|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:28:05 -0400, Steven Bornfeld
wrote: Why someone would even try to suggest that helmets don't save lives because there are no controlled studies to prove they do says more about these people than it does about helmets. I haven't suggest anything. I've asked questions of assumptions. It's fine to say "I hope my helmet will protect me from brain injuries from hitting branches when mountain biking?" Or "Id' speculate that helmets will protect me from falling rocks and bricks that hit my head, or accidents on a bike that approximate that." But to go from that to "Wear a helmet because it'll save you from a brain injury" is a big leap. If you're going to advocate that people do something like wear helmets, at least you could be honest about the degree of speculation involved. And when you consider that riding a bike w/o a helmet is probably better for your health than not riding at all, honesty and recognition of uncertainty is even more important. To do otherwise is either intellectually lazy or unethical. JT |
Ads |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:41:36 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:16:19 GMT, "Shayne Wissler" wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message .. . Now what evidence do you have about helmets protecting against dented skulls or brain injuries? I have an idea for an experiment. That's your evidence? That's speculation. Let me guess. You must be a follower of Hume. On the contrary, the thought experiment I gave is perfectly valid evidence, from which a reasonable person would infer that some fraction of real-life accidents would result in a lesser injury if a helmet were worn. You're making a a big assumption -- that hitting a brick is similar to the impact people get when they hit their head on the ground (which I would guess -- note I am acknowledging the degree of specutation I'm making) or a tree branch (which is the object in question). I think that assumption is wrong insofar as it relates to any sort of likely accident on a bke. But yes, if someone is riding where they will be hit by falling bricks, a helmet sounds helpful. JT |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
Shayne Wissler wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:16:19 GMT, "Shayne Wissler" wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message ... Now what evidence do you have about helmets protecting against dented skulls or brain injuries? I have an idea for an experiment. That's your evidence? That's speculation. Let me guess. You must be a follower of Hume. On the contrary, the thought experiment I gave is perfectly valid evidence, from which a reasonable person would infer that some fraction of real-life accidents would result in a lesser injury if a helmet were worn. Shayne Wissler There is a germ of truth in the assertion that helmets won't prevent death. This general feeling among safety experts seems to revolve arount the assertion that serious brain injury from bicycle accidents usually are not due to straight-on impact, but from torsional stresses that a helmet is unable to eliminate. But this is like saying that a seat belt shouldn't be worn because it won't save you from crushing injury of the thorax in a head-on 60 mph crash. Safety measures shouldn't be discarded because they are not 100% effective. Steve |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
"John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:41:36 GMT, "Shayne Wissler" wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:16:19 GMT, "Shayne Wissler" wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message .. . Now what evidence do you have about helmets protecting against dented skulls or brain injuries? I have an idea for an experiment. That's your evidence? That's speculation. Let me guess. You must be a follower of Hume. On the contrary, the thought experiment I gave is perfectly valid evidence, from which a reasonable person would infer that some fraction of real-life accidents would result in a lesser injury if a helmet were worn. You're making a a big assumption -- that hitting a brick is similar to the impact people get when they hit their head on the ground (which I would guess -- note I am acknowledging the degree of specutation I'm making) or a tree branch (which is the object in question). I think that assumption is wrong insofar as it relates to any sort of likely accident on a bke. But yes, if someone is riding where they will be hit by falling bricks, a helmet sounds helpful. I hesitate to say this because it amounts to pointing your nose in a direction you obviously do not wish to look, and you can always avert your eyes, but: Shape your "brick" like a flat peice of pavement and it is hardly different from falling down on the pavement with your head. He who actively engages in finding differences but is is lazy about finding similarity is a self-made idiot. Shayne Wissler |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
