First Helmet : jury is out.

Frank Krygowski

R15757 wrote:

>
>
> [1] Frank K misquoted the 1976 Kaplan study of LAW
> cyclists' accidents. He said they suffered an injury
> or bike damage more than 50$ (no small amount in '76)
> about every 15,000 miles or every seven years. In fact
> Kaplan found that LAW cyclists rode 2400 miles per
> year on average and hurt themselves every 4
> years/10.000 miles.

"R15757" is looking at the wrong study. It took me a while
to find my copy, but the one I was referring to was by Dr.
Bill Moritz, in 1996, from a national survey of League of
American Bicyclists members.

The definition of "serious" was just as I said: Over $75, or
requiring unspecified medical treatment. And yes, in 1996,
it was very easy for a LAB member (i.e. enthusiastic
cyclist) to spend much more than that on a derailleur. I
wish Moritz had set that bar higher.

From the abstract: "Based on the experience reported by
these cyclists, the 'average' cyclist in this group could
be expected to ride for 11 years before having such a
crash. Falls accounted for 59% of the incidents while
running into a fixed object happened 14% of the time.
Moving motor vehicles were involved in 11% of the crashes
and another bicycle in 9%."

For those crashes, median property damage was $100. That's
roughly equivalent to a bent front wheel. Median medical
cost was $155, which would probably be less than a trip to
an ER for road rash.

I did make a mistake in the annual mileage of the
respondents. I thought they averaged about 1500 miles per
year, but I was wrong. They averaged 2900 miles per year -
so I was off by quite a lot.

OK, there you are. Eleven years at 2900 miles per year,
roughly 32,000 miles, to rack up $100 in (say) a broken
wheel, plus enough road rash for a scrubbing at the ER.

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

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and
discussion groups for your local users or business, you need
dbabble! -- See
http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----

RogerDodger

I reckon you'd have brains in your butt to make such a pathetic cheap shot.

Roger

RogerDodger

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In response to Neil's first point - the "passion" - if there weren't all this hyperbole and hoopla being promulgated by the pro-helmet Hysterics and Helmet-issionaries then you wouldn't hear boo from those of us who Neil labels anti-helmet. We are not anti-helmet per se, but, in addition to being anti-helmet-law - (1) anti the out-of-proportion exaggeration of the incidence of the head-injures to cyclists, (2) anti the hyperbolic exaggeration of the efficacy of the poly- bonnets, (3) anti hysterical half-baked irrational busybody dimwits doing this huge disservice to cycling (and all the while deluding themselves that they're being sensible and acting out of magnaminous and benevolent concern for our safety)

With regard to the "Logic 101 red herring" - Neil has got it wrong - it is not shifting the topic under discussion but rather it is getting things in perspective and in proportion.

Roger

Stephen Harding

neil0502 wrote:
>
> 3) It's a "Logic 101" red herring to:
>
> .a) shift the conversation from " The pro's and cons of
> wearing a cycling helmet" to the potential dangers of
> driving cars, or of being a pedestrian;

Hardly a red herring!

Asking why one's head is such a concern on a bike, yet not
particularly worrisome while in a car has always left me
perplexed, especially when one considers the numbers of head
injuries occurring in both groups.

Focusing only on the dangers to one's head on a bike seems a
negative portrayal of the activity to me.

SMH

neil0502

Originally posted by Stephen Harding

neil0502 wrote:
>>
>> 3) It's a "Logic 101" red herring to:
>>
>> .a) shift the conversation from " The pro's and cons of
>> wearing a cycling helmet" to the potential dangers of
>> driving cars, or of being a pedestrian;

> Hardly a red herring!
>
> Asking why one's head is such a concern on a bike, yet not
>particularly worrisome while in a car has always left me
> perplexed, especially when one considers the numbers of head
> injuries occurring in both groups.

DISCLAIMER (that, seemingly, needs to be a part of all of my posts): I am neither anti- nor pro-helmet. I absolutely do not advocate new laws forcing helmet use.

Now . . . .

While I take your point, I'll tell you why I think it does little to bolster your case: (without going to the years and statistics) In the States, auto makers were required decades ago to put seat belts in cars. In something like 48 states, seat belt use is mandatory. My particular hunk o'-steel ha four airbags in addition. Lots of the new ones are going that way.

The reason I think that it weakens your argument to point this out is: it's very easy for somebody to say, "You're right! Driving is more dangerous. Luckily, there are laws to . . . . . " So I say--for all our sakes--sticking to bikes keeps it cleaner.

Also--unless I'm forgetting something--I've never called anybody anti-helmet. That's a mischaracterization (the likes of which I'm seeing so frequently). I just keep coming back to the same tired, old point:

People should have ready access to the information to make a cost-benefit decision regarding helmets. If the costs are soooo minimal, and if there is any benefit whatsoever to be derived from helmet use (or, if there is simply no reduction in safety due to helmet use), people should know this. Then, the choice should be theirs.

Back to Stephen Harding... (I'm trying to learn proper posting here. Is it working?)
> Focusing only on the dangers to one's head on a bike seems a
> negative portrayal of the activity to me.

Three answers:

1) This _is_ a bike forum. I tend to think that focus on bikes is appropriate here.

2) Parent-child conversation (anybody heard this one?):

Daughter: But Mom . . . everybody else is going to the party. Why can't I??

Mother: I'm not concerned with everybody else.

3) In threads about helmet use, focusing on the potential effects of helmet use on cyclist safety hardly seems like a negative portrayal. Again, red herring.

Neil

Roberth

Stephen Harding <harding@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message news:<40ac8dfa@news-1.oit.umass.edu>...

> You've seen all these injuries from cycling accidents?

Yup. And a lot more than that.

> None of the same type of stuff from just walkers, roller
> bladers, motorists, bathers???

I've seen a lot of motor vehicle accidents and injuries,
too, nasty stuff. I've also seen two separate peds get
knocked unconscious after stepping into the road in front of
messengers they didn't see. I've never seen an injured
roller blader, strangely enough. Bathers? I think if people
were out bathing in traffic I would have seen a lot of
bathers get hurt.

Many years ago I was walking through Cairo with my girfriend
and was first on the scene at what seemed, at first, like a
relatively benign fender-bender. A taxi full of people had
rammed into a parked car on the side of the road. (The guy
was probably looking at Laura when the wreck occurred--
attractive females are the most dangerous traffic hazard of
all, worldwide.) The windshield had been knocked out in
jagged pieces by the heads of the two men in the front seat.
The driver ended up losing an eye, and the passenger's skull
was exposed white and he was staring blankly into space.
(Both men eventually recovered, although minus one eye.)

If any of y'all have been to Cairo you know what the
traffic is like there. Try getting into the front seat of a
cab in Cairo traffic after coming to the sudden realization
that there are no seatbelts or laminated windshields in
cabs in Cairo.

The question is this: what is the irrational part, feeling
paranoid about getting into the front seat of a cab in
Cairo, or the way I felt before the accident, the way the
vast majority there apparently feel, not thinking twice
about getting into a cab?

If knowledge and experience brings some fear there might be
a good reason for it.

> What sort of place do you live or work?

The cities of america.

>Seems it must be a location with extremely unfortunate
>bicyclists, ...

Bicyclists are always among the most _fortunate_ of city
dwellers in america.

> full coverage helmet

Not a bad idea downtown, imo. If I saw some dude in a full-
face, I wouldn't chuckle.

Robert

Roberth

Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote in message news:<4j0sa01slv2h73bv8u5loh2rpuabo62rr9@4ax.com>...
> On 21 May 2004 02:12:59 GMT, r15757@aol.com (R15757)
> wrote:
>
> >I also posted additional USCPSC numbers that show
> >outpatient visits are roughly equal to ER visits.
>
> Since I haven't read the data), just a question of
> clarification. Are the outpatient visit incidents
> specifically separate incidents from the ER visits,
> largely overlapping related visits (the norm for people
> with insurance - first the ER, then the outpatient visit
> in the immediate future), or an unknown mix?

These are the kinds of questions you're not supposed to ask,
Mr. Russell, if we want our accident stats to look
meaningful.

The USCPSC's summary of the NEISS is clear that ER and
outpatient injuries are separate incidents.

The NEISS data was from ER's only, I believe. I'm not sure
where the USCPSC got its outpatient numbers. Maybe from
Design News.

Robert

Frank Krygowski

jcjordan wrote:
> I am at a loss as to why so many are against helments. I
> have been wearing one for years and find that they are
> comfortable and in no way limit my hearing or vision.
> Admittedly i always spend good money on a helmet (my last
> one cost $250 Australia). I have had two cases where i
> have been forced to replace my helmet due to damage and in
> both these cases the damage that would have been done to
> my head would have been serious.
>
> I have also had the unfortunate experence of having to
> help a cyclist who was knock down by a car who was not
> wearing a helmet, even though they are compulsory here.
> Having spoken to the paramedic and the doctor at the
> hospital both belived that although his other injurys were
> serious (broken bones, etc.) it was the head injurys which
> worried them the most.
>
> The end result was a fellow cyclist who is now permanently
> brain damaged and can not care for himself.
>
> So my vote is pro helmet

Heck, don't stop with bike helmets!

If anyone ever hears of anyone who gets permanently brain
injured from _any_ activity, I think you should vote "pro
helmet" for that. Don't you?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they
say. Or, what's good for the bicyclist is good for the
motorist, the person walking down stairs, the person
tripping on carpets, the person falling off the ladder,
etc etc etc.

Look up the sources of serious or fatal head injuries. Tell
us what you find.

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

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ----------------------
For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a
standard PC running NT or Unix without running out of power,
use the best! ---- See
http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----

Frank Krygowski

neil0502 wrote:

> People should have ready access to the information to make
> a cost- benefit decision regarding helmets. If the costs
> are soooo minimal, and if there is any benefit whatsoever
> to be derived from helmet use (or, if there is simply no
> reduction in safety due to helmet use), people should know
> this. Then, the choice should be theirs.

I know you're wanting to ignore statistics, but I'm afraid
we can't do that. Statistics are the ONLY way to tell what
benefits of helmet use. Otherwise, we have to rely on
speculation and anecdotes. Logic 101 should have taught you
the weaknesses there.

Regarding costs and benefits, a large study was done to
evaluate the costs versus benefits regarding helmets.
Actually, it was the cost to benefit ratio of Australia's
all-ages mandatory helmet law. "An Economic Evaluation of
the Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Legislation in Western
Australia" by D. Hendrie et. al.

Briefly, it indicates that the helmets, or the helmet law,
were probably not worth the expense. There was some
uncertainty in the findings, but they figured the outcomes
ranged from a possible benefit over six years of $2 million,
to a possible detriment of $10.5 million. However, they
point out that their figures do not include the losses to
public health caused by the very significant reduction in
cycling that came with the law.

In other words, that legislative experiment was a failure.
Not that the legislators are likely to change it, though. It
takes a lot for a legislator to say he was wrong!

Now, the same principle holds closely for helmet promotions.
The more people push helmets, the more money is spent on
them. But the reductions in head injuries don't seem to
appear as promised, except perhaps by dissuading people from
riding. And I can't accept a strategy that protects cyclists
by encouraging them to give up cycling!

>
> Back to Stephen Harding... (I'm trying to learn proper
> posting here. Is it working?)
>
>>Focusing only on the dangers to one's head on a bike seems
>>a negative portrayal of the activity to me.
>
>
> Three answers:
>
> 1) This _is_ a bike forum. I tend to think that focus on
> bikes is appropriate here.

But the _only_ way to rationally evaluate danger is by
comparison with other activities!

> In threads about helmet use, focusing on the potential
> effects of helmet use on cyclist safety hardly seems
> like a negative portrayal. Again, red herring.

I think you misunderstood someone. What Stephen was talking
about, I believe, was helmet proponents' habit of harping on
the supposed dangers of bicycling. That's quite separate
from "focusing on the potential effects of helmet use!"

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

Roberth

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@mousepotato.com> wrote in message news:<40aeae1c@news.ysu.edu>...
> R15757 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > [1] Frank K misquoted the 1976 Kaplan study of LAW
> > cyclists' accidents. He said they suffered an injury
> > or bike damage more than 50$ (no small amount in
> > '76) about every 15,000 miles or every seven years.
> > In fact Kaplan found that LAW cyclists rode 2400
> > miles per year on average and hurt themselves every
> > 4 years/10.000 miles.
>
> "R15757" is looking at the wrong study. It took me a while
> to find my copy, but the one I was referring to was by Dr.
> Bill Moritz, in 1996, from a national survey of League of
> American Bicyclists members.

My apologies, I thought you were misquoting Kaplan, not
Moritz. I have heard tell of his studies, but I understood
they were more concerned with the relative danger of
different types of facilities, plus I thought it was more of
an in-house LAB thing. Do you have a link?

<snip>
> From the abstract: "Based on the experience reported by
> these cyclists, the 'average' cyclist in this group could
> be expected to ride for 11 years before having such a
> crash. Falls accounted for 59% of the incidents while
> running into a fixed object happened 14% of the time.
> Moving motor vehicles were involved in 11% of the crashes
> and another bicycle in 9%."

Do you think these numbers, from what in '96 were probably
among the most conservative cyclists anywhere, suggest that
real injuries are "vanishingly rare?" They obviously don't,
especially when you take into account that a cyclist with
ten years of experience is one fifth as likely to crash as a
beginner. Even at the LAB rate I would already have been
injured six or seven times in my short career.

> For those crashes, median property damage was $100. That's
> roughly equivalent to a bent front wheel.

Any crash that ruins a wheel is likely to cause injury.

>Median medical cost was $155, which would probably be less
>than a trip to an ER for road rash...
<snip>
> OK, there you are. Eleven years at 2900 miles per year,
> roughly 32,000 miles, to rack up $100 in (say) a broken
> wheel, plus enough road rash for a scrubbing at the ER.

Your implication that most adult cyclists who go to the ER
are there for road rash is irresponsible. What kind of
Attention Whore goes to the ER for road rash? I have a
month's worth of the NEISS raw data right here (March 2002),
over which I have been pouring with renewed interest. First
of all, most people who go to the ER after a bike accident
are children. I haven't seen the study you cited earlier,
but I think it might be bunk because even among children,
CT/AB (contusions and abrasions) are nowhere near the most
frequent injuries seen at ERs. Among adults 20 yrs. old and
older, the most popular diagnoses at the ER are LAC and
FRACT. After that, I-O-I HEAD (internal organ injury, head),
CT/AB, and ST/SP, then DISL, and a miscellaneous category
with stuff like avulsions, non-head hematomas and
amputations follow in about equal amounts. One must also
assume that many of the adult CT/AB and LAC injuries are
unusually serious in that category. A glance through the
comments included with each case bears that out.

Robert

RogerDodger

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It doesn't matter a toss what you claim your position to be - if you argue for a position that supports the position what we are arguing against then it will be rebutted. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...follow?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neil has completely missed the point - the comparisons to pedestrians and motorists regards the comparative incidence of the particular malaise (HI) - the comparison -rather than being an irrelevant "red herring" - is brought up in order to get concern about HI in proportion and perspective.
If you use a little abstraction - consider a certain un-named malaise that occurs in a population and occurences of this malaise tend to be grouped, arbitrarily (for reporting purposes) by some aspects of the type of activity being engaged in when the malaise occured. Now do we single out for special attention some of these arbitrarily grouped activities?
Next question - what is discrimination? What is persecution?
Maybe this is too abstract?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Neil has forgotten something - earlier he posted ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'd suggest that Neil could put to use his Logic 101 knowledge to do a little more critical analysis of what he has written above - he might notice his use of the informal fallacy - petitio principii - taking for granted that which is at issue in the debate - the ability of helmets to prevent skull fractures, let alone serious intracranial injury, is not only contentious but one of the central issues under debate. Neil's statement also employs another type of fallacious "reasoning" - trying to play on our conscience - to induce a sense of responsibility/guilt for the outcome he describes in his question begging statement.

Roger

Frank Krygowski

RobertH wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@mousepotato.com> wrote in
> message news:<40aeae1c@news.ysu.edu>...
>
>>R15757 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>[1] Frank K misquoted the 1976 Kaplan study of LAW
>>> cyclists' accidents. He said they suffered an injury
>>> or bike damage more than 50$ (no small amount in '76)
>>> about every 15,000 miles or every seven years. In
>>> fact Kaplan found that LAW cyclists rode 2400 miles
>>> per year on average and hurt themselves every 4
>>> years/10.000 miles.
>>
>>"R15757" is looking at the wrong study. It took me a while
>>to find my copy, but the one I was referring to was by Dr.
>>Bill Moritz, in 1996, from a national survey of League of
>>American Bicyclists members.
>
>
> My apologies, I thought you were misquoting Kaplan, not
> Moritz. I have heard tell of his studies, but I understood
> they were more concerned with the relative danger of
> different types of facilities, plus I thought it was more
> of an in-house LAB thing. Do you have a link?

A not-very-printable version is at
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

By the way: more apologies on my part. In my initial mention
of the study, I said Moritz's definition of a "serious"
crash was >$50 property damage, or [unspecified] medical
treatment. In my just-previous post, I mistakenly said $75.
The first number, $50, is correct - and, of course, makes my
point more strongly.

To put the $50 in context, the survey population averaged
spending $1,100 on bicycling during the previous year. IOW,
their "serious" crash caused hardly a blip in their bike-
related spending.

>> From the abstract: "Based on the experience reported by
>> these cyclists, the 'average' cyclist in this group could
>> be expected to ride for 11 years before having such a
>> crash. Falls accounted for 59% of the incidents while
>> running into a fixed object happened 14% of the time.
>> Moving motor vehicles were involved in 11% of the crashes
>> and another bicycle in 9%."
>
>
> Do you think these numbers, from what in '96 were probably
> among the most conservative cyclists anywhere...

??? Why do you think these are the most conservative
cyclists anywhere? Nearly ten percent did road racing. 35%
did mountain biking.

I'm afraid you're grasping at straws again - and self-
invented straws, at that!

> ... suggest that real injuries are "vanishingly rare?"

Injuries costing over $50 [median cost = $100] happened once
every 11 years. Median medical cost was $155 every 11 years.
Deal with it.

I know you prefer to say cycling is full of horror,
but it's not.

>>OK, there you are. Eleven years at 2900 miles per year,
>>roughly 32,000 miles, to rack up $100 in (say) a broken
>>wheel, plus enough road rash for a scrubbing at the ER.
>
>
> Your implication that most adult cyclists who go to the ER
> are there for road rash is irresponsible.

Reporting the results of scientific papers is
irresponsible??

> ... and amputations...

:-) There you go! You can start horrifying people with tales
f
amutations!

BTW, why am I still the only one giving numbers with
citations? Give a link to the data you're looking at.

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

neil0502

Originally posted by RogerDodger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger: It doesn't matter a toss what you claim your position to be - if you argue for a position that supports the position what we are arguing against then it will be rebutted. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...follow?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**
Neil: I follow . . . about as well as I followed Geo. Bush's "...with us or with the terrorists" speeches . . . .
**

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger: Neil has completely missed the point - the comparisons to pedestrians and motorists regards the comparative incidence of the particular malaise (HI) - the comparison -rather than being an irrelevant "red herring" - is brought up in order to get concern about HI in proportion and perspective. [snip]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**
Neil: May want to evaluate your self-selecting samples -- ER studies?? What about the totality of crashes -- helmet vs. non-helmet outcomes. In my last (off-road, helmeted) crash, I landed squarely on -- and pierced -- my helmet. I walked away. I would think that _this_ is the body that needs to be evaluated: Who crashes? What is the outcome?
**

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger: [snip] that which is at issue in the debate - the ability of helmets to prevent skull fractures, let alone serious intracranial injury [snip]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**
Neil: Your definition, not mine. To repeat:

If the costs are soooo minimal, and if there is any benefit whatsoever to be derived from helmet use (or, if there is simply no reduction in safety due to helmet use), people should know this. Then, the choice should be theirs. And . . . I'll (still) vote against any bill seeking to make bicycle helmet use mandatory.

I apologize for forgetting the use of the term 'anti-helmet' in an earlier post, and thank you for reminding me. I may need to stop using aluminum cookware . . . .
**

brian-s-jones

On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:32:56 +0200, Walter Mitty
<mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> 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.

Just how does a helmet lower your "awareness" level?