published helmet research - not troll

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:26:11 -0400, Steven Bornfeld
wrote in message
:


Personally, I hear discussion about the sorry
state of autmotive safety all the time.


Funny how few of those discussing it never seem to think about the
proportion of car crashes which are due to human error...

Not that funny, though. We have some research here which shows that
85% of drivers think they are above average skill. That's the
fundamental problem with road safety programs, really: drivers think
that dangerous drivers are some other group not including them.

Guy

You know about the "Lake Wobegone" effect?

Steve

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:36:06 -0400, Steven Bornfeld
wrote in message
:


"I ride harder if I have the helmet on"
"I'm a little more careful if I don't have the helmet on"
"Cycling is just too dangerous without a helmet"
"I would never, ever, ride a bike without a helmet"


I can't say this doesn't happen BUT in my experience, risk-averse folks
are careful. People who don't care won't care to protect themselves.
That means reckless folks won't wear helmets, and they'll ride recklessly.


No, here I disagree absolutely. I am a fairly risk-averse individual.
I absolutely know that I ride faster with a helmet on than without.
And I have no excuse for this: I know that helmets provide no
meaningful protection in a crash at 40mph or more. It is entirely
subconscious.

It is quite likely that habitual helmet wearers are more cautious on
average than habitual non-wearers, a confounding factor which is not
commonly allowed for in prospective studies, by the way, but the
anecdotal evidence of my wide circle of cycling acquaintances is that
helmets are used to push the envelope. Even by ordinary sane people,
not mad downhillers.

Guy

Could be--I think all downhillers are mad! ;-)

Steve

Steven,

Risk compensation is a very real and well-documented phenomena. Visit the
website cited below, or read the first paragraph I excerpted here.

Rick

extracted from:

http://www.pulsus.com/Paeds/09_05/mok_ed.htm (Journal of the Canadian
Pediatric Society)
Risk compensation in children's activities: A pilot study

D Mok, G Gore, B Hagel, E Mok, H Magdalinos, B Pless

BACKGROUND: The intent of protective equipment (PE) in sports and leisure
activities is to reduce injuries. However, some postulate that any safety
measure prompts riskier behaviour, a phenomenon known as 'risk homeostasis'
or 'risk compensation.' This study explores one approach to examining this
in children. The rationale for this pilot study was to establish if children
between six and
16 years old could answer questions about risk-taking sensibly and which
questions, if any, could be eliminated; to establish the reliability of
response; and to determine the numbers needed for a definitive study.

....stuff deleted

I can't say this doesn't happen BUT in my experience, risk-averse folks
are careful. People who don't care won't care to protect themselves.
That means reckless folks won't wear helmets, and they'll ride recklessly.
Have I seen reckless riders with helmets? Sure. But I tend to doubt
they are reckless because of the helmet. They are reckless
because...they are reckless.

Steve

In article ,
Steven Bornfeld writes:

Nah, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

That's okay, then. Carry on. I'm listening attentively.
Sorry for the interruption.

I'm compelled to tell ya this much, though:

I'm just an humble guy who needs to ride his bike, not
only for work, but also to distribute the money I make
to other businesses. Statistically I'm probably less than
insignificant (like I said, I'm humble.)

But I really /need/ the affordable transportation that only
my bike provides, in order to support endeavours greater
than my measly existance.

Now, I've gone through great pains and relative expense to
make sure that my bike and my riding of it are legally
compliant as well as pragmatically safe. I even had to buy
an helmet to comply with our mandatory helmet laws, so
you'll no doubt be pleased to know that that I wear it
everywhere, out of fear of being unaffordably fined
if I didn't.

Say, mandatory bike registration costs $10. I can live for
0.75 of a month on that amount. I know because I've done
it several times (it involves living on nothing but
naked oatmeal.)

Now you bring up the subjects of mandatory bicycle
licensing, etc -- things bike-hating motorists like
to mean-spiritedly invoke to supress freedom in others
(oops -- I guess I'm a libertarian, now.)

But since you're playing Devil's Advocate, I now
see you're not so mean-spirited at all.

I just wish there were more ordinary human beings'
advocates. We could really, really use a few.


--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

....stuff deleted

It is quite likely that habitual helmet wearers are more cautious on
average than habitual non-wearers, a confounding factor which is not
commonly allowed for in prospective studies, by the way, but the
anecdotal evidence of my wide circle of cycling acquaintances is that
helmets are used to push the envelope. Even by ordinary sane people,
not mad downhillers.