DRS wrote: "Steven Bornfeld" wrote in message [...] I've heard the same arguments from people who don't wear seatbelts in cars. I thought they made what could be valid points--until I spent a year covering head/neck trauma during my residency. The difference is empirically obvious. I live in the first state in the world that made seatbelt use compulsory (Victoria, Australia). Not only did the fatality rate immediately plummet but the rate of spinal injuries dropped 75% in the first year. There is no such corresponding data for bicycle helmets. The safety improvement from seat belt use that I have seen is nowhere near that dramatic. Nevertheless, I can tell you from first hand experience that no one involved in a car accident that I saw the whole year (that I asked--most of them) had been wearing seat belts. There are many studies out there--some designed better, some worse. There is poor compliance with helmet regulations in the US where they exist. But certainly Kunich can show studies which cast doubt on the efficacy of helmets in preventing head injuries. There is also this: http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/revabstr/ab001855.htm which reaches exactly the opposite conclusion. In the end, people are going to believe what they want. Unfortunately, my tax dollars are going to pay the medical expenses of those who ignore common sense. Steve |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:28:05 -0400, Steven Bornfeld wrote: Why someone would even try to suggest that helmets don't save lives because there are no controlled studies to prove they do says more about these people than it does about helmets. I haven't suggest anything. I've asked questions of assumptions. It's fine to say "I hope my helmet will protect me from brain injuries from hitting branches when mountain biking?" Or "Id' speculate that helmets will protect me from falling rocks and bricks that hit my head, or accidents on a bike that approximate that." But to go from that to "Wear a helmet because it'll save you from a brain injury" is a big leap. If you're going to advocate that people do something like wear helmets, at least you could be honest about the degree of speculation involved. And when you consider that riding a bike w/o a helmet is probably better for your health than not riding at all, Pure speculation, JT, pure speculation. Steve honesty and recognition of uncertainty is even more important. To do otherwise is either intellectually lazy or unethical. JT |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
Jay Beattie wrote:
And the New York Times wrote on May 1, 2001 that: "A report last summer on "The Future of Children" noted that 35 states lacked bicycle helmet laws, even though "research has shown that bicycle helmets are 85 percent effective at reducing head injuries." They should have at least hedged by saying "up to 85%." This number came from the Thompson & Rivara case-control study of 1989. In order to get that high number, T&R had to count even scratches on ears as "head injuries," and had to compare wildly different groups. Yes, if you compare helmeted middle class white kids with excellent insurance coverage (i.e. free ER) riding on bike paths, versus unhelmeted low-income kids who only go to the ER if it's really serious, and who ride on streets, you'll get good results for helmets! That's only a slight exaggeration. If you want a more serious discussion of the shortcomings of that study, see http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1001 A study in Queensland, Australia, of bicycle accidents among children showed that wearing a helmet reduced the risk of loss of consciousness from a head injury by 86 percent. Did they give a source for that? Other pro-helmet studies from Australia have done things like ignore the drop in cycling, ignore the concurrent installation of speed cameras and stiff drunk driving enforcement, etc. to maximize the supposed helmet benefit. Still, this is the first time I recall any study but T&R's coming anywhere close to 85%. Despite the fudging, other pro-helmet studies come out much lower. I'd like to check the original paper. Even preschoolers who do not ride in traffic and toddlers on tricycles need head protection "whenever and wherever they are cycling," insists Dr. Elizabeth C. Powell of Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. Dr. Powell, a specialist in pediatric emergency medicine, notes that helmets can also reduce the risk of facial injuries when a child falls off a tricycle or bicycle." Why of course they can! Also while playing hopscotch, of course. I guess it all depends on whether you live in New Zeland or Australia. Or whether you are Rivera or Scuffham. For every scientific study you come up with, I can find one or two that go the other way. I take a different view. In fact, most scientists take a different view in such situations. When cold fusion was trumpeted about 15 years ago, there was one team (similar to Thompson & Rivara) that published a miracle of success. There were others