As I mentioned before, when my
bicycle club got their liability insurance through LAW, one of the
conditions was that helmets were required on all rides. We could have
purchased insurance elsewhere, at a much higher price, which we would
have had to pass on to members as a dues increase. We chose,
reluctantly, to require helmets on club rides.

gwhite wrote:
wrote:


The problem with the helmet issue, though, is that it causes helmet
promoters to take actions which _are_ detrimental, such as portraying
cycling as dangerous, or passing restrictive laws.

The sheeple don't know the proper role of government in civilization.
The statistical proof is the fraction of voters who vote for the
demopublican party. You're right about the bad effects of regulation,
but helmet laws are but a tiny manifestation of this problem. Your
attention is drawn to the wrong target. The politicians and bureaucrats
own you.

Still, we have the freedom to choose our own issues. This is how
society works, and this is how freedom works.


There are stronger arguments against helmet regulation. They don't
involve pouring over of data/statisitics specific to helmets. You're
playing their game. You will lose.

Likewise, we have the freedom to choose our own tactics in whatever
debates we choose to enter. Again, that's how freedom works.

Feel free to use the tactics you think best.



Still: Personally, I'm wary of the idea of saying about _any_
commercial product, "But it doesn't cost much. Everyone should buy
one."

That isn't what I wrote. You argue by manufacturing strawman statements
to argue against. You're a usenet expert.

Peace. Slow down. Read again. I never claimed that was what you
wrote. I'm merely stating my wariness. Don't invent strawmen where
there are none.

- Frank Krygowski

SMS wrote:
The Wogster wrote:

In the case of sanctioned rides,
then really, shouldn't this be part of the waver form?

Waiver. It may be an insurance thing. As I mentioned before, when my
bicycle club got their liability insurance through LAW, one of the
conditions was that helmets were required on all rides. We could have
purchased insurance elsewhere, at a much higher price, which we would
have had to pass on to members as a dues increase. We chose,
reluctantly, to require helmets on club rides.

Since Scharf chose to repeat that claim, I feel I should repeat my
experiences.

First, I ran a LAW (or to use the current name, LAB) sanctioned century
for either seven or eight years, I forget. Anyway, we did NOT require
helmets, and the League did NOT require us to do so. We had no
problems whatsoever, and in fact won a national award for the century.

Second, as I've posted before, you can find their insurance company's
suggested waiver form on the League's website, although it's buried
deeply. You can also find their suggested "safety tips" handout for
organized invitational rides. Neither requires helmets. In fact, the
waiver doesn't even mention the word. If someone's curious, I can
provide that URL yet again. It takes a while to find, but I can
probably dig it out quicker than others can.

Let me add a third point: Our club still does not require helmets.
IIRC, our insurance is not through the League, but it is certainly not
expensive.

I would tell Scharf to either produce documentation for his claims, or
stop spreading misinformation, except I know it's futile. We've tried
that many times, and have never gotten documentation.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:

gwhite wrote:

There are stronger arguments against helmet regulation. They don't
involve pouring over of data/statisitics specific to helmets. You're
playing their game. You will lose.

Likewise, we have the freedom to choose our own tactics in whatever
debates we choose to enter. Again, that's how freedom works.

Feel free to use the tactics you think best.

ex:
Weed has been illegal for a long time. The anti-weed (including
government) and pro-weed forces clash forever with mountains of
statistical evidence and report after report. End result: no change, it
is still illegal (prohibited), with tons of money spent that could have
been spent on making life better for many people.

On any issue you pick, this will be the case because (in the largest
part) people don't comprehend the nature of the government
Frankenstein. They think they can create a monster with the body of a
warrior, the hands of a musician/artist, and the mind of a
philosopher/scientist for the purpose of doing good. Then they think
they can control the powerful monster they created to do only good. But
the "controllable monster" is an oxymoron. The monster cannot be
controlled. It doesn't seem to matter how many times it happens in
practice, or is told in a million parables and aphorisms, people don't
get the Frankenstein parable. (Even though the US government is
currently fighting a war many of them condemn!) Sisyphus is condemned
to roll that stone (parable) forever.

"If you play with fire, you will get burned." -- old
Frankenstein/Leviathan aphorism

Helmets are just one more thing on the Frankenstein hit-list, and not
all that important as it goes. Attack the root of the rottenness, not
the leaves.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking the root." -- Thoreau

Perhaps once enough people wake up from their "designer society" acid
trip, we won't need to worry about helmet laws. I'm not holding my
breath. The sheeple have been convinced they are helpless and need
government to solve an endless list of problems. A world with an
overiding authority will always come to bad. ("Quis custodiet ipsos
custodes?") But a world without power and the powerful is a fantasy
land. Decentralization is the only thing that can diminish and contain
the effects of the bad use of power. In decentralization, if one
juristiction mandates helmets, the next might not. The jurisdictions
should be made to compete for citizens.

Still: Personally, I'm wary of the idea of saying about _any_
commercial product, "But it doesn't cost much. Everyone should buy
one."

That isn't what I wrote. You argue by manufacturing strawman statements
to argue against. You're a usenet expert.

Peace. Slow down. Read again. I never claimed that was what you
wrote. I'm merely stating my wariness. Don't invent strawmen where
there are none.

I read it again. You're making stuff up to suit your fancy.

Who wrote or implied the following?: "But it doesn't cost much.
/Everyone should buy one/." [italics mine]

You did. And you did it after I went out of my way in *not* saying it.