|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
"Steven Bornfeld" wrote in message ... Shayne Wissler wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message ... Now what evidence do you have about helmets protecting against dented skulls or brain injuries? I have an idea for an experiment. Go outside and have someone hold a brick about 2 feet over your bare head and have him drop it. Observe the pain and damage (assuming you're still conscious). Then try the same experiment on your friend, but have him wear a cycling helmet. If he laughs at you, you may be able to infer from this, experimentally, that he thought it was not necessary to run the experiment to know that you would end up with a damaged head and he wouldn't. If you are unable to apply the knowledge gained from this experiment to real-life, I would submit that it's not more experiments that you're actually in need of. Shayne Wissler Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Tough to run a controlled study of this type in real-life conditions. It's a mistake to think that you need a real-life trial in order to make valid inferences from the experiments. Even a thought experiment (as the one I gave above) is sufficient to know that helmets will protect your head to an important degree. But I agree with Frank that it should be left up to the individual to decide--I don't wear my helmet all of the time. (Although perhaps I should: my worst injury on the bike during the past year was less than a mile from my house when I was just on a little ride around the block. I was sprinting up the street and my foot came out of the pedal.) Shayne Wissler |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
"John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:16:19 GMT, "Shayne Wissler" wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message .. . Now what evidence do you have about helmets protecting against dented skulls or brain injuries? I have an idea for an experiment. That's your evidence? That's speculation. Let me guess. You must be a follower of Hume. On the contrary, the thought experiment I gave is perfectly valid evidence, from which a reasonable person would infer that some fraction of real-life accidents would result in a lesser injury if a helmet were worn. Shayne Wissler |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
"Steven Bornfeld" wrote in message
[...] I've heard the same arguments from people who don't wear seatbelts in cars. I thought they made what could be valid points--until I spent a year covering head/neck trauma during my residency. The difference is empirically obvious. I live in the first state in the world that made seatbelt use compulsory (Victoria, Australia). Not only did the fatality rate immediately plummet but the rate of spinal injuries dropped 75% in the first year. There is no such corresponding data for bicycle helmets. -- A: Top-posters. Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ... CowPunk wrote: This whole helmet discussion reminds of my pesticide chemistry class when my prof. would tell the class "but the LD50 is ... blah, blah, blah.", but never took into account that while maybe it takes a lot of whatever chemical to kill you, no one really knows how much it takes to cause cancer, nerve damage, brain damage, loss of eyesight, etc.... The discussion also reminds me of a class where everyone has a strong opinion, but nobody does the homework! ;-) The same thing holds true for this discussion. You're looking at FATALITIES. What about the accidents where a helmet prevented brain injury? It's not something that can be answered or tested easily.... In another post, I mentioned a scientific study and an informal newpaper article that both dealt with injuries, as opposed to fatalities. The study was published as: "Trends in Cycle Injury in New Zealand under Voluntary Helmet Use" by Scuffham & Langley, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1-9, 1997. Briefly: New Zealand was getting ready to make it illegal for anyone of any age anywhere in the country to ride a bike without a helmet. As a run-up, they promoted the heck out of helmets. Helmet use suddenly surged in just a few years, from about 20% to over 80% for at least some age groups. The authors figured this was a great opportunity to show the benefit of helmets. The checked medical records of cyclists admitted to all the major hospitals. They were looking for the corresponding drop in the percentage admitted due to head injury (as opposed to, say, broken legs, internal injuries, etc.) They found no detectable difference at all. Zero. From the medical data, it was impossible to tell anyone had put on a helmet. The New York Times did an article on the same issue: "A Bicycling Mystery: Head Injuries Piling Up." http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html And the New York Times wrote on May 1, 2001 that: "A report last summer on "The Future of Children" noted that 35 states lacked bicycle helmet laws, even though "research has shown that bicycle helmets are 85 percent effective at reducing head injuries." A study in Queensland, Australia, of bicycle accidents among children showed that wearing a helmet reduced the risk of loss of consciousness from a head injury by 86 percent. Even preschoolers who do not ride in traffic and toddlers on tricycles need head protection "whenever and wherever they are cycling," insists Dr. Elizabeth C. Powell of Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. Dr. Powell, a specialist in pediatric emergency medicine, notes that helmets can also reduce the risk of facial injuries when a child falls off a tricycle or bicycle." I guess it all depends on whether you live in New Zeland or Australia. Or whether you are Rivera or Scuffham. For every scientific study you come up with, I can find one or two that go the other way. And in the final analysis, it really does not matter, because we all just do what we do -- and, with minor exception, we are all too old for the MHLs in most states. MLHs are mostly a kid thing, and my kid wears a helmet when he is riding or skiing -- but not when he is walking, showering, or playing with his Legos or YuGiOh cards. Yes, I know that is inconsistent when we look at injury patterns, but we have learned to live with that inconsistency. -- Jay Beattie. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:28:05 -0400, Steven Bornfeld
wrote: Why someone would even try to suggest that helmets don't save lives because there are no controlled studies to prove they do says more about these people than it does about helmets. I haven't suggest anything. I've asked questions of assumptions. It's fine to say "I hope my helmet will protect me from brain injuries from hitting branches when mountain biking?" Or "Id' speculate that helmets will protect me from falling rocks and bricks that hit my head, or accidents on a bike that approximate that." But to go from that to "Wear a helmet because it'll save you from a brain injury" is a big leap. If you're going to advocate that people do something like wear helmets, at least you could be honest about the degree of speculation involved. And when you consider that riding a bike w/o a helmet is probably better for your health than not riding at all, honesty and recognition of uncertainty is even more important. To do otherwise is either intellectually lazy or unethical. JT |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:41:36 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:16:19 GMT, "Shayne Wissler" wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message .. . Now what evidence do you have about helmets protecting against dented skulls or brain injuries? I have an idea for an experiment. That's your evidence? That's speculation. Let me guess. You must be a follower of Hume. On the contrary, the thought experiment I gave is perfectly valid evidence, from which a reasonable person would infer that some fraction of real-life accidents would result in a lesser injury if a helmet were worn. You're making a a big assumption -- that hitting a brick is similar to the impact people get when they hit their head on the ground (which I would guess -- note I am acknowledging the degree of specutation I'm making) or a tree branch (which is the object in question). I think that assumption is wrong insofar as it relates to any sort of likely accident on a bke. But yes, if someone is riding where they will be hit by falling bricks, a helmet sounds helpful. JT |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
Shayne Wissler wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:16:19 GMT, "Shayne Wissler" wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message ... Now what evidence do you have about helmets protecting against dented skulls or brain injuries? I have an idea for an experiment. That's your evidence? That's speculation. Let me guess. You must be a follower of Hume. On the contrary, the thought experiment I gave is perfectly valid evidence, from which a reasonable person would infer that some fraction of real-life accidents would result in a lesser injury if a helmet were worn. Shayne Wissler There is a germ of truth in the assertion that helmets won't prevent death. This general feeling among safety experts seems to revolve arount the assertion that serious brain injury from bicycle accidents usually are not due to straight-on impact, but from torsional stresses that a helmet is unable to eliminate. But this is like saying that a seat belt shouldn't be worn because it won't save you from crushing injury of the thorax in a head-on 60 mph crash. Safety measures shouldn't be discarded because they are not 100% effective. Steve |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
"John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:41:36 GMT, "Shayne Wissler" wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:16:19 GMT, "Shayne Wissler" wrote: "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message .. . Now what evidence do you have about helmets protecting against dented skulls or brain injuries? I have an idea for an experiment. That's your evidence? That's speculation. Let me guess. You must be a follower of Hume. On the contrary, the thought experiment I gave is perfectly valid evidence, from which a reasonable person would infer that some fraction of real-life accidents would result in a lesser injury if a helmet were worn. You're making a a big assumption -- that hitting a brick is similar to the impact people get when they hit their head on the ground (which I would guess -- note I am acknowledging the degree of specutation I'm making) or a tree branch (which is the object in question). I think that assumption is wrong insofar as it relates to any sort of likely accident on a bke. But yes, if someone is riding where they will be hit by falling bricks, a helmet sounds helpful. I hesitate to say this because it amounts to pointing your nose in a direction you obviously do not wish to look, and you can always avert your eyes, but: Shape your "brick" like a flat peice of pavement and it is hardly different from falling down on the pavement with your head. He who actively engages in finding differences but is is lazy about finding similarity is a self-made idiot. Shayne Wissler |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
DRS wrote: "Steven Bornfeld" wrote in message [...] I've heard the same arguments from people who don't wear seatbelts in cars. I thought they made what could be valid points--until I spent a year covering head/neck trauma during my residency. The difference is empirically obvious. I live in the first state in the world that made seatbelt use compulsory (Victoria, Australia). Not only did the fatality rate immediately plummet but the rate of spinal injuries dropped 75% in the first year. There is no such corresponding data for bicycle helmets. The safety improvement from seat belt use that I have seen is nowhere near that dramatic. Nevertheless, I can tell you from first hand experience that no one involved in a car accident that I saw the whole year (that I asked--most of them) had been wearing seat belts. There are many studies out there--some designed better, some worse. There is poor compliance with helmet regulations in the US where they exist. But certainly Kunich can show studies which cast doubt on the efficacy of helmets in preventing head injuries. There is also this: http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/revabstr/ab001855.htm which reaches exactly the opposite conclusion. In the end, people are going to believe what they want. Unfortunately, my tax dollars are going to pay the medical expenses of those who ignore common sense. Steve |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | General | 1927 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Why don't the favorites start attacking Lance NOW? | Ronde Champ | Racing | 6 | July 16th 04 05:04 PM |
Nieuwe sportwinkel op het internet | www.e-sportcare.com | Racing | 2 | July 5th 04 10:17 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | Social Issues | 14 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |