Shimano Headset

On 5/18/2017 9:43 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the
cases where helmets actually prevented head
injury (or where helmets caused a head injury
that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the
cases where a helmeted rider took more risk
than she otherwise would have, and had
a crash she would have avoided without
a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets,
you risk comparing two populations that are
quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek
medical attention, in economic status, and
many other factors.

Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and
head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians,
MCs, etc.

All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians
should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers,
and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some of the time.

And who never uses a ladder?

It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones
chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a
lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health
researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole
population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle.

Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the
original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet
thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can
we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that
surely will fix the problem?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country
where bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to
portray as dangerous. If public health people were really at the root
of the promotion, why would it not have happened in those European
countries where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported)
benefit?

Because such a promotion would have succeeded just like driving helmets
would in the US. Extra hassle for activities seen as ordinary and
obligatory is hard to sell.

Precisely. And the word "sell" is very appropriate.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/18/2017 12:32 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/16/2017 12:24 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring an accident, you exclude the cases where a helmeted rider
took more risk than she otherwise would have, and had a crash she
would have avoided without a helmet.

And you have all the crashes that are not reported at all because the
helmet prevented a trip to the emergency room. Helmet effectiveness is
vastly under-estimated because there's no way to determine how many
people don't seek treatment because they have no injury because of the
helmet.

Bull****.

If there were vast numbers of concussions prevented by helmet use, the
number of bike-related concussions in the U.S. would not have risen at
the same time helmets surged in popularity.

From the article "Senseless" in the June 2013 issue of _Bicycling_
magazine: "Here’s the trouble. Stat #3: As more people
buckled on helmets, brain injuries also increased.
Between 1997 and 2011 the number of bike-related
concussions suffered annually by American riders
increased by 67 percent, from 9,327 to 15,546, according to the National
Electronic Injury Surveillance
System, a yearly sampling of hospital emergency
rooms conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC)"

Again, the needle is not even moving in the right direction.

Likewise, if there were lots of lives saved by helmets, bike fatalities
since (say) the mid-1980s should have dropped by a greater percentage
than pedestrian fatalities. But they did not, as shown by
http://vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html
and http://vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/18/2017 9:43 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the
cases where helmets actually prevented head
injury (or where helmets caused a head injury
that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the
cases where a helmeted rider took more risk
than she otherwise would have, and had
a crash she would have avoided without
a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets,
you risk comparing two populations that are
quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek
medical attention, in economic status, and
many other factors.

Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and
head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians,
MCs, etc.

All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians
should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers,
and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some of the time.

And who never uses a ladder?

It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones
chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a
lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health
researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole
population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle.

Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the
original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet
thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can
we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that
surely will fix the problem?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country
where bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to
portray as dangerous. If public health people were really at the root
of the promotion, why would it not have happened in those European
countries where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported)
benefit?

Because such a promotion would have succeeded just like driving helmets
would in the US. Extra hassle for activities seen as ordinary and
obligatory is hard to sell.

Precisely. And the word "sell" is very appropriate.

Ideas are sold, not just products. Like, say, the idea that
refrigerator doors should be removed before putting them on the curb.


--

On 5/18/2017 10:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/17/2017 11:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 22:40:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the
cases where helmets actually prevented head
injury (or where helmets caused a head injury
that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the
cases where a helmeted rider took more risk
than she otherwise would have, and had
a crash she would have avoided without
a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets,
you risk comparing two populations that are
quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek
medical attention, in economic status, and
many other factors.

Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and
head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians,
MCs, etc.

All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head
injuries to pedestrians
should have some personal interest. Similarly most of
us are drivers,
and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least
some of the time.

And who never uses a ladder?

It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet
reduces ones
chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year,
or over a
lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a
health
researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain
injuries over a whole
population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle.

Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I
suspect that the
original question in the minds of those who started the
bike helmet
thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of
brain injury can
we actually change human behavior, to use the protective
equipment that
surely will fix the problem?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions
weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was
talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the
market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't
recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids
began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as
they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S.,
a country where
bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy
to portray as
dangerous. If public health people were really at the
root of the
promotion, why would it not have happened in those
European countries
where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported)
benefit?
Cycling has always been camparatively rare in the USA????

When I was growing up, just about every kid had a bicycle
in Canada -
and it seemed there were a lot more in the USA. Every
school had a
bank of bike racks, and large numbers of kids biked to
school instead
of being ferried in by parents in mini-vans / suvs, cuvs
etc. Every
small town had at least one bicycle shop,
In the summer, there were kids on bikes all over town,
and we biked
out to our favorite fishing holes and swimming holes. The
common bike
was a single speed coaster bike - with 3 speed Sturmey
Archer equipped
bikes a close second, and "french gear" bikes - usually 5
or 10 speed,
but not uncommonly even 3 and 6 speed (3 on the back and 2
on the
crank)

I think you missed the word "comparatively." Bike use in
the U.S. has always been much smaller than in Europe and Asia.