who disagreed. The scientific community didn't say "Oh well, it can go either way." They kept testing. In the long run, cold fusion seems to be a dud - at least, by the method proposed. This seems to be what's happening with bike helmet research. T&R have gained fame by saying "85%!!!" but results of mandatory helmet laws (passed as a result) are pretty dismal. Some other self-selected case-control studies still give optimistic results, but large population data doesn't. It may be that helmets help only if you're lucky enough to be part of a case-control study, I don't know. But it's worth remembering that self-selected case-control studies are never accepted for the usual questions, like "Does this drug prevent cancer" and the like. It's far to easy to bias the results. And in the final analysis, it really does not matter, because we all just do what we do -- and, with minor exception, we are all too old for the MHLs in most states. MLHs are mostly a kid thing, and my kid wears a helmet when he is riding or skiing -- but not when he is walking, showering, or playing with his Legos or YuGiOh cards. Yes, I know that is inconsistent when we look at injury patterns, but we have learned to live with that inconsistency. -- Jay Beattie. Perhaps it really does not matter to you. But it really does matter to me. I'm bothered by the portrayal of all cycling as an extreme activity. I'm bothered that there have already been attempts to blame cyclists for injuries caused by negligent drivers, because the cyclist didn't wear a helmet. I'm bothered by the drop in cycling caused by enforced MHLs, and I'm bothered by the mixed message given to kids by America's unenforced MHLs. And I'm bothered by pro-helmet prejudice and the resulting lack of rigor when examining supposed pro-helmet data. You'll decide for your kid, of course. But I kind of hope you'll somehow stay away from statements like "Omigod, NEVER ride without a helmet!!!" If you want to scare him, it's better to just tell him about the boogeyman. -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Tough to run a controlled study of this type in real-life conditions. It would be tough if there weren't such things as mandatory helmet laws (MHLs). Or even better, _enforced_ MHLs. When you've got a step increase in the percentage of cyclists in helmets for a whole country, it's not a bad test of "real-life conditions." All you have to do is remember to account for the decrease in cycling those laws have caused. (Pro-helmet papers have been known to ignore a 35% cycling drop, and count the 30% HI drop as a good sign!) Why someone would even try to suggest that helmets don't save lives because there are no controlled studies to prove they do says more about these people than it does about helmets. Your statements are too vague to be of use. The people I know who say helmets don't save lives are the people who have spent the largest amount of time examining the actual data. The people who claim they must are typically people who have read a few helmet promotion blurbs. Is that what you meant, exactly? I've heard the same arguments from people who don't wear seatbelts in cars. I thought they made what could be valid points--until I spent a year covering head/neck trauma during my residency. Let's stick to the issue. Seatbelts are a side point. They're not really comparable - largely because seat belts are tested and certified for serious collisions, the ones that cause most serious accidents. Bike helmets are definitely not. So tell us about your head trauma experience. Since we're talking about saving lives, what percentage of the head trauma fatalities you saw were cyclists? You probably realize that nationally, cyclists are less than 1% of that problem, right? Was your experience different from the national average? I'm quite curious. -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:24:50 -0400, Steven Bornfeld
wrote: But this is like saying that a seat belt shouldn't be worn because it won't save you from crushing injury of the thorax in a head-on 60 mph crash. Safety measures shouldn't be discarded because they are not 100% effective. I haven't said anyone should wear a seatbelt and I haven't said anyone shouldn't wear a bicycle helmet. I've asked, repeatedly in this thread, for some evidence of speculation about overstated dangers. If helmet proponents want to push for wider helmet use, I think it's only fair that they be honest about what is known and identify their speculation as such. That's not a lot to ask -- for honesty. JT |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle helmet law can save lives | Garrison Hilliard | General | 146 | May 19th 04 05:42 AM |
A Pleasant Helmet Debate | Stephen Harding | General | 12 | February 26th 04 06:32 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
France helmet observation (not a troll) | Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles | General | 20 | August 30th 03 08:35 AM |
How I cracked my helmet | Rick Warner | General | 2 | July 12th 03 11:26 AM |