First Helmet : jury is out.

Ryan Cousineau

In article <927f127c.0405131010.34d43306@posting.google.com>,
frkrygow@yahoo.com (Frank Krygowski) wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:<rcousine-
> 0BEB3B.20400212052004@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
> >
> > The purpose of any helmet is not to save you from the
> > unfortunate circumstances in which your head actually
> > gets hit by a car. There's not much you can do.
>
> For the record, car crashes cause over 90% of bike
> fatalities.
>
> >
> > But at least in theory, the big killer is those falls
> > off the seat of your bike to the ground. The helmet
> > offers protection from that impact, plus abrasion
> > protection.
>
> :-)
>
> So "the big killer" is the kind of fall we all had dozens
> of, when we were kids buzzing around the block on bikes?

Okay, a few points.

1) "IN THEORY, the big killer...." In other words, I was
explaining what helmet standards were aimed at
preventing, not arguing for the efficacy of helmets. I
don't know about you, but while I fell off my bike a few
times, I never pranged my head full on (my father did,
with a helmet, and suffered nerve damage nonetheless).

No wait, it was just the one point,
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcousine@sfu.ca
http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club

George Washburn

Walter Mitty wrote:
>
> Hmm. Just bought a cycling helmet for my last short tour
> which encompassed quite a bit of city cycling. Never wore
> one before : don't think I will again.
>
> The added noise and irritation that the helment causes
> more than offsets the "possible" help it gives in case of
> a spill by deducting from my usual spacial awareness.
>
> I don't know. I still refuse to believe that the helmet
> won't help in a spill, but wonder if the %chance of it
> helping offsets the % increase in likelihood of an
> accident due to lower awareness levels.
I always hear people taking about studies and statistics.
For me, I don't need no statistics. I'm a traffic accident
investigator and have been for 14 years. Over that period of
time I've seen some pretty crazy accidents involving bikes
but two really stand out in my mind. The first one was a
graduate student that had been riding for many years. He was
wearing street clothes and no helmet. He rode off the curb
and, according to witnesses, his front wheel turned
completely to the right and he went over the handlebars. He
landed directly on the top of his head and sustained severe
brain injury. When I got to him he was breathing (barely).
That was about three years ago and I understand he's able to
walk now (sort of). He went from being a graduate student to
a near vegetable in less than a second!

The second was a guy riding down a long hill. Again,
according to witnesses he tried to ride up a driveway and
lost control. He went head first into a retaining wall. Out
cold when I got there. I don't know what happened to him but
I'm pretty sure neither of these guys would have been in
such bad shape if they had been wearing a helmet.

Now, a third accident that comes to mind is the woman that
fell off her bike and went under the wheels of a cement
mixer. Obviously no helmet would have helped her but when I
examined the remains I found she was wearing a set of
headphones. She rode off of a sidewalk into a crosswalk
right into the path of the truck (that had a green light). I
can't say for sure but I believe the headphones may have
contributed to the collison by either not permitting her to
hear the truck or causing her concentration to be elsewhere.

Bottom line, I'd wear the helmet and use caution entering or
leaving driveways or curbs. And for gods sake don't use
crosswalk unless you walk the bike! People only look at the
corner for peds, bikes move much faster and people just
won't look further down the sidewalk for you.

G. Washburn

Frank Krygowski

George Washburn wrote:
>
> I always hear people taking about studies and statistics.
> For me, I don't need no statistics. I'm a traffic accident
> investigator and have been for 14 years. Over that period
> of time I've seen some pretty crazy accidents involving
> bikes but two really stand out in my mind.

[Horror stories trimmed.]

So, George, in your 14 years on that job, have you ever seen
any motorists who were head injured?

How about pedestrians?

Please tell us a couple tales about them.

Because it seems that motorists suffer far more serious
head injuries than cyclists. Motorists are about 50% of
America's head injury fatalities, for example. Cyclists are
less than 1%.

And pedestrian traffic deaths far outnumber cyclist traffic
deaths. The same is true for pedestrian head injury deaths,
either in absolute numbers or on a per-hour basis.

(Yeah, I know you don't like statistics, so I won't quote
the sources unless requested. But statistics are much more
reliable than one person's agenda-distorted memory.)

Seems to me that you're yet another safety missionary who
wants to remove the mote from the cyclists' eye, while
ignoring the beam in the motorist's eye.

