advisor wanted

wrote:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly.

Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain
oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings
for helmet wearing.

Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is
driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated,
they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions.

If they're gathered in the US, of course they do. Please cite some that
show me some casualty savings for helmet wearing. Until that is done,
why assume you /must/ be better off with a helmet?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

wrote:

Is housework considered a hazardous acitivity? No.

"considered", no, yet people are killed every year in domestic
accidents. Try telling the victims that the house can't be a dangerous
place (oh, you can't, because they're dead). It isn't very *likely*
that you'll die, but it can happen. And that, when you look at the
figures, is how it works for A to B cycling too.

So do not compare apples and oranges.

I'm not, if you actually stop and look at it. Pedestrians make a very
useful control because they have similar accidents to cyclists at
similar rates, and have had for all the time we have records.

That is an assumption. Unless, of course you can cite a study saying
specifically that.

That if there are reductions in serious to minor injuries that the
serious injury totals will fall? It's very, very simple arithmetic. It
is "common sense", and you don't have any better basis for /your/
assumption.

You said it should be easy to get those studoes/facts . . .

I said it should be very easy to prove that helmets help /if they do/.
I've looked at plenty of studies and facts, and what they tell me is
there's no tangible reduction in serious injuries from helmet wearing.

I even pointed you at www.cyclehelmets.org where there's a large
collection, and a well referenced one at that, containing lots of
citations both ways for anyone to study at their leisure. I have.
Seems like you haven't.

Sorry, Pete, you are. The study onlyu concerns serious injusries and
nothing else. It misses taking into account a lot of variables that are
imprtant to being able to make any categorical statement.\

You're being remarkably simplistic, as is evidenced by your use of
singular "the study" for a huge collection of literature. It is easy to
make a statement based on the serious injury data because it is
controlled by the pedestrian data (demonstrably has been for years).
And if we don't know the effect on minor injuries, well, they are by
definition minor, and aren't going to get people killed.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

wrote:

The cost of an ER visit for stiitching of head wounds (simple) is well
over $500. You can check that for yourself (US hospitals). Cost of a
helmet $100. Simple relationship.

I asked you to show me the casualty savings. You haven't. If the high
cost of an ER visit will put people off then the figures for visiting
them will go down if there's any reason for them to go down. So where
are those figures.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Apples and oranges. Why is it when you do not have a csae you try to
switch topics to something not directly related?

I was demonstrating a mechanism for how helmets can alter rider
behaviour to put them in increased danger. Since we're talking about
reducing danger it is completely relevant.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

That you spent ANY time there is the issue. Or did that go right over your
head?

If there is any reason to reduce ER time because helmets have helped,
this will be reflected in the serious injury figures.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Cost of ER visit versus $100 for a helmet. If you can't do the math, I
cannot help you. Must be the socialized school system problem. Let's see .
. 1+1 = 2, 1+2 = 3, . . .

So show me a figure for overall lessening of visits by cyclists beyond a
lessening of visits for pedestrians as cycle helmet wearing has
increased. That is very, very simple maths, and is all you need to do.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

You have assumed that the $100 helmet will help. I am pointing out that
if it does the number of ER visits for serious injuries must fall
compared to the control group. So show me that.

And what part of a helmet may be responsible for the accident being
non-seriopus do you not understand?

The bit that has no reduction in the serious injuries. You were telling
me about arithmetic: how's this:

We have ~1,000 serious head injuries a year. Helmets are suddenly
introduced and save, let's say 85% of these, downgrading them to lesser
problems or eliminating the problems altogether. Next year we only have
150 serious head injuries.

So, show me where something like that has happened. It doesn't have to
be 85%, just any clear margin above the rates for pedestrians where they
have previously mirrored the cyclist rates.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Boring.

But it's *all* you need to do to convince pretty much anyone that
helmets are a clear benefit. And if they are a clear benefit it
/should/ be easy to show that. Yet you haven't, and nor has anyone
else, including folk with very big axes to grind on the matter who have
been trying to demonstrate it on behalf of powerful government and
commercial interests for years. Why do you think that is?

Again, my comment stands up. A lot of bogus research is out there because
of jacked up figures, created data and plain old not doing the math right.

There certainly is. And the work that doesn't stand up is most often
the work showing helmets to be a clear benefit. Thompson, Rivara and
Thompson's 1989 is the most cited paper for helmet efficacy and it's a
crash course in how /not/ to do science. Read it yourself, read the
critiques yourself, ask how anything that bad could still be being
trotted out as a reason to wear helmets after more than 15 years.

Some work stands up, some doesn't. But you must remember the burden of
proof falls *both* ways. Just as I have to demonstrate that helmets
have no real effect on serious injuries, you have to demonstrate that
they are a clear benefit across a population before you recommend them
across a population. Or, put another way:

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Still whining. I'll not repeat the relationship for you again. If ois has
not penetrated your skell yet, maybe a rock will and then it will get in.

Do you /really/ think nobody else has come up with that line in the many
years helmet efficacy has been researched. Do you think that the
professional epidemiologists and statisticians haven't had it occur to
them at all?

"Show me the casualty savings!"

That isn't whining, it is *all you have to do to convince me*. The data
is there, so Nike Just Do It /Nike and you can finish the helmet
wars once and for all.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Yada, yada, yada. . .

Rather than avoid it, why don't you confront the problem and do it?
Rather than yada yada yadaing yourself, why don't you just demonstrate
the casualty savings helmets have provided?

My guess is you can't, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Unture. Otherwise, you would be able to post a citation to that very fact
from the reesearch you are spewing without any though or analysis. Y9ou
have failed to do that, substituting idiocy and obfuscation.

What? I pointed you at a whole pile! There is no evidence you've been
and looked though.

Here we go again. . . Got anything that pretains directly to what we are
talking about? Or are you merely trying to distract us from the fact, you
ain't got jack**** to work with?

What? I pointed you at a whole pile! There is no evidence you've been
and looked though.

Apples and oranges yet again. Stick with bicycles and not with NON
dangerous activities.

So, since being a pedestrian isn't dangerous that means none of them
ever get killed? Wrong. They get killed at comparable rates with
comparable injuries to cyclists, as you'd know if you looked at the data.

Now, if you wany to make a case from something that
is hazardous, try construction. Helmets are mandatory there, are they not?
Racing cars and boats are dangerous sports and they require helmets. US
style football is considered a dangerous sport, helmets are required.
Getting the picture?

Certainly. And utility cycling isn't actually very dangerous if you
look at the figures. Oh, people get killed, yes, but they get killed as
pedestrians and as occupants of cars with safety cages, seatbelts and
airbags. The rates for serious injuries for cyclists compare, and
historically have compared, to pedestrian rates. If you don't believe
that do some research and point me to it rather than just inventing
denials on the spot.

You might tell people on ventilators after being run over when they were
crossing the road that your anecdote is more meaningful than theirs.

And what happened to them on their bikes?

Roughly the same thing at the same rates, as it happens, so again, why
is your anecdote more meaningful than theirs?

Show me the data related to cycling helmets and non-serious injuries. You
keep saying it is out there.

I haven't done anything of the sort. I have pointed out that
non-serious aren't serious, rather by definition, so for safety you're
looking at the serious ones. And if helmets remove serious injuries
then the serious injury rates will go down.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

But so far, you've only make that wild-assed
claim and hav yet to present one single fact.

I pointed you at www.cyclehelmets.org as a good starting place as a
repository of facts, with citations for all sides of the argument.

So, Pete, let's see you get out of your rut and put up those figures
related to helmets and non-serious injuries.

They're not serious though, so nobody's got good figures for them, as
I've said many times. But, hey! They're not serious!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Butch wrote:
Hi Peter, Just for your information I rode last week with my son(34),
his first time on
a bent, I could not get him to wear a helmet either, we went 35 miles
he hit over 29
mph several times.

It may be worth your while reading the specification to which helmets
are typically manufactured. That specification (usually EN1078)
specifies them in impacts of up to (IIRC) 12 mph, about the same as
falling over.
Beyond that how they work isn't covered, but what often happens is
brittle failure which absorbs very little energy (I've seen it on two of
my own helmets, which I'd naturally assumed had saved me a very nasty
injury...)

Your biggest complaint about wearing a helmet seems to be comfort, I
just don't see it
I ride a lot and I have no complaint about helmet comfort?

In the 14 or so years I always wore a helmet I told myself it was pretty
comfortable. Now I don't regularly wear one I can tell what the
difference really is. Of course, if you're telling yourself it'll save
you a serious injury you tend to put the comfort thoughts on hold to
some degree: I certainly do when wearing a helmet for whitewater
kayaking and mountain climbing.

The start
of this thread was
how to improve the visor. You have to admit it is hard to ride without
some sort of
visor so you end up with a hat. I still have hair and I can't keep a
hat on when riding my bent above 18 or so mph say nothing about 20 to
30?

So how did all the pros keep hats on doing alpine descents? Maybe you
just need a better hat? My Bianchi cotton cycling cap has never blown
off and I've done big descents at approaching 40 mph with it happily in
place.

In our group (MORONS, Magnificant Old Riders On Nice Seats) only
one person rides without a helmet, she is often fiddling with her hat.
I have rode many centuries and have had all sorts of problems but never
once did my helmet bother me? I don't give a dam about bike statistics
or helmet laws or advertisments, I just know from my experience if I
push things which I often do I can expect to fall at least every 15
months.

I think that makes you exceptional. Most A to B riders /don't/ push
things much because it's quite a bit more dangerous to do so. An
acquaintance of mine has just broken his back (apparently not the spinal
cord, thankfully) from "pushing it", but typical cyclists don't often
push that far.
A noticeable trend in the NL, where helmet wearing rates are very low
and so are serious head injuries, is that practically all the helmet
wearing is for serious sport cycling where the rider /is/ pushing it.
That is recognised as quite a different thing from typical cycling.

From my personal experences and personal observations I choose
to wear a helmet, because I need a visor anyhow and I clearly saw my
buddys visor and forhead (in helmet) hitting the large gravel and
breaking apart.

If a helmet breaks it has failed and only taken a fraction of the energy
it's designed to. They /should/ progressively deform. Also the case
that a visor and helmet both make hitting one's forehead considerably
easier.

You talk about Raw data and Good Data, I seriously doubt if you have
either,

It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. Serious injuries get to
hospitals, where they are recorded.

to get that you have to have controls and even then you may
bias it. I can't begin to tell you how many times when I was working I
saw people (usually managers) take statistical data and manipulate it
(it takes very little) to reach the conclusion they want.

So have we all, but the analysis is out there for peer and professional
criticism and will be there for many years with skeptics on all sides
chipping away at it quite forcefully. The result of this chipping is
that the case/controls for major helmet efficacy have been routinely
pulled to pieces and the analysis of population data from road accidents
has stood up pretty well.

Your data
comes from a bureaucrat filling out a form or entering it on a
computer.

But from thousands and thousands of them with no particular bias.

No one should expect a helmet to do much if you hit a tree
or a car, as for the size and weight of the helmet causing damage, I
think you are stretching there just a bit. I will just bet you if you
are still riding 20 / 25 years from now you will be wearing a helmet
and not because someone tells you to but because your experience and
common sense tells you to.

I've been through the common sense and experience phase, and it appears
I was deluding myself. Millions of cyclists with a great deal of
experience get by quite happily without one, and there was no great cry
for their necessity before they were created.

I can no more ride off without my helmet
than I can drive a car without a seat belt.

I've been there too. It took an effort to change my heart to what my
head told me, I've had no regrets from doing so, and now the heart goes
along with the change.

on my bent.haha By the way ask you Nerosurgeon friend if helmets are
so worthless why do they put them on children after brain surgery.

Because their natural defenses are severely compromised. Mine aren't.

that matter I know several local physicians who ride bikes quite a bit,
they all wear helmets, and so should you. Ask your Mother or your wife
if they think you should ride with or without a helmet.

My mother has been riding a bike regularly for most of her 72 years.
She has, AFAICT, never worn a helmet to do so, and continues not to wear
a helmet to do so.
My partner is a regular cyclist too. She has only ever worn a helmet
for mountain biking trips. She commutes daily by bike, without a
helmet. She comes from NL, where pretty much nobody outside of serious
sports use wears one. She is, like me, a professional scientist who can
read reports sceptically and come to reasoned conclusions about how good
they are.

You can see some pictures of us enjoying a tour without foam boxes on
our heads at http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/tdn1.htm

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

wrote:


This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because
of attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that
comparative information, the stats are interesting, but may not be
telling you what YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who
have cycled in Europe who would not venture on the road in the US
because of the attitude of US drivers.

Speaking as a "European" who has recently covered almost six thousand miles
on the roads of the US, I think I can safely state that driving standards,
and attitudes towards other road users both powered and unpowered, differ as
widely from state to state in the US as they do between countries in Europe.
Personally I find it to be a toss-up between Belgium and California as to
which is the most terrifying place to use the roads.

--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
Give the anarchist a cigarette.

wrote:

Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is
driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated,
they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions.


The common feature of all the stats, even for cycle friendly Holland, is
that the characteristics of the accidents that happen are virtually
identical and involve being hit by a motor vehicle most of the time. In
what way is a helmet going to protect you from being hit by a motor
vehicle in the US that its not going to do being hit by a motor vehicle
in Australia or Holland? And how is your helmet going to stop them
shouting at you but not actually running you over?


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Peter Clinch wrote:
wrote:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly.

Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain
oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings
for helmet wearing.


Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8
million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15
years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced
head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted
riders were more likely to be killed.

* Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the
CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product
Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

wrote:

As I was saying. Non-serious are those you DO NOT end up in the ER for.


