Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

On 1/4/2011 12:11 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:

I think that what gets most people at odds with Frank is his insistence
that the data trumps personal experience.

Not at all. It's his insistence that personal experience trumps the data.

On 1/4/2011 8:22 AM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf wrote:
On 1/4/2011 5:55 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/3/2011 9:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 3, 12:30 pm, Duane wrote:

This has led many people to wonder why the helmets aren't working as
promised. The very low impact certification standards are certainly
one possible contributing factor. There are others, of course.

Lots of people have never even heard or read that massive helmet use
hasn't helped. Of those that have heard, many still refuse to believe
it. They're kind of like people who are still taking lots of vitamin
C to prevent or cure cancer. Unfortunately, they're telling lots of
other people that they MUST use their favorite "cure" too.

Lots of people... many still refuse to believe... like people who...
Same old thing Frank. Comparing people who think that helmets are useful
to people who think vitamin C cures cancer. I'll run that one
by my doctor. She'll get a kick out of it.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20..._pauling_b.php



So I think someone needs to criticize the emperor's wardrobe.

Fine. Just don't present your opinions as proof or fact. And implying
that people who don't agree with you are ignorant (as in the vitamin C
cures cancer insinuation above) - do you do that with your students as
well?

And you don't need to add your "if you don't agree with me
you didn't read it properly" crap.

If you don't want people to suggest you read about these issues, you
shouldn't have posted here that you don't read about these issues.

I don't need to read the articles that you point to any more than
I need to read the text at
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm
and for much the same reason.

I love the language of the AHZs:

"This has led many people to wonder why the helmets aren't working as
promised."

Of course _no one_ has wondered this. No when ever believed that helmets
would be effective in 100% of crashes. If you look at ER data or whole
population data, both show a reduction in injuries and fatalities as
helmet usage goes up. When confronted with this fact, the typical claim
is that while the percentage of helmeted cyclists went up, the total
number of cyclists fell, so any reduction was due to the reduced number
of cyclists. But in fact, in places where helmet use went up, either due
to legislation or education, cycling rates did _not_ go down. When
confronted with this fact, the typical claim is that injuries and
fatalities should have fallen even further as the percentage of helmet
users has increased (or they'll try the Dutch diversion or the walking
helmet diversion). It's all quite amusing to observe until you realize
that such antics actually make it more likely that more helmet laws will
be introduced.

Hey Scharf, why not try some facts instead? rhetorical question

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 1/4/2011 8:56 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

In Canada, the government supplies the health care (FWIW) and is
interested in anything that will reduce those costs. As long as
the medical community is convinced that helmets reduce serious
injuries, there is going to be a push to at least educate cyclists.

Too bad the medical community is not better informed.

[...]
They (mostly the vehicular cycling enthusiasts) say the same thing about
facilities being more dangerous and reducing cycling.[...]

Only the first part is correct. More correct would be to say that
competent, experienced vehicular cyclists generally avoid facilities in
preference to the safer and faster streets and roads.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Jan 4, 3:06*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:


*I don't need to interpret data. *I just look ... at
my personal experience...

That's fine. As I've mentioned before, I'm not trying to stop anyone
from wearing a helmet. And there are people who differ enough from
the norms that they probably ought to wear one, for whatever limited
protection it gives. I mentioned my friend from long ago who was
terminally clumsy, and fell three times in one bike ride, including
while standing in a parking lot.

But there should be little denying that they are overhyped. Those who
_do_ actually look at data should see that helmets have not brought
the great gains that were promised. And those who look a bit deeper
should see that the "problem" of bike head injuries is exaggerated
beyond all reason.

I do wish that those who energetically promote helmets for bicycling
would promote them equally for all the more significant sources of
serious head injury. At least it would lessen the "Bicycling is
Dangerous!" schtick.

- Frank Krygowski

On Jan 4, 3:11*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
I think that what gets most people at odds with Frank is his insistence
that the data trumps personal experience.

I think it most bothers the innumerate.

I fully understand that most people do not make personal decisions
based on real data. They instead decide based on what they saw in the
last scary news report, what Aunt Hattie claims happened to her, what
they visualize might possibly happen if their luck turns terrible,
what people around them are doing, and so on.

But even though those modes of decision are more popular, they are not
more correct. Science, including medical science, uses data.
Imperfectly sometimes, sure; but when better data comes in, it is
expected to trump earlier data.

Hence my reference to vitamin C and cancer. At one point, some
physicians trusted Linus Pauling on that. Data proved them wrong, and
it's doubtful anybody is getting vitamin C as their major cancer
therapy, because physicians now have better data proving it failed.
The same was true of hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal
women. It's far less popular than it once was, because better data
showed it hurt rather than helped.

We're observing a glitch in the system right now caused by marketing
and missionary work. The most quoted evaluation of bike helmet
effectiveness is from a 22 year old study that was obviously inept and
mistaken; newer data are being studiously ignored, or worse. But I
have hopes that the medical establishment is going to eventually face
up to the obvious.