And it's interesting that American kids once rode bikes very
much more than they do now. My friends and I certainly rode
a lot when I was a kid; but the only common warning then was
from a mom saying "Watch out for cars."

Today, warnings come from well-funded institutions pushing
publications saying "You can fall off your bike and die even
in your own driveway! You MUST wear a helmet every time you
ride a bike!"

Do you think there may be a connection between the "Danger!
Danger!" warnings and the drop in kids' bicycling? Just maybe?



True but cultural changes are even larger than that.
Military theorists have been writing about policy effects of
an only-child population for years and then there's modern
media which sensationalize crimes against children
(horrible, every one) despite USA children being safer in
every measurable respect than any population ever before in
history. How safe? Mothers can obsess over supposed vaccine
side effects and trace materials in food because they don't
have enough real dangers to worry over.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/18/2017 11:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/18/2017 10:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/17/2017 11:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 22:40:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the
cases where helmets actually prevented head
injury (or where helmets caused a head injury
that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the
cases where a helmeted rider took more risk
than she otherwise would have, and had
a crash she would have avoided without
a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets,
you risk comparing two populations that are
quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek
medical attention, in economic status, and
many other factors.

Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and
head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians,
MCs, etc.

All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head
injuries to pedestrians
should have some personal interest. Similarly most of
us are drivers,
and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least
some of the time.

And who never uses a ladder?

It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet
reduces ones
chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year,
or over a
lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a
health
researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain
injuries over a whole
population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle.

Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I
suspect that the
original question in the minds of those who started the
bike helmet
thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of
brain injury can
we actually change human behavior, to use the protective
equipment that
surely will fix the problem?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions
weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was
talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the
market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't
recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids
began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as
they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S.,
a country where
bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy
to portray as
dangerous. If public health people were really at the
root of the
promotion, why would it not have happened in those
European countries
where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported)
benefit?
Cycling has always been camparatively rare in the USA????

When I was growing up, just about every kid had a bicycle
in Canada -
and it seemed there were a lot more in the USA. Every
school had a
bank of bike racks, and large numbers of kids biked to
school instead
of being ferried in by parents in mini-vans / suvs, cuvs
etc. Every
small town had at least one bicycle shop,
In the summer, there were kids on bikes all over town,
and we biked
out to our favorite fishing holes and swimming holes. The
common bike
was a single speed coaster bike - with 3 speed Sturmey
Archer equipped
bikes a close second, and "french gear" bikes - usually 5
or 10 speed,
but not uncommonly even 3 and 6 speed (3 on the back and 2
on the
crank)

I think you missed the word "comparatively." Bike use in
the U.S. has always been much smaller than in Europe and Asia.

And it's interesting that American kids once rode bikes very
much more than they do now. My friends and I certainly rode
a lot when I was a kid; but the only common warning then was
from a mom saying "Watch out for cars."

Today, warnings come from well-funded institutions pushing
publications saying "You can fall off your bike and die even
in your own driveway! You MUST wear a helmet every time you
ride a bike!"

Do you think there may be a connection between the "Danger!
Danger!" warnings and the drop in kids' bicycling? Just maybe?



True but cultural changes are even larger than that. Military theorists
have been writing about policy effects of an only-child population for
years and then there's modern media which sensationalize crimes against
children (horrible, every one) despite USA children being safer in every
measurable respect than any population ever before in history. How safe?
Mothers can obsess over supposed vaccine side effects and trace
materials in food because they don't have enough real dangers to worry
over.

Agreed. But it's too bad we can't get mothers to obsess over the fact
that their kids are over-protected butter balls.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:46:49 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2017 12:32 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/16/2017 12:24 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring an accident, you exclude the cases where a helmeted rider
took more risk than she otherwise would have, and had a crash she
would have avoided without a helmet.

And you have all the crashes that are not reported at all because the
helmet prevented a trip to the emergency room. Helmet effectiveness is
vastly under-estimated because there's no way to determine how many
people don't seek treatment because they have no injury because of the
helmet.

Bull****.

If there were vast numbers of concussions prevented by helmet use, the
number of bike-related concussions in the U.S. would not have risen at
the same time helmets surged in popularity.

From the article "Senseless" in the June 2013 issue of _Bicycling_
magazine: "Here’s the trouble. Stat #3: As more people
buckled on helmets, brain injuries also increased.
Between 1997 and 2011 the number of bike-related
concussions suffered annually by American riders
increased by 67 percent, from 9,327 to 15,546, according to the National
Electronic Injury Surveillance
System, a yearly sampling of hospital emergency
rooms conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC)"

Again, the needle is not even moving in the right direction.