Guy,

Funny, but while this may be true for some, it isn't for me, hence I believe
that, as the evidence suggests, risk compensation is an individual
assessment (something I generally call common sense or judgement). I, for
one, know that wearing a helmet makes my wife feel more comfortable, though
I personally doubt the efficacy of the thing. Still, helmets can have uses,
as I describe in the following accident report (which you can read or not,
as you see fit). My computer indicates that I ride at the same speeds
regardless of whether I wear a helmet. Since I routinely obey the
rules-of-the-road, I do not change my behavior because I've added a cheaply
made article of plastic and foam to my attire. This is me, however.

Others do change their behavior. Remove the padding and headgear, and you
see that the sports of football and hockey both change. Rugby players, for
example, are as rough as football players, but sustain fewer major injuries
to the bodies and heads. As helmets became common, the number of
high-sticking events in hockey, as well as the amount of times the stick is
used violently in slashing type incidents, elevated. We are now seeing more
injuries in hockey than ever from this behavior as well as hearing the
commentators saying, that the NHL needs to crack down on this behavior. The
solution is obvious, but few will be willing to go there.

Rick

Accident description:

The one accident I had wearing a helmet was at about 30 MPH. This is, by the
way, a routine speed for me when going downhill, with or without a helmet.
The speed is an estimate as I was going 37 when my rear tire blew and I
didn't exactly check the computer in the ensuing excitement. When I finally
did fall, I hit and rolled and the helmet did not impact the ground until I
was in the second flip. I was going to land, face first, in a pile of soft
debris (pine needles, loose dirt, some sticks, etc.) and I tucked the head
so that the impact was on the front-right of the helmet. I would not have
sustained a major injury (to the head, anyway) in the crash, though it is
likely that the skin around my eye and cheek would have been lacerated and
that the eye might have been injured (it needed cleaning, so some of the
debris did hit my face on that side).

....stuff deleted

I just may. I must say that you are very facile with statistics, but
you know what Twain said about statistics. I get the impression
(correct me if I'm wrong) that you have no front-line experience dealing
with trauma victims. It may well be that seat belts and ABS brakes (I
hate them, BTW) and air bags are the worst thing to happen to society.

I found it amusing that ABS systems have increased the number of read-end
collisions in the US. These were exactly the type of accident they were
designed to avoid. It seems that people with them tend to drive closer in
the mistaken belief that the systems makes them safer somehow (as though the
3-second rule does not apply). Logic indicates, however, that if the vehicle
in front of you has an ABS system, it will also stop in a shorter amount of
distance, thus giving you less stopping space. ABS can only work if the
drivers apply the same rules they applied before havnig ABS and that the car
in front of you does not have an ABS system.

Rick

Rick wrote:

Steven,

Risk compensation is a very real and well-documented phenomena. Visit the
website cited below, or read the first paragraph I excerpted here.

Rick

I don't doubt this; but obviously as a clinician I have a different
view of this. I don't have the luxury of examining raw population
data--I have to treat individual patients.
So what am I to do with this "information"? Am I to decline to make
sports mouthguards, as this would make me an enabler of risky
information? What would you do--as a driver, a cyclist, a parent, or a
clinician?

Steve

extracted from:

http://www.pulsus.com/Paeds/09_05/mok_ed.htm (Journal of the Canadian
Pediatric Society)
Risk compensation in children's activities: A pilot study

D Mok, G Gore, B Hagel, E Mok, H Magdalinos, B Pless

BACKGROUND: The intent of protective equipment (PE) in sports and leisure
activities is to reduce injuries. However, some postulate that any safety
measure prompts riskier behaviour, a phenomenon known as 'risk homeostasis'
or 'risk compensation.' This study explores one approach to examining this
in children. The rationale for this pilot study was to establish if children
between six and
16 years old could answer questions about risk-taking sensibly and which
questions, if any, could be eliminated; to establish the reliability of
response; and to determine the numbers needed for a definitive study.

...stuff deleted

I can't say this doesn't happen BUT in my experience, risk-averse folks
are careful. People who don't care won't care to protect themselves.
That means reckless folks won't wear helmets, and they'll ride recklessly.
Have I seen reckless riders with helmets? Sure. But I tend to doubt
they are reckless because of the helmet. They are reckless
because...they are reckless.

Steve







--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY

Tom Keats wrote:

In article ,
Steven Bornfeld writes:

Nah, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

That's okay, then. Carry on. I'm listening attentively.
Sorry for the interruption.

I'm compelled to tell ya this much, though:

I'm just an humble guy who needs to ride his bike, not
only for work, but also to distribute the money I make
to other businesses. Statistically I'm probably less than
insignificant (like I said, I'm humble.)