Or in less biblical terms, you're disparaging cycling. Why
do the safety freaks always disparage cycling?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot
com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

George Washburn wrote:
>
> I always hear people taking about studies and statistics.
> For me, I don't need no statistics. I'm a traffic accident
> investigator and have been for 14 years. Over that period
> of time I've seen some pretty crazy accidents involving
> bikes but two really stand out in my mind.

[Horror stories trimmed.]

So, George, in your 14 years on that job, have you ever seen
any motorists who were head injured?

How about pedestrians?

Please tell us a couple tales about them.

Because it seems that motorists suffer far more serious
head injuries than cyclists. Motorists are about 50% of
America's head injury fatalities, for example. Cyclists are
less than 1%.

And pedestrian traffic deaths far outnumber cyclist traffic
deaths. The same is true for pedestrian head injury deaths,
either in absolute numbers or on a per-hour basis.

(Yeah, I know you don't like statistics, so I won't quote
the sources unless requested. But statistics are much more
reliable than one person's agenda-distorted memory.)

Seems to me that you're yet another safety missionary who
wants to remove the mote from the cyclists' eye, while
ignoring the beam in the motorist's eye.

Or in less biblical terms, you're disparaging cycling. Why
do the safety freaks always disparage cycling?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot
com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu]

Just Zis Guy

On Mon, 17 May 2004 08:33:12 -0700, George Washburn
<gwashburn@charter.net> wrote in message
<10ahmlankq1eua8@corp.supernews.com>:

>I always hear people taking about studies and statistics.
>For me, I don't need no statistics.

Of course not, because you are a True Believer. I envy you
your unswerving conviction. Me, I agnonised for ages before
I reluctantly had to accept that, as the British minister
for roads said in a letter to a parliamentary colleague,
there is no known case where cyclist safety has improved as
a result of increased helmet wearing.

If they were really that good, there would be some evidence
by now. But there isn't. The only evidence in favour of
hlemts is either from small-scale prospective studies or is
anecdotal (like the two 70-year-olds who suffered similar
crashes, over the bars when hitting a pothole, and the one
wearing ahelmet died while the other survived; conclusive
proof that helmets always kill in all cases).

The kind of evidence which is most robust, population level
and time-series - the kind of evidence which established the
link between smoking and cancer, for example - shows no
benefit in serious and fatal injuries. Which means that
helmets cause as many injuries (through overconfidence or
whatever) as they save. Which is not many, as most fatal
cyclist crashes involve a motor vehicle and forces outside
the design parameters of a motor racing driver's helmet,
forget your inch or less of expanded polystyrene.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

neil0502

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frank Krygowski

So, George, in your 14 years on that job, have you ever seen
any motorists who were head injured?

How about pedestrians?

Please tell us a couple tales about them.

Because it seems that motorists suffer far more serious
head injuries than cyclists. Motorists are about 50% of
America's head injury fatalities, for example. Cyclists are
less than 1%.

And pedestrian traffic deaths far outnumber cyclist traffic
deaths. The same is true for pedestrian head injury deaths,
either in absolute numbers or on a per-hour basis.[QUOTE]

I'm still looking for sound reasons for not wearing a bicycle helmet. I've read people's comments that helmets are not particularly comfortable, may be warmer than not wearing one, and that they may alter the environmental sounds that you hear while riding.

For me (again, YMMV), those are pretty small prices to pay (many of them can also be dramatically mitigated through appropriate helmet selection and fitting)--especially as one who took a header over the bars ten days ago on an mtb ride, landing smack dab on my $20 Bell and putting a 4" hole in it. Feel secure in saying: that would have been my head.

The reason I continue to play advocate here is simple: there's a very vocal and adamant group of people on this NG who would have us believe that helmets are useless, or worse. I think it's reasonable to present new cyclists with an opposing viewpoint that says, quite simply, wearing a (properly selected, well-fitting) helmet probably won't hurt you, and it could minimize your injuries in the event of a crash.

[QUOTE]statistics are much more reliable than one person's agenda-distorted memory.)[QUOTE]

Gee, Frank: the viewpoint doesn't agree with yours, so the person expressing that viewpoint is memory impaired and not objective. Sigh....

[QUOTE] Seems to me that you're yet another safety missionary who wants to remove the mote from the cyclists' eye, while ignoring the beam in the motorist's eye.

Or in less biblical terms, you're disparaging cycling. Why do the safety freaks always disparage cycling? [QUOTE]

Again, Frank: I don't see where this poster (or I, or any other poster) "disparaged cycling."