That won't stop the innumerate crowd, of course. When the formal
warnings fade into irrelevance, there will still be people who say "I
heard the numbers, but I still believe my flimsy helmet protected me
from sure death."

And those innumerate people will religiously strap on their odd-
looking hat before riding down to the convenience store for their
daily lottery ticket.

- Frank Krygowski

On Jan 4, 3:23*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
. *If you are at risk for scalp
laceration, wear a helmet. *If not, don't. *

During _all_ activities that carry risk of scalp laceration, of
course. Right?

- Frank Krygowski

On Jan 4, 12:51*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/4/2011 3:23 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:





On Jan 4, 11:46 am, wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and
certified for only 14 mph impacts. *It's not just my opinion.
If you would do more reading, you would understand the difference.
And it's your opinion that since it's tested for a 14mph impact it
is useless in most actual cases where there's an impact to the head.
Actually, I don't believe I've ever said "useless."
So, what is your opinion? *Useless or not?
I think "useless" implies absolute zero protection, and I don't think
bike helmets (or ski helmets) provide absolute zero protection.
They're not totally useless, since as many of us have said, they
obviously prevent certain minor bumps and scrapes, if nothing else.
Minor bumps and scrapes like this:

*http://www.flickr.com/photos/eprescott/376804073/

or this:

*http://www.flickr.com/photos/chadvonnau/4302945156/

How about this:

*http://www.flickr.com/photos/twolaw/781335417/

I don't know about you, but if wearing a helmet means avoiding
"minor bumps and scrapes" that land me in the ER, I'll wear a
helmet. *I don't like getting stitched up, and tetanus boosters make
my shoulder really sore.

I don't care for your horror stories and implication that blood is
bad. *Don't play football! *That's a large "but if" with which you
start to develop your "the fact that" begging the question. *Stop
sullying RBT!

I'm not implying that blood is bad. *I love blood and have about five
litres of my own, which I try to keep inside my body -- particularly
now that I am on blood thinners.

All I am saying is that helmets prevent scalp lacerations, which can
result in the unintended release of blood from one's body and
significant medical expenses. *If you are at risk for scalp
laceration, wear a helmet. *If not, don't. *Very simple choice that
anyone can make -- well, anyone over the age of 16 in Oregon. *Only on
this NG is that simple choice turned in to a religious war. You would
think we were discussing abortion or proper tire patching. *-- Jay
Beattie.

I can't argue with Jobst's plea to stop sulleying RBT though. *Most of
the bandwidth here is wasted on this nonsense. *I'm as guilty as anyone
so I will try to take his advice.- Hide quoted text -

Too true. Over and out. -- Jay Beattie.

On Jan 4, 4:24*pm, James wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Bike helmets are an ineffective solution to an imaginary problem.

Right, if you don't like me saying that in a race I'm constantly
accelerating (even though I proved that it is true with changes in both
speed and direction),

I've taught all about acceleration to literally hundreds of students,
James. Part of my job. All you proved is that you wouldn't have
passed the tests.

... I cannot let you get away with saying that there
is an imaginary problem.

If it was imaginary it would not exist - at all. Zero, ziltch, zip.
However cyclists do occasionally suffer head injuries, therefore the
problem cannot be imaginary.

I actually removed the word "largely" (from just before "imaginary")
before posting that version. If you search back in Usenet, you'll see
I sometimes leave "largely" in place. In this case, I chose brevity.

Still, the imaginary part of it is the unusual frequency of head
injuries in cycling, and the false belief that cyclists are at far
more risk than those in other more common modes of transportation.

Yes, occasionally cyclists get head injuries of one magnitude or
another. So do pedestrians, far more often per year or per mile. So
do motorists, far more often per year, although less per mile.

But pedestrians and motorists are almost never urged to wear flimsy
helmets that data shows to be ineffective. They are expected instead
to pay for expensive, computer-controlled explosive devices for the
insides of their cars, or (especially in the case of pedestrians) to
simply not think about their risk of serious head injury. That final
strategy is abetted by avoiding mention of those head injuries in
print.

Most car deaths and pedestrian deaths are due to head injuries, and
the count greatly exceeds that for cyclists. When was the last time
you read a news report of one of their deaths that included the line,
"The victim was not wearing a helmet"?

- Frank Krygowski

On 1/4/2011 12:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
Since you speak of students: This past summer, I was asked (by a
nursing professor) to consult with a group of pre-med students who
were tasked with addressing a public health problem. The "problem"
was that of bicycling injuries. They were to develop a strategy to
present to legislators.[...]

http://linux.stevens-tech.edu/kmh/spike.bike.all.txt

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 1/4/2011 10:02 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
I've tried banning poutine and my son revolted. It's a nationalist thing.

Poutine is the president of Canada.

- Dubya