But I really /need/ the affordable transportation that only
my bike provides, in order to support endeavours greater
than my measly existance.

Now, I've gone through great pains and relative expense to
make sure that my bike and my riding of it are legally
compliant as well as pragmatically safe. I even had to buy
an helmet to comply with our mandatory helmet laws, so
you'll no doubt be pleased to know that that I wear it
everywhere, out of fear of being unaffordably fined
if I didn't.

Say, mandatory bike registration costs $10. I can live for
0.75 of a month on that amount. I know because I've done
it several times (it involves living on nothing but
naked oatmeal.)

You really should write a book. ;-)

Steve


Now you bring up the subjects of mandatory bicycle
licensing, etc -- things bike-hating motorists like
to mean-spiritedly invoke to supress freedom in others
(oops -- I guess I'm a libertarian, now.)

But since you're playing Devil's Advocate, I now
see you're not so mean-spirited at all.

I just wish there were more ordinary human beings'
advocates. We could really, really use a few.




--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY

Rick wrote:

...stuff deleted

It is quite likely that habitual helmet wearers are more cautious on
average than habitual non-wearers, a confounding factor which is not
commonly allowed for in prospective studies, by the way, but the
anecdotal evidence of my wide circle of cycling acquaintances is that
helmets are used to push the envelope. Even by ordinary sane people,
not mad downhillers.



Guy,

Funny, but while this may be true for some, it isn't for me, hence I believe
that, as the evidence suggests, risk compensation is an individual
assessment (something I generally call common sense or judgement). I, for
one, know that wearing a helmet makes my wife feel more comfortable, though
I personally doubt the efficacy of the thing. Still, helmets can have uses,
as I describe in the following accident report (which you can read or not,
as you see fit). My computer indicates that I ride at the same speeds
regardless of whether I wear a helmet. Since I routinely obey the
rules-of-the-road, I do not change my behavior because I've added a cheaply
made article of plastic and foam to my attire. This is me, however.

Others do change their behavior. Remove the padding and headgear, and you
see that the sports of football and hockey both change. Rugby players, for
example, are as rough as football players, but sustain fewer major injuries
to the bodies and heads.

I did treat several rugby players for facial injuries during my
residency in that hotbed of rugby, Queens NY. Of course, one of the
injuries was an ear nearly bitten off by his buddy on the other litter.

Steve


As helmets became common, the number of
high-sticking events in hockey, as well as the amount of times the stick is
used violently in slashing type incidents, elevated. We are now seeing more
injuries in hockey than ever from this behavior as well as hearing the
commentators saying, that the NHL needs to crack down on this behavior. The
solution is obvious, but few will be willing to go there.

Rick

Accident description:

The one accident I had wearing a helmet was at about 30 MPH. This is, by the
way, a routine speed for me when going downhill, with or without a helmet.
The speed is an estimate as I was going 37 when my rear tire blew and I
didn't exactly check the computer in the ensuing excitement. When I finally
did fall, I hit and rolled and the helmet did not impact the ground until I
was in the second flip. I was going to land, face first, in a pile of soft
debris (pine needles, loose dirt, some sticks, etc.) and I tucked the head
so that the impact was on the front-right of the helmet. I would not have
sustained a major injury (to the head, anyway) in the crash, though it is
likely that the skin around my eye and cheek would have been lacerated and
that the eye might have been injured (it needed cleaning, so some of the
debris did hit my face on that side).




--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY

Rick wrote:

...stuff deleted


I just may. I must say that you are very facile with statistics, but
you know what Twain said about statistics. I get the impression
(correct me if I'm wrong) that you have no front-line experience dealing
with trauma victims. It may well be that seat belts and ABS brakes (I
hate them, BTW) and air bags are the worst thing to happen to society.


I found it amusing that ABS systems have increased the number of read-end
collisions in the US. These were exactly the type of accident they were
designed to avoid. It seems that people with them tend to drive closer in
the mistaken belief that the systems makes them safer somehow (as though the
3-second rule does not apply). Logic indicates, however, that if the vehicle
in front of you has an ABS system, it will also stop in a shorter amount of
distance, thus giving you less stopping space. ABS can only work if the
drivers apply the same rules they applied before havnig ABS and that the car
in front of you does not have an ABS system.

Rick


This is an excellent point. If you accept that in real-life situations
ABS brakes will stop quicker, it certainly does increase the risk of
being rear-ended--by others who don't have ABS brakes!

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY