Helmet Nazis at It Again!

writes:

justin david wrote:
On 17 Sep 2006 14:14:24 -0700, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
wrote:


Where is the proof that a foam hat would have made a significant
difference in the degree of head injury in this case?

Your ****ing in the wind; if he had been wearing a helmet his head
would have been protected enough so that when it did hit the pavement
there would be enough cushioning so that he would not have suffered
the severity of the injury he suffered.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends on quite a lot, especially including
the details of the impact. What we can say is that in most serious
impacts, helmets don't make a significant difference. If they did, it
would jump out in the pre- and post-MHL data.
snip

Definition (according the FK): "serious impact": an impact sufficiently
severe that one would not expect a helmet to help much. What you are
reading in his posts is pure rhetoric.






--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:20:12 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

justin david wrote:
On 17 Sep 2006 14:14:24 -0700, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
wrote:


Where is the proof that a foam hat would have made a significant
difference in the degree of head injury in this case?

Your ****ing in the wind; if he had been wearing a helmet his head
would have been protected enough so that when it did hit the pavement
there would be enough cushioning so that he would not have suffered
the severity of the injury he suffered.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends on quite a lot, especially including
the details of the impact. What we can say is that in most serious
impacts, helmets don't make a significant difference. If they did, it
would jump out in the pre- and post-MHL data.
snip

Definition (according the FK): "serious impact": an impact sufficiently
severe that one would not expect a helmet to help much. What you are
reading in his posts is pure rhetoric.

I guess if you get hit head on by a car going 85 mph while riding
your bike or a jet falls out of the sky and on top of you, the helmet
may not be able to do much to sustain your life, but I think most
accidents that happen on a bike that engage ones' head don't happen in
that circumstance... however, if you're riding and you get doored and
your head hits the pavement, the helmet will possibly save you from
massive trauma and quite possibly death. I was once closely riding
behind a truck that had a metal lift on the back, and when it stopped
very quickly, my head hit the edge of the lift. It cracked the helmet
but my head was fine. I'm not really an active advocate for bike
helmets but I wouldn't do my daily commute now without one.

justin david wrote:


I guess if you get hit head on by a car going 85 mph while riding
your bike or a jet falls out of the sky and on top of you, the helmet
may not be able to do much to sustain your life, but I think most
accidents that happen on a bike that engage ones' head don't happen in
that circumstance... however, if you're riding and you get doored and
your head hits the pavement, the helmet will possibly save you from
massive trauma and quite possibly death. I was once closely riding
behind a truck that had a metal lift on the back, and when it stopped
very quickly, my head hit the edge of the lift. It cracked the helmet
but my head was fine. I'm not really an active advocate for bike
helmets but I wouldn't do my daily commute now without one.

When tailgating another vehicle, one should use full body armor.

Wayne

justin david writes:

I guess if you get hit head on by a car going 85 mph while riding
your bike or a jet falls out of the sky and on top of you, the helmet
may not be able to do much to sustain your life, but I think most
accidents that happen on a bike that engage ones' head don't happen in
that circumstance... however, if you're riding and you get doored and
your head hits the pavement, the helmet will possibly save you from
massive trauma and quite possibly death. I was once closely riding
behind a truck that had a metal lift on the back, and when it stopped
very quickly, my head hit the edge of the lift. It cracked the helmet
but my head was fine. I'm not really an active advocate for bike
helmets but I wouldn't do my daily commute now without one.

It's not clear that the proper lesson was learned.

--
Joe Riel

justin david wrote:


I guess if you get hit head on by a car going 85 mph while riding
your bike or a jet falls out of the sky and on top of you, the helmet
may not be able to do much to sustain your life, but I think most
accidents that happen on a bike that engage ones' head don't happen in
that circumstance... however, if you're riding and you get doored and
your head hits the pavement, the helmet will possibly save you from
massive trauma and quite possibly death.

.... with "possibly" being the important word.

How can we judge how "possible" that level of protection is? How can
we judge what "most accidents" for cyclists consist of? How can we
tell if helmets are likely to help?

The best way is probably this: Find places where helmet wearing rates
among bicyclists suddenly increased 40% or more. Check out the head
injury data before and after the sudden increase. Find out if the
number of serious head injuries per cyclist have decreased.

And, of course, this has been done. And, of course, the finding is "No
significant protection." (Actually, in at least some places, the
finding has been "slightly more serious head injuries per cyclist
_after_ the big increase.")

See Robinson, D.L., "Do enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public
health?" BMJ 2006;332:722 (25 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7543.722

I was once closely riding
behind a truck that had a metal lift on the back, and when it stopped
very quickly, my head hit the edge of the lift. It cracked the helmet
but my head was fine.

Well, there are certain types of riding that might call for a helmet -
and goggles, groin protector and other body armor. Blind drafting of a
truck would be one, I'm sure. But why on earth would you do that??

I'm not really an active advocate for bike
helmets but I wouldn't do my daily commute now without one.

Yes, there are lots of people who wouldn't ride in a certain way
without wearing a helmet. So they don the helmet, feel protected, and
accept more risks.

One hypothesis is that this partially explains the observed lack of
effectiveness of helmets. Looking at it from another perspective, a
famous British researcher (Mayer Hillman) said something like this: "A
bicycle helmet might possibly help a bit, if you could only be
convinced that it was useless."

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

justin david wrote:



How can we judge how "possible" that level of protection is? How can
we judge what "most accidents" for cyclists consist of? How can we
tell if helmets are likely to help?

The best way is probably this: Find places where helmet wearing rates
among bicyclists suddenly increased 40% or more. Check out the head
injury data before and after the sudden increase. Find out if the
number of serious head injuries per cyclist have decreased.

And, of course, this has been done. And, of course, the finding is "No
significant protection." (Actually, in at least some places, the
finding has been "slightly more serious head injuries per cyclist
_after_ the big increase.")

See Robinson, D.L., "Do enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public
health?" BMJ 2006;332:722 (25 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7543.722

Robinson is an anti-helmet fanatic as should be evident from her posts
on this newsgroup, and while she might not let that intrude into any
publication, Frank is willing spin whatever he can find to further his
agenda. Here is part of what he isn't telling you.

If you look at
http://www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/pdf/publications/safety_in_numbers.pdf#search=%22australia%20bicycl ing%20rates%200.6%22,
you'll read about Smeed's law, which states that the risk per person
goes up as more people drive. This law has been shown to work for
bicylists as well. Evidence includes the comparision of cities with
different numbers of active cyclists, and also some results for
Australia, where the number of cyclists doubled from 1982 to 1989.
That time period is way too short to explain the difference as being
due to infrastructure improvements that attracted more cyclists.

Apparently the number of cyclists went down substantially immediately
after the MHL was passed (although it started to go back up later).
If you decrease the number of cylcists, however, the accident rate per
cyclist-mile goes up. The 'before/after' studies based on gross
averages over a population generally do not account for the effect
mentioned above.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

wrote:
justin david wrote:


I guess if you get hit head on by a car going 85 mph while riding
your bike or a jet falls out of the sky and on top of you, the helmet
may not be able to do much to sustain your life, but I think most
accidents that happen on a bike that engage ones' head don't happen
in that circumstance... however, if you're riding and you get doored
and your head hits the pavement, the helmet will possibly save you
from massive trauma and quite possibly death.

... with "possibly" being the important word.

Frank's on record agreeing that helmets can /possibly/ save lives!

Thread ender.

eg

Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:
justin david wrote:


I guess if you get hit head on by a car going 85 mph while riding
your bike or a jet falls out of the sky and on top of you, the helmet
may not be able to do much to sustain your life, but I think most
accidents that happen on a bike that engage ones' head don't happen
in that circumstance... however, if you're riding and you get doored
and your head hits the pavement, the helmet will possibly save you
from massive trauma and quite possibly death.

... with "possibly" being the important word.

Frank's on record agreeing that helmets can /possibly/ save lives!

I'm also on record as agreeing that Zippo lighters in shirt pockets can
"possibly" save lives by stopping bullets aimed at the heart. That's
actually happened a couple times.

I suppose you recommend everyone always carry a Zippo? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:
justin david wrote:


Frank's on record agreeing that helmets can /possibly/ save lives!

I'm also on record as agreeing that Zippo lighters in shirt pockets can
"possibly" save lives by stopping bullets aimed at the heart. That's
actually happened a couple times.

I suppose you recommend everyone always carry a Zippo? ;-)


As far as I can tell, Frank is incapable of posting anything without
spinning it to fit his agenda.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
justin david wrote:
...
I was once closely riding
behind a truck that had a metal lift on the back, and when it stopped
very quickly, my head hit the edge of the lift. It cracked the helmet
but my head was fine.

Well, there are certain types of riding that might call for a helmet -
and goggles, groin protector and other body armor. Blind drafting of a
truck would be one, I'm sure. But why on earth would you do that??

Motor-pacing a large vehicle in urban traffic, while high risk, is also
great fun.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
I am supporting cannibalism by eating more nuts.