Another Helmet Thread

writes:

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:07:44 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:

Did I recently read somewhere that head injuries are the cause of

death in ~75%+ of cycling fatalities?

That's not how that particular piece of propaganda is normally stated, although some people in the helmet-promotion echo chamber may say it that way. The more defensible version is "Up to 75% of bike fatalities involve head injury."


Okay, okay - I'll look it up, then.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/5/592.full

(referenced by your CTC "What insurance do we offer" document)

Why is that more defensible? Because if someone's abdomen is run over by a bus AND they get a scratch on the head, the helmet promotion people can say "That death involved a head injury."

But the idea is deceitful, and wrong. Victor G. Coronado et. al., "Surveillance for Traumatic Brain Injury Related Deaths, United States, 1997-2007� Surveillance Summaries May 6, 2011 / 60(SS05); 1-32 states that there 325 TBI deaths per year in the U.S. between 1997 and 2007. During those same years, the total bike fatalities averaged 730. That means only about 45% of bike fatalities were due to TBI.


Really? 45% Wow! That sure sounds like convincing evidence that head
injuries must be cycling's most serious common injury.

Furthermore, those bike TBI fatalities were only 0.6% of the nation's TBI fatalities. When will helmeteers begin addressing the other 99.4%?


It's the *law*, Frank.



It needs to be challenged, if legislators are banning ordinary

sensible cycling, as performed safely by 99%+ of the world cyclist

population.



Setting aside having to live with myself, can you imagine the hot water

I'd be in if something happened that might have been prevented or

ameliorated (or not) by simply reminding them of the law and encouraging

them to obey it?? Child Protective Services? (I'm a mandatory reporter

of such things. Technically, I'd have to turn myself in.) My wife /

their mother? Everyone else?

Dan has bragged about violating so many other bike laws: Riding drunk, riding at night with no lights, running red lights, general reckless operation.

I take full responsibility for everything I do.

But this mandatory helmet law is sacred to him!


Consider the consequences.

(I won't repeat my admission of willfully disregarding even this law.)

I am curious, though, about enforcement of the MHL. I certainly saw kids in Portland riding without helmets. And I'm five miles from Pennsylvania, with a kids' MHL, yet I see PA kids riding without helmets all the time. I've watched cops drive by them.


That's one of the main reasons I tolerate and accept this law to the extent
that I do; there is zero enforcement against the riders.

I think "It's the law!" is a dodge. Dan's just a helmet promoter.

I thought you didn't play "gotcha" games. Well, if this is your "Gotcha!",
you got me. I'm a helmeteer. Sure.

(Pretty sick game, though.)

Why else would he spend so much time here arguing in favor of their use and purported benefits?


I am *only* arguing against your loopy insistence that helmets cannot
reasonably be considered worthwhile _by individuals_ for ordinary
bicycling.

Looking for four little words.

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 2:25:56 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:


Actually Frank has, in the past, admitted that helmets are a good idea

for some cycling situations so clearly he does believe that they have a

protective effect.

I've said that they may make sense for riding that really does impose a high risk of crashing in a way that's within their tiny protective capacity. The examples I gave are criterium racing and aggressive mountain biking.

But even then, it seems the protective capacity may be too small. This rider died of TBI despite a simple fall on a smooth surface, a fall that helmet proponents assure us is within the meager capacity of a helmet:
http://fox5sandiego.com/2013/06/19/f...#axzz2Wy2w53lw
Of course, there are countless other instances of helmeted fatalities.

What the less lunatic AHZs will admit is that while helmets do have a

protective effect in crashes, whole population studies do not show a

reduction in head injury rates and fatalities as helmet use increases.

The only problem with this position is that whole population studies

_do_ show a reduction in head injury and fatality rates as helmet use

increases.

From the June 2013 issue of _Bicycling_ magazine: "Between 1995 and 2009, the annual number of bike trips in the U.sS. grew by 30%...";

and "...by 1999 half of all riders were wearing them - up from just 18 percent eight years earlier..."

and "Here's the trouble: Stat #3: As more peole buckled on helmets, brain injuries also increased. Between 1997 and 2007 the number of bike-related concussions suffered annually by American riders increased by 67 percent, from 9327 to 15546..."