Very little is accomplished by you calling names ("freaks"), labeling people as simplistically as you do, or leveling unfounded accusations (that anybody is advocating either mandatory helmet legislation, or preventing you from legally riding your bike helmet-free).

If you don't want to wear a helmet while cycling, Frank, that's okay. I'd be interested to hear if there's anybody on this NG who thinks that it's not okay for you to make that choice.

I submit, however, that it is a worthwhile endeavor to attempt to inform new cyclists as to the downside of helmet use and the likely upside in minimizing injury in the event of a crash.

Neil

Roger Zoul

George Washburn wrote:

:: The second was a guy riding down a long hill. Again,
:: according to witnesses he tried to ride up a driveway and
:: lost control. He went head first into a retaining wall.
:: Out cold when I got there. I don't know what happened to
:: him but I'm pretty sure neither of these guys would have
:: been in such bad shape if they had been wearing a helmet.
::

What makes you so sure?

Frank Krygowski

R15757 wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote in part:
>
> << And pedestrian traffic deaths far outnumber cyclist
> traffic deaths. The same is true for pedestrian head
> injury deaths, either in absolute numbers or on a per-hour
> basis. >>
>
> I don't doubt this last one is true, but what is your
> source for the number of pedestrian head injuries on a per
> hour basis, and cyclist head injuries on a per hour basis?
>
> Robert

Absolute numbers - ped fatalities are several thousand per
year (for example, 6500 in 1992 in the US). Bike fatalities
that year were about
700. Data from World Almanac, 1992. Brain injuries are
responsible for roughly 2/3 of all accidental deaths
(but people never mention that, except for bike
fatalities). Various sources on that one - I'd have to
dig for a while to find a specific quote.

Per hour data is tougher to come by. One source is "Head
Injuries and Bicycle Helmet Laws," D.L. Robinson, Accident
Analysis and Prevention, vol 28, no. 4, pp. 463-475, 1996.
Head injury deaths per million hours for four groups listed
are: cyclists, 0.19; pedestrians, 0.34; motor vehicle
occupants, 0.17; motorcyclists, 2.9

That's data from Queensland, Australia. If you've got
different data, I'd like to see it.

--
-------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot
com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

neil0502 wrote: [but I'm going to edit a bit. Neil's post is
very unclear as to who wrote what. I'm going to attempt to
insert double >> before what I actually said.] [Neil, please
learn how to respond correctly!]

> Originally posted by Frank Krygowski
>>
>> So, George, in your 14 years on that job, have you ever
>> seen any motorists who were head injured?
>>
>> How about pedestrians?
>>
>> Please tell us a couple tales about them.
>>
>> Because it seems that motorists suffer far more serious
>> head injuries than cyclists. Motorists are about 50% of
>> America's head injury fatalities, for example. Cyclists
>> are less than 1%.
>>
>> And pedestrian traffic deaths far outnumber cyclist
>> traffic deaths. The same is true for pedestrian head
>> injury deaths, either in absolute numbers or on a per-
>> hour basis.
>
> I'm still looking for sound reasons for not wearing a
> bicycle helmet. I've read people's comments that helmets
> are not particularly comfortable, may be warmer than not
> wearing one, and that they may alter the environmental
> sounds that you hear while riding.
>
> For me (again, YMMV), those are pretty small prices to
> pay (many of them can also be dramatically mitigated
> through appropriate helmet selection and fitting)--
> especially as one who took a header over the bars ten
> days ago on an mtb ride, landing smack dab on my $20 Bell
> and putting a 4" hole in it. Feel secure in saying: that
> would have been my head.
>
> The reason I continue to play advocate here is simple:
> there's a very vocal and adamant group of people on this
> NG who would have us believe that helmets are useless, or
> worse. I think it's reasonable to present new cyclists
> with an opposing viewpoint that says, quite simply,
> wearing a (properly selected, well-fitting) helmet
> probably won't hurt you, and it could minimize your
> injuries in the event of a crash.

It's possible your helmet did protect you in that fall.
And it's possible it didn't. Such accidents can't be
reproduced in tests.

But the data from large populations that suddenly adopted
helmets makes things pretty clear: despite all the
interesting stories helmet proponents generate, the
protective effect against serious head injuries is barely
detectable, if at all. Such data completely belies the
most frequent claim of helmet effectiveness, the "85%
reduction" claim.

Furthermore, data on sources of serious head injuries makes
something else clear: cycling is NOT a significant source!
It's danger, either in absolute terms or relative terms, is
not significantly worse than the danger of walking near
traffic or riding in a car.

This doesn't mean that you can't wear a helmet while
cycling. Wearing a helmet is just as legal as wearing purple
bike shorts - it's up to you.

But it does open the question: why would you recommend it to
someone? Why recommend an unproven protective measure
against an imaginary hazard?

Now let me qualify that a bit: if you're a person who's
going to be thrashing around woods and rocks on a mountain
bike, you almost certainly are at real risk of hitting your
head. And the hit (unlike most serious bike crashes) is
probably within the narrow window of a helmet's protection.

Personally, I avoid such riding. I was once on a mountain
bike ride where I didn't follow the group on an insane jump,
specifically because I had no helmet. Sure enough, one of
the helmeted heroes broke either his shoulder or collar bone
- I was never sure which.

>>statistics are much more reliable than one person's agenda-
>>distorted memory.)

>Gee, Frank: the viewpoint doesn't agree with yours, so the
>person expressing that viewpoint is memory impaired and
>not objective. >Sigh....

I've been through this point with many other similar
posters, Neil. We've had brain injury rehabilitation people
post tales like the above, and I've talked to similar people
in person.

When confronted with the national statistics, they've always
admitted that they see hardly any cyclists - that almost all
their patients are motor vehicle operators. For example, one
such person admitted there had been only one cyclist in
seven years of full-time work, and that cyclist was a racer
- i.e. probably helmeted at the time of the crash.

So when I get another "If you saw what I saw" story, I'm
quite sure they're not representing things impartially.

>>Or in less biblical terms, you're disparaging cycling.
>>Why do the safety freaks always disparage cycling?

>Again, Frank: I don't see where this poster (or I, or any
>other poster) "disparaged cycling."

Someone saying cycling is so unusually dangerous that a
helmet is necessary is disparaging cycling. Sorry, but
that's the fact.

>>Very little is accomplished by you calling names
>>("freaks"),

Well, I'm sorry if that offended. In that context, the word
"freak" isn't necessarily an insult. Haven't you ever called
yourself a bike freak? I certainly have.

>> or leveling unfounded accusations (that anybody is
>> advocating either mandatory helmet legislation, or
>> preventing you from legally riding your bike helmet-
>> free).

>>If you don't want to wear a helmet while cycling, Frank,
>>that's okay. I'd be interested to hear if there's anybody
>>on this NG who thinks that it's not okay for you to make
>>that choice.

Like it or not, the positions of the two sides in this
debate are NOT symmetrical. Helmet skeptics tend to give
scientific findings from large populations, actual
assessments of actual helmet use, numerical figures from
impact tests, comparative numerical data on the safety of
cycling ... and helmet skeptics NEVER say helmet use should
be outlawed.

Helmet promoters tend to re-use only one number ("85%") from
one tiny, discredited study. They give scare stories and
anecdotes, avoid comparative data ... and DO say bareheaded
cycling should be outlawed.

The most prominent pro-helmet website is quite upfront about
its author's enthusiasm for mandatory helmet laws, and not
just for kids. Likewise, Safe Kids Inc. pushes for all-ages
helmet laws, with kids' laws being the first step. And
helmets have been mandated for kids in many states, as well
as for all ages in Australia, New Zealand, Spain, and
several US municipalities.

You may think this is all fine, but I don't. Especially
since imposition of helmet laws and helmet promotion has
been shown to seriously reduce cycling.

I am consciously pro-cycling. I see overenthusiastic helmet
promotion as being anti-cycling. So I'll tell what I know
about the issue, using actual facts.

I can't generate many weird anecdotes, anyway. I've had only
one super-slow on-road fall in over 30 years, and I've never
come close to hitting my head. Not very remarkable.

Just like most cyclists' experiences, I dare say.

--
-------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot
com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

neil0502

[pedantry and dogmatism ignored....]



Again, misstates what I said. I think it's prudent and appropriate to let people know that there seems to be no valid support for any substantive downside to wearing a properly selected, well-fitting helmet, and--while the numbers may be suspect--there seems to be a whole bunch of anecdotal data that say helmets save lives or reduce magnitude of injury. From there, I think people should be entitled to make up their minds.



From what I'm seeing on this NG, however, many new posters don't avoid such riding. Many posters engage in many different kinds of cycling--a good thing, I believe. If you would advocate helmet use for MTB riders, then--unless you qualify that in any disussion where you question their effectiveness or lampoon statistics in support, you are doing a disservice to the reader, and leaving your own assertions rather suspect.

[snip] (at least I'm trying....)



Actually, that would be an opinion. To put it forward as a fact is simply to be dogmatic. Further, it was not my opinion, nor is it an opinion that I've heard espoused here. What I have read is people saying they believe helmet use to be safer than non helmet-use. I fail to see how that is a disparaging comment. My perspective was even a bit more bland: I think people making sincere inquiry on the subject deserve a relatively objective view of the facts.



(just staying with your "I/you" theme here) Me calling myself something is different from you calling me something. When--in your posts--you digress from rationality with baseless accusations, misstatement of others' posts, and hyperbole, it's difficult to read "name calling" in the most benign context.



I think it's important to note that if the anti-helmet faction convinces an undecided newbie to ride without a helmet (and the newbie happened to be an undeclared mtb rider), then this mtb rider takes a header and cracks his scull, the outcome was tragic and avoidable.

If, on the other hand, some helmet zealots convince a newbie roadie to wear a $20 Bell from now on, and this roadie clocks 15,000 accident free miles, then the damage done will have been . . . will have been . . . . Now you see, that's where I keep getting stuck. I guess the damage will have been:
a) $20 wasted
b) some more calories burned
c) some extra sweat on hot days
d) something about 'distorted environmental sounds'



I'm pro- good, solid, objective information and personal choice. In closing, two things:

1) May you have another 30yrs of accident free cycling. You are to be commended;
2) Still trying to get somebody to tell me the downside of helmet use (again . . . to be clear . . . that's not a position of helmet advocacy . . . . )

Neil

S O R N I

neil0502 wrote:

{Hugh Jass Memorial Snip ---convoluted posting style and
gross verbosity amundo}
>
> [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > You may think this is all fine, but I don't.
> > Especially since imposition of helmet laws and helmet
> > promotion has been shown to seriously reduce cycling.
> > I am consciously pro-cycling. I see overenthusiastic
> > helmet
> promotion as > being anti-cycling. So I'll tell what I
> know about the issue, using > actual facts.
> > I can't generate many weird anecdotes, anyway. I've
> > had only one
> super- > slow on-road fall in over 30 years, and I've
> never come close to hitting > my head. Not very
> remarkable.
> > Just like most cyclists' experiences, I dare say.
>
>
>
> I'm pro- good, solid, objective information and personal
> choice. In closing, two things:
>
> 1) May you have another 30yrs of accident free cycling.
> You are to be commended;
> 2) Still trying to get somebody to tell me the downside of
> helmet use (again . . . to be clear . . . that's not a
> position of helmet advocacy . . . . )
>
> Neil

OMFG, do you honestly expect anyone to read much less follow
this ridiculous crap??? That was got to be the most
unreadable post I've ever seen (couldn't bring myself to
leave it all, but it was way WORSE than what's left above).
And I'm subjected to M^V rants in AM-B!

Bill "only good thing is it's a h*lmet thread, so who cares"
S.

David Kerber

In article <20040518010158.09877.00000037@mb-m03.aol.com>,
r15757 @aol.com says...

...

> I got nothin'. Thanks for the citation. What really jumps
> out there is that .34 for peds as opposed to .17 for motor
> vehicles. I would be interested to see how Robinson
> gathered his numbers. Do you know? The suggestion that
> walking around is twice as likely as driving to result in
> a head injury _death_ I find far-fetched.

I don't. Have you ever looked at the numbers of pedestrians
in major cities who cut in and out of traffic, hoping it
will stop for them? Especially kids.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).

David Kerber

In article <20040518011402.09877.00000038@mb-m03.aol.com>,
r15757 @aol.com says...
> Frank K wrote in part:
>
> << I can't generate many weird anecdotes, anyway. I've had
> only one super-slow on-road fall in over 30 years, and
> I've never come close to hitting my head. Not very
> remarkable.
>
> Just like most cyclists' experiences, I dare say. >>
>
>
> That's where you're wrong Frank. Your injury free cycling
> career is the exception, not the rule.

I doubt it. My last injury was over 30 years ago as well,
when I hit a patch of ice I wasn't expecting while riding
in the dark.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).

neil0502

Actually, Bill -- at least on my browser -- it displays in exceptionally clean fashion. As I'm fond of saying, though: if you have some information for me that would help me format my posts more legibly, I'd be more than willing to learn.

(skewered . . . and by a fellow San Diegan . . . . sigh . . . . )