Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

Quoting SMS :
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.

Ah, the classic Scharfian "proof by blatant assertion".
--
David Damerell flcl?
Today is Second Oneiros, July.

Quoting :
David Damerell wrote:
I really am not sure what you are driving at here. Yes, only a small
proportion of people will be ever involved in serious accidents; that
doesn't mean that when one does happen, making the head bigger does not
increase the chance of a head impact.
What tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of accidents are made worse
by the increase in circumference caused by wearing a helmet? Not
knowable, but tiny x tiny = a reason not to wear a helmet?

Well, again, this is a defective line of reason. All argument about the
usefulness of helmets pertain to cases where that tiny chance of having an
accident has already come up; the supposed positive effects are equally
subject to that.

The vision of the top of your head is always obstructed.
Your head's in the way!
OK, I'll reply to that remark by referring to your jutting brow line
and thick eybrows, which understandably, if regrettably, interfere with
your line of upward vision.

Because it would be too easy to admit the simple truth that people, not
having eyes on stalks, cannot see the tops of their own heads?

admit that sometimes I forgot I had the thing on. But the impacts being
to the top of the head, not the chin... doesn't that say something?
Er, that you'd have to work at it to bang your chin on the ceiling?
Nyuk nyuk, chin on the ceiling. Good one, Double D!!!

Perhaps you could let me know when you actually want to talk about this.
Yes, the "chin on the ceiling" is a pretty snappy response, but it *is*
the reason why the impacts are to the top of the head.

Since caution is not a binary state, even
after road rash a helmet may still cause you to risk compensate.
Well, I'll freely admit that riding fast in tight groups, even with
relatively skilled riders, is not the safest activity. But, since I
don't "trust" the helmet to "save my life", I don't think it enters
into the equation for me.

So you have a rationalisation as to why you, personally, don't risk
compensate. Big deal. Essentially everyone, upon having risk compensation
explained to them, has a rationalisation as to why they, personally, don't
do it.

Google it yourself, you're making the assertion that these remarks are
"usual" for me. If that's true, no doubt you'll be able to find plenty
without too much work.
"Racers" are OK with you, then? Perhaps including people who compete at
times in a social ride situation-- that _doesn't_ upset your sense of
propriety?

What I said was that we don't seem to do it in Britain and I don't
understand the urge. That remains true.

Nasty, snide to an extreme, and accurate. If you don't do that -
reproducing the positions and speeds - you just don't know. Just because
you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.
I said "tone", not content. This is the "emotional" thing I referred
to; resorting to insulting someone in, as you so freely admit, an
extremely snide manner.

Well, too bad. Deal with it. You can whine about it all you like, but what
you can't do is produce a counterargument. I'm right and they are wrong,
what matters in terms of discussing the efficiency of helmets is who is
right and who is wrong, and that's all there is to it.

If you want to wear one to prevent trivial injuries, fine - they might
even work - but that's not really what we're talking about, is it?
It's what I was talking about, all the way through the section. I'm
attacking the "helmets are unmitigated evil" theme here.

Which doesn't exist, of course. Helmet laws are unmitigated evil and the
portrayal of helmets as the essence of cycling safety is pretty evil too,
but who's saying helmets are bad in and of themselves? I think the worst
anyone's come up with is that wearing one is "mildly socially
irresponsible".

Still, no surprise to find a pro- attacking an anti- position that doesn't
exist.

So you agree
to what would seem to be obvious, and what I reported, that helmets can
reduce pain and "trivial" injury?

I agree that it's possible. I don't think we know how risk compensation,
the increased side of the head, etc. would play off against having that
foam in the way of trivial injuries, but it could well be, but so what?
This big controversial thread isn't there because anyone thinks the things
prevent scratches and bruises.

What do you think about Tom Kunich's experiment of trying to touch your
head to the ground or floor while lying on your shoulder? He said
"impossible", but I can easily touch (hit) my head any way I lie down,
and what do you know? The helmet's size increase makes the bend of the
neck somewhat less severe. Limiting neck injuries, perhaps?

By reducing the magnitude of a bend the neck can manage anyway?

Like a
bicycle Hans device (NASCAR, other motor racing orgs.)? Or is this
possibility on the wrong side of the fence for you to admit? --TP

Now, wait an minute. No-one with any sense is saying that we know exactly
_why_ helmets are ineffective against KSI; there are a number of
speculations as to why, like risk compensation and torsional effects, but
no-one is trying to put an exact magnitude on these, and no-one is trying
to say that there aren't some protective effects (including, potentially,
the one you outline). What _is_ being said is that the overall effect is
plainly effectively zero.
--
David Damerell flcl?
Today is Second Oneiros, July.

David Damerell wrote:
Quoting gwhite :
There are two general issues and thus two conclusions:
1. Do helmets protect the head, how much do they protect, or how
much do we need to know for simple purchase decisions?
2. Should the government be involved?
I wanted to make sure they were separated out.

Yes, but for the rest of us it's more important to talk about helmets
than to grind your tedious properatarian axe. Would you mind not
changing your posting address so you stay killfiled?

LOL! This from the guy who purposely posted using code to confound most
people's newsreader just to be a prick.