So a moderate increase in bicycling, a tremendous increase in helmet use, and a tremendous surge in TBI.

Why does the author of this major article in _Bicycling_ magazine contradict you? Is it because he actually looked for data?

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 3:23:21 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
fk writes:



On Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:07:44 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:



Did I recently read somewhere that head injuries are the cause of



death in ~75%+ of cycling fatalities?



That's not how that particular piece of propaganda is normally stated, although some people in the helmet-promotion echo chamber may say it that way. The more defensible version is "Up to 75% of bike fatalities involve head injury."





Okay, okay - I'll look it up, then.



http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/5/592.full

Wow, I got Dan to look something up! But you'll notice that the "75%" claim was as I said, whereas the truth is far lower (at least in the U.S.), just 45% of fatalities due to brain injury. It's the usual overstating of the problem by helmet proponents. My source again:

Victor G. Coronado et. al., "Surveillance for Traumatic Brain Injury Related Deaths, United States, 1997-2007” Surveillance Summaries May 6, 2011 / 60(SS05); 1-32 states that there 325 TBI deaths per year in the U.S. between 1997 and 2007. During those same years, the total bike fatalities averaged 730. That means only about 45% of bike fatalities were due to TBI.


Did you notice that the paper made no reference to the levels of cycling? If, as in other places, the helmet law discouraged many people from riding, then the percentages in helmets would increase, to the _detriment_ of public health, since biking even without a helmet is strongly beneficial, with benefits far outweighing tiny risks. And of course, as in Australia, pro-MHL people would be overjoyed if biking dropped to near zero. They could then crow about almost zero deaths on bikes. Never mind about the loss of bicycling's benefits.

Really? 45% Wow! That sure sounds like convincing evidence that head

injuries must be cycling's most serious common injury.

If you'll gather data on the other mechanisms of death, we can find out for sure. Go for it, Dan. Remember, being physically run over (by turning trucks' rear wheels, for example) is another important cause.

Furthermore, those bike TBI fatalities were only 0.6% of the nation's TBI fatalities. When will helmeteers begin addressing the other 99.4%?


[about Dan's promotion of helmet use within his own family:]
It's the *law*, Frank.


Dan has bragged about violating so many other bike laws: Riding drunk, riding at night with no lights, running red lights, general reckless operation.

I take full responsibility for everything I do.

But you egregiously violate very fundamental traffic laws, and your kids almost certainly know you do. Those are "the *law*" too. Why do you promote obedience to helmet laws, but not to other laws?

But this mandatory helmet law is sacred to him!

Consider the consequences.

Of a kid riding facing traffic with no lights at night?


I am curious, though, about enforcement of the MHL. I certainly saw kids in Portland riding without helmets. And I'm five miles from Pennsylvania, with a kids' MHL, yet I see PA kids riding without helmets all the time. I've watched cops drive by them.


That's one of the main reasons I tolerate and accept this law to the extent

that I do; there is zero enforcement against the riders.

And thus, you've destroyed your excuse for insisting on helmets on your kids. Turns out it's not cops making the kids wear them. It's you.

Understand, I'm not saying you must do what I say regarding your kids. However, I am saying that contrary to what you claimed, you are _definitely_ promoting helmet use, and you are portraying helmet use as more important than even fundamentals like riding on the proper side of the road, using lights at night, etc. Just like lots of helmet promoters. In fact, just like the wrong-way, sidewalk-riding guy I talked to yesterday. Yep, he had his helmet sitting on the chair next to him. I didn't mention that to him, either, BTW.

Be honest about your position, Dan.

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 3:23:21 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
fk writes:



On Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:07:44 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:



Did I recently read somewhere that head injuries are the cause of



death in ~75%+ of cycling fatalities?



That's not how that particular piece of propaganda is normally stated, although some people in the helmet-promotion echo chamber may say it that way. The more defensible version is "Up to 75% of bike fatalities involve head injury."





Okay, okay - I'll look it up, then.



http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/5/592.full

Wow, I got Dan to look something up!

**** you.

But you'll notice that the "75%" claim was as I said, whereas the truth is far lower (at least in the U.S.), just 45% of fatalities due to brain injury. It's the usual overstating of the problem by helmet proponents. My source again:

Victor G. Coronado et. al., "Surveillance for Traumatic Brain Injury Related Deaths, United States, 1997-2007� Surveillance Summaries May 6, 2011 / 60(SS05); 1-32 states that there 325 TBI deaths per year in the U.S. between 1997 and 2007. During those same years, the total bike fatalities averaged 730. That means only about 45% of bike fatalities were due to TBI.


Is the data online? As I've said before, I *do* consider data, but don't
blindly accept anyone else's "analysis" (though I consider this, including
"who is saying so").

For one thing, "Traumatic Brain Injury Related Deaths" and "325 TBI deaths
per year in the U.S. between 1997 and 2000" makes no mention of anything
having to do with bicycles. am I to accept assumptions based on what you
tell me?

And I didn't say "TBI" (go ahead and blather your rationalization). And
I am not going to keep digging back up **** that I've already reviewed,
but I consistently see studies that begin something like, "Bicycle related
head injuries are the most serious common cause of death and [not quite
dead but badly ****ed up]... "


Did you notice that the paper made no reference to the levels of cycling? If, as in other places, the helmet law discouraged many people from riding, then the percentages in helmets would increase, to the _detriment_ of public health, since biking even without a helmet is strongly beneficial, with benefits far outweighing tiny risks. And of course, as in Australia, pro-MHL people would be overjoyed if biking dropped to near zero. They could then crow about almost zero deaths on bikes. Never mind about the loss of bicycling's benefits.


You're changing the subject again. And can we make a deal? Will you
stop falling back on the same half-baked few studies? Especially since
those are like the *only* places in the world that ever enforced MHL and
so are not representative (aside from being half-baked). In exchange I
will stipulate that enforced MHL is an impediment to increased bicycling
(especially ad hoc bike trips). But then, I guess I've already stipulated
that all along - as *one* of the reasons I oppose MHL's. In fact can we
make that deal instead that you just quit coming back around to MHL's at
all?

Really? 45% Wow! That sure sounds like convincing evidence that head

injuries must be cycling's most serious common injury.

If you'll gather data on the other mechanisms of death, we can find out for sure. Go for it, Dan. Remember, being physically run over (by turning trucks' rear wheels, for example) is another important cause.


I'm not going to go out of my way (right now) to "prove" it to you. In
fact, scratch that - no matter what data I gather you will dismiss it with
your deluded rationalization spiel. So... whatever.

Furthermore, those bike TBI fatalities were only 0.6% of the nation's TBI fatalities. When will helmeteers begin addressing the other 99.4%?


And the price of tea in China is...


[about Dan's promotion of helmet use within his own family:]
It's the *law*, Frank.


Dan has bragged about violating so many other bike laws: Riding drunk, riding at night with no lights, running red lights, general reckless operation.

I take full responsibility for everything I do.

But you egregiously violate very fundamental traffic laws, and your kids almost certainly know you do. Those are "the *law*" too. Why do you promote obedience to helmet laws, but not to other laws?

But this mandatory helmet law is sacred to him!

Consider the consequences.

Of a kid riding facing traffic with no lights at night?


Of Child Protective Services at the door to collect the surviving ones.
Of a wife who will never love you again. A life in complete and utter
shambles; everything that ever mattered to you down the drain. (But I
stood up for good ol' Frank 'n' Phil's principles, damn it; at least I
did that!)

(For someone who doesn't play "Gotcha!", you have gone *way* off the rails
on this one - you are being incredibly *vile* here! You are a bad, bad,
*bad* man, Frank. The amazing thing is that you must think I'm a decent,
sane, reasonable guy, else you'd have to be *nuts* [maybe that's it] to be
taking this kinf of chance poking at my psyche with this kind of ****.)


I am curious, though, about enforcement of the MHL. I certainly saw kids in Portland riding without helmets. And I'm five miles from Pennsylvania, with a kids' MHL, yet I see PA kids riding without helmets all the time. I've watched cops drive by them.


That's one of the main reasons I tolerate and accept this law to the extent

that I do; there is zero enforcement against the riders.

And thus, you've destroyed your excuse for insisting on helmets on your kids. Turns out it's not cops making the kids wear them. It's you.


_I'm not *making* them wear them_! I told you, I consistently teach them
to think for themselves - to question even what _I_ tell them. I said
"sometimes [I tell them to wear a helmet]... usually - if they start out
to ride without it. I will *remind* them. And I have tried to give them
a realistic understanding of a helmet's worth and limitations, and have
tried to emphasive and put into persepective the more significant safety
factors.

Understand, I'm not saying you must do what I say regarding your kids. However, I am saying that contrary to what you claimed, you are _definitely_ promoting helmet use,


There is an extent to which helmet promotion is warranted.

... and you are portraying helmet use as more important than even fundamentals like riding on the proper side of the road, using lights at night, etc.


Bull****.

Just like lots of helmet promoters. In fact, just like the wrong-way, sidewalk-riding guy I talked to yesterday. Yep, he had his helmet sitting on the chair next to him. I didn't mention that to him, either, BTW.

Be honest about your position, Dan.


The archived record will speak for itself.

writes:

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 2:25:56 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:


Actually Frank has, in the past, admitted that helmets are a good idea

for some cycling situations so clearly he does believe that they have a

protective effect.

I've said that they may make sense for riding that really does impose a high risk of crashing in a way that's within their tiny protective capacity. The examples I gave are criterium racing and aggressive mountain biking.

But even then, it seems the protective capacity may be too small. This rider died of TBI despite a simple fall on a smooth surface, a fall that helmet proponents assure us is within the meager capacity of a helmet:
http://fox5sandiego.com/2013/06/19/f...#axzz2Wy2w53lw
Of course, there are countless other instances of helmeted fatalities.


Using isolated and "freak" anecdotes to make your case?


What the less lunatic AHZs will admit is that while helmets do have a

protective effect in crashes, whole population studies do not show a

reduction in head injury rates and fatalities as helmet use increases.

The only problem with this position is that whole population studies

_do_ show a reduction in head injury and fatality rates as helmet use

increases.

From the June 2013 issue of _Bicycling_ magazine: "Between 1995 and 2009, the annual number of bike trips in the U.sS. grew by 30%...";

and "...by 1999 half of all riders were wearing them - up from just 18 percent eight years earlier..."

and "Here's the trouble: Stat #3: As more peole buckled on helmets, brain injuries also increased. Between 1997 and 2007 the number of bike-related concussions suffered annually by American riders increased by 67 percent, from 9327 to 15546..."

So a moderate increase in bicycling, a tremendous increase in helmet use, and a tremendous surge in TBI.

Why does the author of this major article in _Bicycling_ magazine contradict you? Is it because he actually looked for data?


I'm not seeing anything here resembling even the beginning of a definiitve,
comprehensive, or otherwise convincing case. In fact, I don't even see
any basis for any conclusion (except maybe that bicycling appears to be
becoming more dangerous).

This isn't even good froth; where's the stout?

Dan writes:

writes:

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 3:23:21 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
fk writes:



On Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:07:44 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:



Did I recently read somewhere that head injuries are the cause of



death in ~75%+ of cycling fatalities?



That's not how that particular piece of propaganda is normally stated, although some people in the helmet-promotion echo chamber may say it that way. The more defensible version is "Up to 75% of bike fatalities involve head injury."





Okay, okay - I'll look it up, then.



http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/5/592.full

Wow, I got Dan to look something up!

**** you.

But you'll notice that the "75%" claim was as I said, whereas the truth...

And the "claim" was *not* "as [you] said" ("_up to_ 75% *involve* head
injury" [emph mine]), it says (exactly): "... 75% of all bicycle-related
deaths are due to head injuries."

Really, you need to get a grip and try to manufacture at least a *sort* of
coherent reality.

I don't have the informational basis for this statement, but I figure these
guys do, and I don't see them as evil helmeteers (though I reserve healthy
skepticism), and it doesn't sound whack to me (like most of the twisted
**** that AHZ's keep pounding. You know I got that article from your CTC
refernece table, don't you?)

snip

Dan writes:

writes:

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 3:23:21 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
fk writes:



On Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:07:44 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:



snip


http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/5/592.full


snip



Did you notice that the paper made no reference to the levels of cycling?

And yes, I did notice that the paper made _no reference_ to the levels
of cycling; but that didn't stop your CTC "What insurance are we offering"
paper from _using it as the source_ for *their* explicit claim of "over
60% drop in cycle use".

Jeez-lou-****ing-ise!

snip

On 6/20/2013 9:58 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
Joe Riel writes:

Phil W Lee writes:

sms considered Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:58:55
-0700 the perfect time to write:

On 6/20/2013 10:22 AM, Dan O wrote:


Really, we could automate your dogged spiel. Even the personal digs
intended to provoke shame wouldn't be much of an AI challenge, as
you're so formulaic and rote with them.

Frank will _never_ answer the simple question:

"In the event of head impact bicycle crash, are you better off wearing a
helmet?"

He can't. The answer destroys the position he's works so hard at
defending. He will quote you endless "studies" about hospital admission
rates following the imposition of an MHL and how that _proves_ that
helmets don't work. Alas statistics are notoriously unreliable in
protecting your head as it hits the pavement.

He's answered it repeatedly, and given links to data explaining it.
So why do you keep lying about it?

It's a nonsense question. It's similar to asking whether you'd be
better off with a gun, given that a homicidal maniac had broken into
your home, then using the response as an indication that everyone should
be armed.

Personally, if I knew that I was going to be in a bike crash (that was
all the info given), and had the choice of wearing a helmet or hip pads,
I'd go with the hip pads. My choice might be influenced by a recent
crash where I broke my femur.

Just in case it isn't clear, my hypothetical [given that I'm going to
crash] is every bit as nonsensical as the one Scharf posed.

If I knew when I would crash, I would stop and get dressed like this.

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/upload/281786/images/lorenzo-crash.jpg

--
T0m $herm@n

On 6/22/2013 2:26 PM, Dan wrote:
**** you.

Would not "**** off" or "Go **** yourself" be more logical responses?

--
T0m $herm@n

On 6/22/2013 12:45 PM, Dan wrote:
writes:

I've said that they may make sense for riding that really does impose a high risk of crashing in a way that's within their tiny protective capacity. The examples I gave are criterium racing and aggressive mountain biking.

But even then, it seems the protective capacity may be too small. This rider died of TBI despite a simple fall on a smooth surface, a fall that helmet proponents assure us is within the meager capacity of a helmet:
http://fox5sandiego.com/2013/06/19/f...#axzz2Wy2w53lw
Of course, there are countless other instances of helmeted fatalities.


Using isolated and "freak" anecdotes to make your case?

The key point is that helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted
cyclists in head impact crashes. Both whole-population studies and
individual cases prove this. The fact that Frank finally admits that
helmets have a protective capacity is a _major_ step forward in his
education. Perhaps he will decide to read some scientific studies that
show that the protective capacity is much greater than he claims,
perhaps not, but at least he is beginning to comprehend the facts.

I'm not seeing anything here resembling even the beginning of a definiitve,
comprehensive, or otherwise convincing case. In fact, I don't even see
any basis for any conclusion (except maybe that bicycling appears to be
becoming more dangerous).

Probably not becoming more dangerous, probably better reporting as
hospitals become more connected.