Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

David Damerell wrote:

I really am not sure what you are driving at here. Yes, only a small
proportion of people will be ever involved in serious accidents; that
doesn't mean that when one does happen, making the head bigger does not
increase the chance of a head impact.

What tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of accidents are made worse
by the increase in circumference caused by wearing a helmet? Not
knowable, but tiny x tiny = a reason not to wear a helmet? I don't
think so.

(I wrote):
Sure, your head won't fit through the same hole. But if your vision was
not obstructed, you could make a much better judgement.

(D.D. dodged a logical rejoinder by quipping):

The vision of the top of your head is always obstructed. Your head's in the way!

OK, I'll reply to that remark by referring to your jutting brow line
and thick eybrows, which understandably, if regrettably, interfere with
your line of upward vision.

I thought there had been an extinction...?

(me):

admit that sometimes I forgot I had the thing on. But the impacts being
to the top of the head, not the chin... doesn't that say something?

(him):
Er, that you'd have to work at it to bang your chin on the ceiling?

Nyuk nyuk, chin on the ceiling. Good one, Double D!!!

Yes, I was employing sarcasm.

You?!?!?

Since caution is not a binary state, even
after road rash a helmet may still cause you to risk compensate.

Well, I'll freely admit that riding fast in tight groups, even with
relatively skilled riders, is not the safest activity. But, since I
don't "trust" the helmet to "save my life", I don't think it enters
into the equation for me. I don't think it enters into the equation for
a lot of riders. I'm not denying the "Courage for Your Head" ads from
Bell aren't stupid and irresponsible, encouraging an extra heavy dose
of RC.

Google it yourself, you're making the assertion that these remarks are
"usual" for me. If that's true, no doubt you'll be able to find plenty
without too much work.

"Racers" are OK with you, then? Perhaps including people who compete at
times in a social ride situation-- that _doesn't_ upset your sense of
propriety? You weren't pooh-poohing? And those one-tooth jumps on the
cassette... OK after all? Useful for some forms of riding, which,
again, are a healthful, fun activity enjoyed by many, many cyclists?

(me):
I objected to the tone of some of the content I've seen in he "How
do you know the helmet saved your wife's life unless you bounce her
head off the pavement with no helmet on?" Nasty, snide to an extreme.

(him):
Nasty, snide to an extreme, and accurate. If you don't do that -
reproducing the positions and speeds - you just don't know. Just because
you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.

I said "tone", not content. This is the "emotional" thing I referred
to; resorting to insulting someone in, as you so freely admit, an
extremely snide manner. Frankly, this is not a positive reflection on
your character. This "truth" could easily be expressed in a neutral,
non-insulting manner.

(him):
But he [son who landed on his head helmeted/unhelmeted] wasn't KSI, obviously, so once again we've got the neat shift where
when the numbers blatantly don't support the idea that helmets save lives
we get into trivial injuries.

If you want to wear one to prevent trivial injuries, fine - they might
even work - but that's not really what we're talking about, is it?

It's what I was talking about, all the way through the section. I'm
attacking the "helmets are unmitigated evil" theme here. So you agree
to what would seem to be obvious, and what I reported, that helmets can
reduce pain and "trivial" injury?

What do you think about Tom Kunich's experiment of trying to touch your
head to the ground or floor while lying on your shoulder? He said
"impossible", but I can easily touch (hit) my head any way I lie down,
and what do you know? The helmet's size increase makes the bend of the
neck somewhat less severe. Limiting neck injuries, perhaps? Like a
bicycle Hans device (NASCAR, other motor racing orgs.)? Or is this
possibility on the wrong side of the fence for you to admit? --TP

wrote:

What tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of accidents are made worse
by the increase in circumference caused by wearing a helmet? Not
knowable, but tiny x tiny = a reason not to wear a helmet? I don't
think so.

You'd be hard-pressed to ever find such an accident.

SMS wrote:
wrote:

What tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of accidents are made worse
by the increase in circumference caused by wearing a helmet? Not
knowable, but tiny x tiny = a reason not to wear a helmet? I don't
think so.

You'd be hard-pressed to ever find such an accident.

I had one last fall. I threw my chain while standing and pumping hard,
got thrown out of the clips and went down at high speed up a slight
hill. I didn't hit my head at all and suffered no head injury of any
kind.

Apart from bang on shin etc, I also had an impact and scrape on the top
of my shoulder (yes, it is oriented skyward when standing up). The
position is such that, at impact and subsequent squeeze in of my
shoulder, the mark is JUST beyond the side of my head. Had I been
wearing a helmet, I would have received a severe torsion and so a
serious injury.r

"David Damerell" wrote in message
...
Quoting SMS :
Where did you come up with that? You'd be very hard-pressed to ever find
an instance where the extra inch or two of thickness of the helmet was
responsible for the blow, but there are probably tens of thousandss to
hundreds of thousands instances of a helmet reducing the severity of a
blow.

