Another Helmet Thread

On 6/22/2013 12:26 PM, Dan wrote:
writes:

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).

For ad-hoc perhaps. But as Frank well knows, cycling rates in countries
that implemented helmet laws continued to increase despite the helmet
law. In fact what you see now is an admission of that fact but with the
caveat that while cycling rates increased, they did not increase as
great of a percentage as the population growth, so that the increase in
absolute numbers was actually a decrease in percentage of the population
cycling. Again, this fails to take into account any other factors than
the presence of a helmet law. _Perhaps_ cycling rates might have
increased at a faster rate if there were no helmet law, there's no way
to know.

I don't like the nanny-state mentality of countries and provinces that
have implemented MHLs, nor do I accept the rationalization that since
these places have nationalized health care that they justify the law
because it lowers health care expenses. If someone wants to ride
helmetless, and understands the small extra risk in doing so, that
should be their choice.

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 3:26:46 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
fk writes:

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").

The idea of the full citation is that you can look for the data, either online or at a good library or both. In some cases the numbers I give are in other forms in the references (for example, they may say something like "bicyclists are 0.8% of the total of 45,000" or something similar. But the data is there.

And FWIW, I don't blindly accept others' analysis either. There are lots of examples of misleading editorializing on the part of researchers. The mechanisms of science (including commentary and corroboration, or lack thereof) are dependent on others critically examining research.





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?

Look up the source.


And can we make a deal? Will you

stop falling back on the same half-baked few studies?

I found the paper I cited above only within the past six months, Dan. I found the paper on Crocker's failed study in Austin within the past year or two. Admittedly, I don't read quite as many of these as I did, say, ten years ago; but it's simply wrong to say I'm not giving new information.

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).

It's not just areas with MHLs, Dan. Let's refresh your memory on Crocker, OK? He's an Austin TX physician who has lobbied long and hard for an all-ages MHL for the city. A few years ago, he decided to do a case-control study on adults to "prove" that bike helmets on all adults would make such a great difference that nobody should be allowed to ride without one.

Of course, he chose a "case-control" methodology, probably because that's the form of study that's most favorable to helmets, given the self-selection of subjects, differences in subject riding styles, differences in medical coverage, etc. Lots of confounding variables.

Crocker did control for one previously ignored variable: blood alcohol content. But that killed his objective. He tried delaying the completion of his study, hoping for better results, but was forced to publish the fact that alcohol use was significant regarding head injuries, and helmet use was not.

The point is, Austin had (and has) no MHL for adults. Crocker studied adults hoping to get one passed. He failed, because his own research showed it wouldn't make a difference. (My bet is he's still lobbying for one, though.)

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?

Keep in mind, the study I just mentioned had no relation to MHL, except as motivation for the study. But sorry, Dan, as long as MHLs exist and are being further proposed, I'll speak out against them. (As recently as a month or gwo ago, some legislators in Maryland tried to pass an all-ages MHL. I guess you'd have tried to stop discussion on it, and let it go into effect?)


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.

OK, not "making them" wear helmets. Just urging them to wear helmets, and reminding them to wear helmets. But whatever - they're your kids. Just don't claim you don't promote helmet wearing.

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:38:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 2:25:56 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:

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, that number is deceptive, and you know it. The gross number of head injuries says nothing about injury rate. Between 1997 and 2007, the number of cyclists in PDX almost tripled. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared....cfm?id=169951

Crash incidents also plummeted, which, as you have said many times, is typical when numbers of cyclists rise.

So, assuming a similar increase in raw numbers of head injuries in PDX (67%), and a tripling of the number of riders, that means the head injury rate actually fell by about 40%. You know that, and you should have mentioned the change in numbers of cyclists nationally.

Also, even Bell Sports recognizes that helmets will not prevent rotational brain injury. Nothing will. Pull up the .pdf of Bell's owner's manual -- it says something like "you can scramble an egg yolk without breaking the shell." The company is very clear about what its helmets do and don't do.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 4:15:25 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
Dan writes:



fk writes:




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."

The 75% is wrong, based on the independent data on all TBI fatalities in the U.S. It's as wrong as the 24-year-old claim that "bike helmets prevent up to 85% of head injuries," that the NHTSA was recently (finally!) forced to admit was wrong all along.

If you really believe the 75% claim is correct, show me the counts, don't show me a helmeteer's uncorroborated parroting of others' propaganda. The source I gave was neutral on helmets, after all; it didn't even deal with them. To get the 45% figure, all I had to do was divide its counts of bike TBI fatalities by the total bike deaths for those same years. Easy math.

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)...

Oh, bull****. You are accepting their "75%" claim with no examination at all, despite being given sources and data that prove it wrong. Your defense is that you won't bother to look at, or for, the data. That's very far from "healthy skepticism."

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:31:24 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
... as Frank well knows, cycling rates in countries

that implemented helmet laws continued to increase despite the helmet

law. In fact what you see now is an admission of that fact but with the

caveat that while cycling rates increased, they did not increase as

great of a percentage as the population growth, so that the increase in

absolute numbers was actually a decrease in percentage of the population

cycling. Again, this fails to take into account any other factors than

the presence of a helmet law.

There were not "any other factors" that took effect at the same time the MHLs were passed, except increases in speeding enforcement, red light enforcement and drunk driving enforcement. If anything, those might have caused more people to ride bikes. But when the laws were passed, there was a _sudden and simultaneous_ drop in bike riding.

From http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/...t-law-disaster

"When the laws were introduced in the early 1990s, cycling trips declined by 30-40 per cent overall, and up to 80 per cent in some demographic groups, such as secondary school-aged females.

"Today mandatory helmets are still a major factor deterring people from riding. A recent survey from University of Sydney Professor Chris Rissel found 23 per cent of Sydney adults would ride more if helmets were optional..."

_Perhaps_ cycling rates might have

increased at a faster rate if there were no helmet law, there's no way

to know.

I'd say that if 23 percent of respondents say they'd ride more, that's a pretty good way to know.

I don't like the nanny-state mentality of countries and provinces that

have implemented MHLs, nor do I accept the rationalization that since

these places have nationalized health care that they justify the law

because it lowers health care expenses. If someone wants to ride

helmetless, and understands the small extra risk in doing so, that

should be their choice.

If that's really true, you should stop arguing so energetically in favor of helmets.

- Frank Krygowski

On 6/22/2013 6:06 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
On 6/22/2013 2:26 PM, Dan wrote:
**** you.

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


Well, he did express his thought clearly without ambiguity.

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

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:51:04 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:38:31 AM UTC-7, fk wrote:


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 people 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.



Frank, that number is deceptive, and you know it. The gross number of head injuries says nothing about injury rate. Between 1997 and 2007, the number of cyclists in PDX almost tripled. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared....cfm?id=169951

Crash incidents also plummeted, which, as you have said many times, is typical when numbers of cyclists rise.

So, assuming a similar increase in raw numbers of head injuries in PDX (67%), and a tripling of the number of riders, that means the head injury rate actually fell by about 40%. You know that, and you should have mentioned the change in numbers of cyclists nationally.

Jay, there's no justification for making unfounded assumptions about PDX numbers. The author was giving national data, not PDX data, and national data shows far more concussions at the same time there were far more cyclists wearing helmets.

Re-read the paragraphs I quoted. Re-read the entire article. (The abbreviated version is at http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/ but it contains those same paragraphs as the full printed version.)

Also, even Bell Sports recognizes that helmets will not prevent rotational brain injury. Nothing will. Pull up the .pdf of Bell's owner's manual -- it says something like "you can scramble an egg yolk without breaking the shell." The company is very clear about what its helmets do and don't do.

But that's getting very close to the crux of the issue. It's been known for decades that rotational acceleration of brain tissue with respect to the skull, etc. is the most important determining factor regarding TBI. (Tests on monkeys many years ago were the first, AFAIK, to prove this, and it's since been confirmed in many ways. It's why boxers have long tried to spin the opponent's head to produce a knockout, for example.) Yet nearly all bike helmets don't even attempt to attenuate this important action.

It does no good to say "Bell admits their helmets don't work." Heck, that's probably on the advice of their lawyers. "Let the hand-wringers sell our product. In fact, let's donate a bunch to Safe Kids Inc. They can make all the claims they want. If we just put out disclaimers, we're a lot harder to sue."

If we want honesty, we should have Safe Kids, BHSI and every other helmet promotion organization saying "Bike helmets are useless against the most common mechanism for brain injury. But don't worry, consequential brain injury has always been extremely rare in bicycling. And a damaged helmet is NOT proof of protection."

- Frank Krygowski

On 6/22/2013 6:22 PM, sms wrote:
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....

Bald faced lie by Scharf.

--
T0m $herm@n

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 5:36:49 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:51:04 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:38:31 AM UTC-7, fk wrote:





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 people 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.







Frank, that number is deceptive, and you know it. The gross number of head injuries says nothing about injury rate. Between 1997 and 2007, the number of cyclists in PDX almost tripled. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared....cfm?id=169951



Crash incidents also plummeted, which, as you have said many times, is typical when numbers of cyclists rise.



So, assuming a similar increase in raw numbers of head injuries in PDX (67%), and a tripling of the number of riders, that means the head injury rate actually fell by about 40%. You know that, and you should have mentioned the change in numbers of cyclists nationally.



Jay, there's no justification for making unfounded assumptions about PDX numbers. The author was giving national data, not PDX data, and national data shows far more concussions at the same time there were far more cyclists wearing helmets.



Re-read the paragraphs I quoted. Re-read the entire article. (The abbreviated version is at http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/ but it contains those same paragraphs as the full printed version.)



Also, even Bell Sports recognizes that helmets will not prevent rotational brain injury. Nothing will. Pull up the .pdf of Bell's owner's manual -- it says something like "you can scramble an egg yolk without breaking the shell." The company is very clear about what its helmets do and don't do.



But that's getting very close to the crux of the issue. It's been known for decades that rotational acceleration of brain tissue with respect to the skull, etc. is the most important determining factor regarding TBI. (Tests on monkeys many years ago were the first, AFAIK, to prove this, and it's since been confirmed in many ways. It's why boxers have long tried to spin the opponent's head to produce a knockout, for example.) Yet nearly all bike helmets don't even attempt to attenuate this important action.



It does no good to say "Bell admits their helmets don't work." Heck, that's probably on the advice of their lawyers. "Let the hand-wringers sell our product. In fact, let's donate a bunch to Safe Kids Inc. They can make all the claims they want. If we just put out disclaimers, we're a lot harder to sue."



If we want honesty, we should have Safe Kids, BHSI and every other helmet promotion organization saying "Bike helmets are useless against the most common mechanism for brain injury. But don't worry, consequential brain injury has always been extremely rare in bicycling. And a damaged helmet is NOT proof of protection."

This is what you posted:

"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."

According to the LAB, the number of trips by bicycle in the US (not just PDX) more than doubled between 2001 and 2009. http://www.bikeleague.org/content/bi...commuting-data

The number of concussions clearly did not double. There was no "surge in TBI". What you said was wrong, and you know better.

-- Jay Beattie.

writes:

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 4:15:25 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
Dan writes:



fk writes:




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."

The 75% is wrong, based on the independent data on all TBI fatalities in the U.S. It's as wrong as the 24-year-old claim that "bike helmets prevent up to 85% of head injuries," that the NHTSA was recently (finally!) forced to admit was wrong all along.

If you really believe the 75% claim is correct, show me the counts, don't show me a helmeteer's uncorroborated parroting of others' propaganda. The source I gave was neutral on helmets, after all; it didn't even deal with them. To get the 45% figure, all I had to do was divide its counts of bike TBI fatalities by the total bike deaths for those same years. Easy math.

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)...

Oh, bull****. You are accepting their "75%" claim with no examination at all, despite being given sources and data that prove it wrong. Your defense is that you won't bother to look at, or for, the data. That's very far from "healthy skepticism."


But I'm not "accepting" it. Not at all. I am presenting it to you for
what it's worth because you demanded it. I said something like, "Didn't
I read somewhere that something like...?", and you immediately started
telling me that it was something else altogether, so I cited the source.
I am not saying it proves anything.

And I don't need it to. I don't care about tha data. I *know* that
head injuries (as a class) are serious, and I know that they are an all
too common bicycling injury. And all *that* is just because I was kind
of parroting your parenthetical phrasing of your "Gotcha!" about knee
protectors when I answered it directly, then volleyed it back over the
net asking if you disagreed that helmets reduce head injuries, and you
dodged the whole works.

So, 75%, 45% - I don't care. (I don't.) Would you disagree that helmets
reduce head injuries?