Likewise, if there were lots of lives saved by helmets, bike fatalities
since (say) the mid-1980s should have dropped by a greater percentage
than pedestrian fatalities. But they did not, as shown by
http://vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html
and http://vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html

Ordinary helmets don't prevent minor TBIs, although they can prevent skull fracture and serious scalp injury. I've seen some scalp injuries that would make your skin crawl.

Citing to Kunich? Gawd. Go to MedLine: Clinical Surgery; Bicycle helmets work when it matters the most; (2017) 213 AMJLSU 2 413-417:

Results

A total of 6,267 patients were included. About 25.1% (n = 1,573) of bicycle riders were helmeted. Overall, 52.4% (n = 3,284) of the patients had severe TBI, and the mortality rate was 2.8% (n = 176). Helmeted bicycle riders had 51% reduced odds of severe TBI (odds ratio [OR] .49, 95% confidence interval [CI] .43 to .55, P .001) and 44% reduced odds of mortality (OR .56, 95% CI .34 to .78, P = .010). Helmet use also reduced the odds of facial fractures by 31% (OR .69, 95% CI .58 to .81, P .001).

Conclusion

Bicycle helmet use provides protection against severe TBI, reduces facial fractures, and saves lives even after sustaining an intracranial hemorrhage.

• The aim of this study was to assess the association of helmets with severity of traumatic brain injury and facial fractures after bicycle-related accidents.
• Results of our study strongly support our hypothesis that helmet use in bicycle riders with intracranial bleed is independently associated with reduction in overall facial fractures and severity of TBI.
• Injury prevention programs should advocate the use of helmets in bicycle riders especially in the teenage group where least compliance with bicycle helmet use was observed.


Who knows if it's accurate, but I would tend to trust a group of University of Arizona researchers and trauma doctors more than some dopey bloggers.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 9:15:19 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:46:49 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2017 12:32 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/16/2017 12:24 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring an accident, you exclude the cases where a helmeted rider
took more risk than she otherwise would have, and had a crash she
would have avoided without a helmet.

And you have all the crashes that are not reported at all because the
helmet prevented a trip to the emergency room. Helmet effectiveness is
vastly under-estimated because there's no way to determine how many
people don't seek treatment because they have no injury because of the
helmet.

Bull****.

If there were vast numbers of concussions prevented by helmet use, the
number of bike-related concussions in the U.S. would not have risen at
the same time helmets surged in popularity.

From the article "Senseless" in the June 2013 issue of _Bicycling_
magazine: "Here’s the trouble. Stat #3: As more people
buckled on helmets, brain injuries also increased.
Between 1997 and 2011 the number of bike-related
concussions suffered annually by American riders
increased by 67 percent, from 9,327 to 15,546, according to the National
Electronic Injury Surveillance
System, a yearly sampling of hospital emergency
rooms conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC)"

Again, the needle is not even moving in the right direction.

Likewise, if there were lots of lives saved by helmets, bike fatalities
since (say) the mid-1980s should have dropped by a greater percentage
than pedestrian fatalities. But they did not, as shown by
http://vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html
and http://vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html

Ordinary helmets don't prevent minor TBIs, although they can prevent skull fracture and serious scalp injury. I've seen some scalp injuries that would make your skin crawl.

Citing to Kunich? Gawd. Go to MedLine: Clinical Surgery; Bicycle helmets work when it matters the most; (2017) 213 AMJLSU 2 413-417:

Results

A total of 6,267 patients were included. About 25.1% (n = 1,573) of bicycle riders were helmeted. Overall, 52.4% (n = 3,284) of the patients had severe TBI, and the mortality rate was 2.8% (n = 176). Helmeted bicycle riders had 51% reduced odds of severe TBI (odds ratio [OR] .49, 95% confidence interval [CI] .43 to .55, P .001) and 44% reduced odds of mortality (OR .56, 95% CI .34 to .78, P = .010). Helmet use also reduced the odds of facial fractures by 31% (OR .69, 95% CI .58 to .81, P .001).

Conclusion

Bicycle helmet use provides protection against severe TBI, reduces facial fractures, and saves lives even after sustaining an intracranial hemorrhage.

• The aim of this study was to assess the association of helmets with severity of traumatic brain injury and facial fractures after bicycle-related accidents.
• Results of our study strongly support our hypothesis that helmet use in bicycle riders with intracranial bleed is independently associated with reduction in overall facial fractures and severity of TBI.
• Injury prevention programs should advocate the use of helmets in bicycle riders especially in the teenage group where least compliance with bicycle helmet use was observed.


Who knows if it's accurate, but I would tend to trust a group of University of Arizona researchers and trauma doctors more than some dopey bloggers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay - a skull fracture is rated as severe with NO OTHER SYMPTOMS. Whereas a concussion with total memory loss is not. Telling us that facial fractures were reduced in the helmeted group shows that there was something severely wrong with the statistical analysis since a helmet cannot protect from facial injuries.

What was it that you do for a living again? I hope it isn't anything that has to do with analyzing statistics.

Now that this Shimano Headset thread has degenerated into yet another helmet war I wonder how many pages it'll run to. Any guesses? It[s at 10 pages so far counting the headset pages. 15 pages before it ends?

Cheers

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 9:29:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 9:15:19 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:46:49 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2017 12:32 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/16/2017 12:24 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring an accident, you exclude the cases where a helmeted rider
took more risk than she otherwise would have, and had a crash she
would have avoided without a helmet.

And you have all the crashes that are not reported at all because the
helmet prevented a trip to the emergency room. Helmet effectiveness is
vastly under-estimated because there's no way to determine how many
people don't seek treatment because they have no injury because of the
helmet.

Bull****.

If there were vast numbers of concussions prevented by helmet use, the
number of bike-related concussions in the U.S. would not have risen at
the same time helmets surged in popularity.

From the article "Senseless" in the June 2013 issue of _Bicycling_
magazine: "Here’s the trouble. Stat #3: As more people
buckled on helmets, brain injuries also increased.
Between 1997 and 2011 the number of bike-related
concussions suffered annually by American riders
increased by 67 percent, from 9,327 to 15,546, according to the National
Electronic Injury Surveillance
System, a yearly sampling of hospital emergency
rooms conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC)"

Again, the needle is not even moving in the right direction.

Likewise, if there were lots of lives saved by helmets, bike fatalities
since (say) the mid-1980s should have dropped by a greater percentage
than pedestrian fatalities. But they did not, as shown by
http://vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html
and http://vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html

Ordinary helmets don't prevent minor TBIs, although they can prevent skull fracture and serious scalp injury. I've seen some scalp injuries that would make your skin crawl.

Citing to Kunich? Gawd. Go to MedLine: Clinical Surgery; Bicycle helmets work when it matters the most; (2017) 213 AMJLSU 2 413-417:

Results

A total of 6,267 patients were included. About 25.1% (n = 1,573) of bicycle riders were helmeted. Overall, 52.4% (n = 3,284) of the patients had severe TBI, and the mortality rate was 2.8% (n = 176). Helmeted bicycle riders had 51% reduced odds of severe TBI (odds ratio [OR] .49, 95% confidence interval [CI] .43 to .55, P .001) and 44% reduced odds of mortality (OR .56, 95% CI .34 to .78, P = .010). Helmet use also reduced the odds of facial fractures by 31% (OR .69, 95% CI .58 to .81, P .001).

Conclusion

Bicycle helmet use provides protection against severe TBI, reduces facial fractures, and saves lives even after sustaining an intracranial hemorrhage.

• The aim of this study was to assess the association of helmets with severity of traumatic brain injury and facial fractures after bicycle-related accidents.
• Results of our study strongly support our hypothesis that helmet use in bicycle riders with intracranial bleed is independently associated with reduction in overall facial fractures and severity of TBI.
• Injury prevention programs should advocate the use of helmets in bicycle riders especially in the teenage group where least compliance with bicycle helmet use was observed.


Who knows if it's accurate, but I would tend to trust a group of University of Arizona researchers and trauma doctors more than some dopey bloggers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay - a skull fracture is rated as severe with NO OTHER SYMPTOMS. Whereas a concussion with total memory loss is not. Telling us that facial fractures were reduced in the helmeted group shows that there was something severely wrong with the statistical analysis since a helmet cannot protect from facial injuries.

What was it that you do for a living again? I hope it isn't anything that has to do with analyzing statistics.

I actually hire epidemiologists and biomechanical experts. I also have unfettered MedLine access and access to all the journals published by Elsevier. I don't pretend to know more than the professionals I hire, although I do understand what they tell me. I also don't pretend to be an expert epidemiologist on the internet.

Face includes forehead and brow. My helmet covers my forehead and projects over my brow. I don't know about your helmet. I'm aware of studies going back to '94 (at least) showing that helmets lessen certain facial injuries. This is not news.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 5/18/2017 9:15 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Ordinary helmets don't prevent minor TBIs, although they can prevent skull fracture and serious scalp injury. I've seen some scalp injuries that would make your skin crawl.

True. It's popular for AHZs to try to always move the conversation to
TBIs, because it suits their agenda, but the reality is that there are
other types of head injuries as well, and it is necessary for them to
ignore those other types.