In a minute, a doctor with a flashlight will be along to show us where
Scharf gets his numbers from.

It better be a REALLY POWERFUL flashlight because those numbers came from a
long way up there.

"The Wogster" wrote in message
.. .
SMS wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

"David Damerell" wrote in message
...

I really am not sure what you are driving at here. Yes, only a small
proportion of people will be ever involved in serious accidents; that
doesn't mean that when one does happen, making the head bigger does not
increase the chance of a head impact.



Yes but you also have to realize that although a helmet increases your
chance of a blow it reduces the chances that blow would be serious. In
my estimation the one probably pretty nearly cancels the other.


Where did you come up with that? You'd be very hard-pressed to ever find
an instance where the extra inch or two of thickness of the helmet was
responsible for the blow, but there are probably tens of thousandss to
hundreds of thousands instances of a helmet reducing the severity of a
blow.

The question has always been, and always will be, by how much... In raw
numbers, not relative statements like lots, or significantly, but real
numbers like if you go from x MPH to 0MPH into a statioary object, your
brain dead, if you go from y MPH to 0MPH into a stationary object, your
brain damaged. A helmet reduces x or y by z MPH or z%.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide real numbers for x, y and z.

Might I suggest that you are too stupid to understand them in the first
place?

Try reading the ACTUAL HELMET STANDARD on the Snell Foundation site:

http://www.smf.org/stds.html

Now I give these people 5 stars for their work. But that doesn't mean that
their work hasn't been seriously misrepresented by the helmet lobby which is
composed mostly of do-gooders who are often financed by Bell Sports.

wrote in message
ps.com...

Riley Geary is a pretty brillian statistics expert behind the Institute
for Traffic Safety Analysis. He was written up in _Adventure Cycling_
magazine a couple years ago for the work he does on bike safety data.
He was the person who pointed out that most of the American data on
helmet use versus injuries is bogus.

And it isn't likely to get any better. Traffic cops have a million things to
do and are already overtaxed. Asking them to make more detailed reports out
on something that happens so rarely is unlikely to get any attention at all.

But the entire point is that there are only 700 fatalities and only some
2400 serious injuries (those requiring a minimum of one night stay in the
hospital) in a year. Most cops will never see a serious bicycle accident in
their entire careers.

"SMS" wrote in message
news
Michael Press wrote:

Muck rakers of the late 19th century are responsible for many innovations
to the benefit of society. Among which are the clean up of food
processing, labeling of food stuffs, and a public health system that
functions according to specifications to this day. Sadly, the movement
was high-jacked by totalitarians, when it should have been put out to
pasture for a job well done.

In both health care and food processing, the movement was hijacked by
corporate interests, whose only interest was in dismantling it. During the
1980's food safety began a long decline as the Republicans deregulated the
industry. This is when salmonella became the defacto standard in eggs and
chicken, when the meat industry began feeding cattle with cattle, and when
all sorts of nasty meat borne diseases became common.

However this all has nothing to do with bicycle helmets.

Another one of those protological prognostications?

In fact the food industry cleaned it's act up when it became the target of
large lawsuits and not a minute before.

"41" wrote in message
oups.com...

SMS wrote:
wrote:

What tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of accidents are made worse
by the increase in circumference caused by wearing a helmet? Not
knowable, but tiny x tiny = a reason not to wear a helmet? I don't
think so.

You'd be hard-pressed to ever find such an accident.

I had one last fall. I threw my chain while standing and pumping hard,
got thrown out of the clips and went down at high speed up a slight
hill. I didn't hit my head at all and suffered no head injury of any
kind.

Apart from bang on shin etc, I also had an impact and scrape on the top
of my shoulder (yes, it is oriented skyward when standing up). The
position is such that, at impact and subsequent squeeze in of my
shoulder, the mark is JUST beyond the side of my head. Had I been
wearing a helmet, I would have received a severe torsion and so a
serious injury.r

Head injuries only occur in a small number of accidents and serious head
injuries are only a small fraction of those.

wrote in message
ups.com...

I guess I should respond to the other parts of your post, lest you
believe I in any way accede to your emotional, and somewhat scurrilous,
attack:

Are you crying? Are your feelings really shattered? What the hell are you
doing on a bicycle if you're that big a sissie?

Quoting gwhite :
There are two general issues and thus two conclusions:
1. Do helmets protect the head, how much do they protect, or how much do
we need to know for simple purchase decisions?
2. Should the government be involved?
I wanted to make sure they were separated out.

Yes, but for the rest of us it's more important to talk about helmets than
to grind your tedious properatarian axe. Would you mind not changing your
posting address so you stay killfiled?
--
David Damerell flcl?
Today is Second Oneiros, July.