KEEP DOING WHAT YA GOTTA DO, 'G'!

Delicious irony, that...

41 wrote:

snip

Apart from bang on shin etc, I also had an impact and scrape on the top
of my shoulder (yes, it is oriented skyward when standing up). The
position is such that, at impact and subsequent squeeze in of my
shoulder, the mark is JUST beyond the side of my head. Had I been
wearing a helmet, I would have received a severe torsion and so a
serious injury.r

As I stated, you'd be hard-pressed to ever find an accident where the
injuries were made worse by the wearing of a helmet.

David Damerell wrote:

Quoting gwhite :
There are two general issues and thus two conclusions:
1. Do helmets protect the head, how much do they protect, or how much do
we need to know for simple purchase decisions?
2. Should the government be involved?
I wanted to make sure they were separated out.

Yes, but for the rest of us it's more important to talk about helmets...


That's the funniest part.


... than to grind your tedious properatarian axe.


Moron,

Gimme "your" bike. And "your" helmet. It is not "your" property. LOL

SMS wrote:
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.

Enforced, but true, then again if you are stopped, and decide to be a
pain the the officers behind, then he/she can always tack on the extra
fine. By Brother in law bought a bike this year, and a bell came with
it, not sure if they simply include it in the price, or highly recommend
it and offer several models to choose from. It's a cateye, nice small,
black and makes the right noise.


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.

Yes, and they should then make tobaco and alcohol illegal, because both
of those are responsible for far larger costs to the health care system
the a few unfortunate cyclists, who got a broken leg or arm, because
they were not wearing a helmet.

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.

Hey if it's determined by the insurance, then that's different. However
how many insurance providers were contacted in the search?

W

SMS wrote:
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.



The question is, and every time you say the above, I am going to ask
this same question. By how much?

W

gwhite wrote:
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.


Depends on where you are, in the United States which tends to be anal
retentive over weed, that is true. In some other countries (like
Canada) there are debates in Parliment about whether to legalise weed,
or at least make simple possession of small amounts a ticketable
offence, with a fine so small (something like $20), that it would be
laughable. The debate only continues because they don't want to make
the US mad about it, which is why they don't simply legalise it all
together. Then again they just legalised homosexual marriage, so why
not weed. Weed IS legal in still other countries.

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.

The government, should be thought of as a corporation hired by the
people, or the crown, to provide the services that the country requires,
in it's day to day business. The people as share holders in that
corporation, have the right to hire and fire the Chairman and Board of
Directors, who can then hire and fire the upper managers, and it then
trickles down to the grunts and minions who actually do the work.

Services required could be many things, defense is one, liasoning with
other governments is another, managing the sconomy, is another. However
governments often forget this, and start running on power trips, and
then the whole process fails. Sometimes governments get so corrupted,
that the collapse under the weight of their own corruption, like that of
the Soviet Union..... IMNSHO, the United States is heading the same
way.....

W

Tom Kunich wrote:
"The Wogster" wrote in message
.. .

SMS wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:


"David Damerell" wrote in message
.. .


I really am not sure what you are driving at here. Yes, only a small
proportion of people will be ever involved in serious accidents; that
doesn't mean that when one does happen, making the head bigger does not
increase the chance of a head impact.



Yes but you also have to realize that although a helmet increases your
chance of a blow it reduces the chances that blow would be serious. In
my estimation the one probably pretty nearly cancels the other.


Where did you come up with that? You'd be very hard-pressed to ever find
an instance where the extra inch or two of thickness of the helmet was
responsible for the blow, but there are probably tens of thousandss to
hundreds of thousands instances of a helmet reducing the severity of a
blow.

The question has always been, and always will be, by how much... In raw
numbers, not relative statements like lots, or significantly, but real
numbers like if you go from x MPH to 0MPH into a statioary object, your
brain dead, if you go from y MPH to 0MPH into a stationary object, your
brain damaged. A helmet reduces x or y by z MPH or z%.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide real numbers for x, y and z.


Might I suggest that you are too stupid to understand them in the first
place?

Try reading the ACTUAL HELMET STANDARD on the Snell Foundation site:


Doesn't say anything about the effects of the tests on tissues, and that
is what is more important. If with NO helmet and you go from x MPH to 0
MPH, what does x need to be to cause brain death. What does it need to
be to cause permanent brain injury, now how much does a helmet reduce
that by. Nothing in the standard, from a brief glance shows that.

For example if x is 45MPH to cause brain death, and 30MPH to cause
permanent injury, and the helmet reduces it by 6MPH, and your going
53MPH (downhill), doesn't matter if your wearing a helmet or not, your
brain dead. If your going from 44MPH, YOUR STILL SCREWED.

W

The Wogster wrote:

The question is, and every time you say the above, I am going to ask
this same question. By how much?

And the answer will be the same. No one knows for sure. There are
numerous studies out there, all of which reach different conclusions as
to the amount they reduce injury severity and death, but every study
reaches the conclusion that there is a reduction.

I suggest that you go read all the reputable studies, average them all
together, and take that as your answer, if it's so important to you to
have an exact figure. Of course the result won't be exact, but it may
stop you from asking a question which you know in advance that there is
no absolute answer to.