So when you said the "less than "serious" accidents" were "the ones that
without a helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching?" you
actually meant the ones that didn't need an ER visit and stitching? Or
did you just reposition when you realised your current position was not
tenable in the face of the facts?



Missing bit of data and that is the total number of riders in both years.
Source?


Actually numbers of riders decreased which meant as helmet wearing rates
went up so did accident rates and head injury rates per rider. As for
source, I gave that in a follow up post to another person's request.


That has a lot to do with wach copuntries view of cycling. Europe is
cycling friendly. The US is not.


I've cycled all over Europe and all over the US. Not sure there is much
difference. Downtown is downtown and countryside is countryside. The
cars in the US do tend to drive more slowly though. How much have you
done of both to compare?


Interesting, but what happens in Oz may or may not be relevant to the US
or anywhere elase for that matter.


But when what happens in Oz is consistent with the data from elsewhere
in the world including the US one has to ask is it more likely that the
US is similar to the rest of the world or that the laws of physics are
completely different in the US?


Yep, one person's facts are another's damned lies.


Ah the "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up" gambit.



Whatever common sense is telling you about the protective effect of
helmets, experience around the world says its wrong.

This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because of
attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that comparative
information, the stats are interesting, but may not be telling you what
YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who have cycled in Europe
who would not venture on the road in the US because of the attitude of US
drivers.


And I'm betting you have never cycled in Europe to make a statement like
that. In fact I have just recruited a keen Californian cyclist who is
finding it most unnerving cycling with European traffic because it is so
much more aggressive than she is used to.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven wrote:

In fact I have just recruited a keen Californian cyclist who is
finding it most unnerving cycling with European traffic because it is so
much more aggressive than she is used to.

Sounds familiar. A colleague on the University BUG met an American last
week who has just started here and was admiring his Brompton. Further
discussion revealed he had several bikes over from the US but hadn't
felt able to ride on the roads yet, finding them too dangerous.

And if you think "that doesn't prove anything, it's just a couple of
data points!", then (a) you're quite right and (b) you should apply the
same thinking to a few anecdotes of helmet efficacy.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Hi Peter, I enjoyed your Pages very much, I only scanned the Helmet
sections but I promise I will print them out and read them. Well at
least you wear a helmet when you go caving and when you ride your
Unicycle.haha My nephew a retired ballet dancer (36) can ride a
unicycle and juggle at the same time. You would get along great with
him or my
son as they are both quite adventurous. I tried the Unicycle, toughest
thing I ever tried I think, we were riding it in a small goat pen and 3
men could not keep me on that thing.
Unfortunately I have experienced a small train crash in France in
1985, I almost never ride in trains.
Your friend Roos is an attractive lady but I never did see her with a
hat while riding the bent? I never commented about Netherlands, I have
been there many, many times mostly in the late 60's but also in mid
80's. I always enjoyed it very much, the people are exceptional, as a
matter of fact the statistian I last worked with was Dutch. I agree
that the Dutch are very comfortable on their bikes, but as someone else
said they are also respected by the drivers, this is not at all true
here, especially not in Florida. I had a cigarette lighter thrown at
me last week (I seldom ride on roads). Also last week a rider on the
paved trail I use reported a incident with a truck, where the truck
tried to leave the adjacent road and come after him on the trail,
fortunately I guess he got stuck. I always have mirrors and try to
watch overtaking cars and prepare to exit the road if required. FYI
this is the start of hunting season, we are advised to wear bright
clothes on the trail as it is a favorite hunting ground for turkeys and
deer.
You mention sport cycling vs recreational cycling, I guess we mostly
do a combination, we usually ride for a while then race for a while
etc. While the trail is very good most of the time you never can be
sure what you will run into. Sometimes Red Necks run motorized
vehicles on the trail and cover it with rocks, on rare occasion broken
glass, there are some dirt roads crossing the trail, fairly large
amounts of sand can appear where you never saw it before. Then there
are the critters, dogs, cats, tortoises (from a few inches to a few
feet), snakes (small, large, sometimes poisonous), rabbits squirrels
armadillas fox bob cats many deer occasionally coyotoes and alligators
and bears.. To not forget the many horses camels and occasional
lamas.(don't usually see them all each day). Oh yes one lady fell and
hurt her ankle skating when she came on a eagle sitting on the trail.
Anyway it has been very pleasant chatting with you Peter, if you ever
get to West Central Florida come ride with the Morons, as for me I will
continue to wear my helmet. An unfortunate thing about getting older
is that it takes longer to recover from those injuries every year and I
need all the help I can get.

Happy Trails Butch