cycling links

David Hansen

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:59:13 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<nospam@here.com> wrote this:-

>> Its called a car.
>
>...and that still doesn't work given the number of head injuries
>occupants suffer.

Then they should be made to wear helmets!!!!

if only one life is saved...


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Richard

Robert Broughton wrote:
>>But there is no credible evidence to support the idea that helmets
>>prevent serious head and brain injuries.
>
>
> Nonsense. There's all sorts of credible evidence. All you have to do is
> spend some time looking for it.

As you obviously think that it exists, please provide a reference to a
whole-population study published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal,
that shows that bicycle helmets prevent serious head and brain injuries.

Any one will do.

No hurry. Don't feel any pressure when you can't find one immediately.

R.

Roberta Hatch

Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.chapman+usenet-reply@spamcop.net> wrote:
>bhatch@luhar.net (Roberta Hatch) wrote:

>>Motorcycle helmets help prevent both
>>head and neck injuries.

>Er, not quite. There is good evidence that rigid chin bars exacerbate
>neck injuries.

Really?! Care to provide that evidence? Care to provide a
scientific study that refutes Hurt?

Bobbi

---
Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent)

Peter Clinch

Joe Keenan wrote:

> Yikes. Put razors on your cycling shoes and jump all over me. I'm not
> trying to change your opinion, but your posts are trying to change
> mine. Look at the above....I'm not arguing for or against you or
> anyone else wearing a helmet. I'm saying that I believe it "might"
> lessen or minimize injury to me. That's all. It works for me.

So "might" a rabbit's foot or St. Christopher medallion... Or more
practically, so might downhill MTB body armour, kevlar trousers,
heavy boots and thick gloves. Nobody's stopping you riding in
those: do you? If not, why not? same logic applies as to helmets.

> I'd like to hear your counter arguements (and yes..I'm sure willing to
> listen to the other side) about how not wearing a helmet would have
> helped me in this one.
>
> Here's what happened to me:
<snip>
> With what scenarios "sans helmet" do I not come up with severe road
> rash on my scalp and side of my face?

The pain plus head protection reflex would have you try and hold
your head up without thinking about it. Of course, a hemlemted
head is bigger and heavier than an unhelmeted head, so you may not
have hit it in the first place, but this is a might, so let's keep
on...

> your viewpoint, and I still come up with major face plant and road
> rash sans helmet.

You may well have ended up with that without a helmet, but it
wouldn't have killed you or disabled you. Unpleasant isn't the
same as serious. So you're balancing possible attenuation of a
possible but not probable relatively minor accident against certain
minor discomfort every time you go out. There isn't a right or
wrong call on this, but it isn't the same as having a helmet save
your life.

Last time I went over the bars I got nasty road rash on my head. I
was wearing a helmet, but it doesn't cover my chin, and that's
where I hit the deck. So should I wear a helmet with a chin guard,
because it /might/ help against that sort of accident? It didn't
kill me, but it was most unpleasant. Do you wear a helmet with a
chinguard? I know from personal experience of an over the bars
accident where one /might/ have helped...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Roberta Hatch

Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> wrote:
>Roberta Hatch wrote:

>> You people are a barrel of laughs. You sound like motorcyclists
>> that make try and make the claim that not only helmets do not help prevent
>> injuries, but actually cause them.

>Pretty much what we are saying and backed up by plenty of evidence. Why
>don't you have a read of http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ and inform
>yourself rather than relying on "common sense" prejudices? I used to
>have your view and wear a helmet until I started to read up on it and
>got a shock.

Common sense prejudices?! I suggest you take your own advice.
_Evaluation and Replication of Impact Damage to Bicycle Helmets_, TA
Smith, D Tees, DR Thom, HH Hurt. _A case-control study of the
effectivness of bicycle safety helmets_, RS Thompson, FF Rivara, and
DC Thompson. Then move on over the the Snell Memorial Foundation and
the CPSC and have a look-see on what they have to say.

>Let me see, you live in the USA. In the USA helmet wearing is around
>38%. There are about 110 cyclist fatalities per Bn km cycled. In
>Holland the helmet wearing rate is only 0.1% yet fatalities are only 20
>per Bn km cycled. Go figure.

Which proves or disproves exactly what? Maybe that motorists
here in the U.S. have better aim when it comes to dealing with bicyclists
that believe they have a right to 'take the lane'?

>> I have yet to see anyone make a claim that a helmet prevents all
>> injuries. Only that it's added protection.

>Added protection against scrapes and scratches yes but against a motor
>vehicle, no way.

Wrong. A helemt will help prevent serious injury to the head
whenever it comes between a head and an object that it shouldn't. It
you want to dispute than, please do provide a scientific study to back
up your claim.

>> Let's say you're traveling at ten miles per hour (roughly 15 ft/sec),
>> you take a spill and your melon hits a sharp object, such as a curb or a
>> large rock, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not?

>That's beyond the design limits of the helmet.

Wrong again, sport. Go to take a look at the Snell testing
standards. Or even the CPSC standards.

>> Take the test. All you have to do is have a pal wack you upside
>> the head with a piece of angle iron while you're wearing a helmet. Then
>> again without the helmet. Please report back after the test -- if you
>> can.

>Lets do another test. Go to
>http://www.cycling.raven-family.com/Helmet%20Graphs.jpg and look at the
>two graphs. These are graphs of cyclist head injuries against time in
>two countries which doubled helmet wearing overnight with a mandatory
>helmet law. Your challenge is to tell me which tick mark (year) that
>happened in each case. Its an easy challenge because the doubling of
>helmet wearing will have halved the head injury rate from one year to
>the next so just look for the point where the head injury rate suddenly
>halves.

Your graphs do not prove anything about helmet safety. I sugesst
you read and learn from those research papers I gave you earlier.

Bobbi

---
Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent)

Roberta Hatch

David Hansen <> wrote:
>bhatch@luhar.net (Roberta Hatch) wrote this:-

>>I have yet to see anyone make a claim that a helmet prevents all
>>injuries.

>Assuming you mean all injuries.

Considering that the subject is helmets and heads, that would
be a wrong assumption.


>We know that, if one uses the
>research "method" of one well known paper, cycle helmets prevent a
>great percentage of knee injuries. That rather implies that the
>"method" is bogus.

I'd like a pointer to that paper. I find it hard to believe that
anyone would claim that helmets help prevent knee injuries.

>Assuming you mean all head injuries, I have seen such claims.

And, I've see claims that helmets acutally cause injuires.
Big deal.

>Anyway, those that don't make this claim tend to claim that cycle
>helmets will prevent up to 85% of head injuries, which is fairly
>close to claiming they prevent all injuries.

But still not all (head) injuries. In any case, I was refering
to people posting in this thread.

Bobbi

---
Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent)

Roberta Hatch

Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> wrote:
>Roberta Hatch wrote:

>>>Hmm.. maybe we should try this one.. you are running for a train and slip on
>>>a pile of frozen vomit on the platform. ...

>> Maybe you should just stick to the subject at hand. Bicycles
>> and helemts, instead of trying to come up with something bogus as a
>> counterexample. For example: Outlawing bicycles will prevent all
>> injuries related to bicycle riding.

>Its a valid question. Per mile and per hour you are more likely to
>suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than as a cyclist. Yet you don't
>seem to be calling for helmets to be worn by pedestrians even though
>they are at greater risk than cyclists. Why not?

No it is not a vaild question. It's no more valid than trying
to say that people fall off chairs when eating dinner and why shouldn't
they wear seat belts.

The fact of the matter is we are talking about safety on public
roads, not some freak accident involving slipping "on a puddle of frozen
vomit" or falling down a flight of stairs.

Bobbi

---
Roberta Hatch http://www.tamucc.edu/~whatley/pols2306/hatch.htm '65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent)

David Hansen

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:50:31 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
bhatch@luhar.net (Roberta Hatch) wrote this:-

>_A case-control study of the
>effectivness of bicycle safety helmets_, RS Thompson, FF Rivara, and
>DC Thompson.

Ah, I wondered when that one would be mentioned.

Perhaps you could start off by reading the following commentary on
it http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1068.html and then let us
know if you still want to quote it.

>Then move on over the the Snell Memorial Foundation and

Cycle helmets used to meet Snell standards. However, they do not do
so now and instead meet lower standards. You may like to consider
why the manufacturers did this.

>A helemt will help prevent serious injury to the head
>whenever it comes between a head and an object that it shouldn't.

For some value of "help". That value might be zero.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:56:34 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
bhatch@luhar.net (Roberta Hatch) wrote this:-

>>We know that, if one uses the
>>research "method" of one well known paper, cycle helmets prevent a
>>great percentage of knee injuries. That rather implies that the
>>"method" is bogus.
>
>I'd like a pointer to that paper.

I suspect you could find a link to this from www.cyclehelmets.org.

>I find it hard to believe that
>anyone would claim that helmets help prevent knee injuries.

You miss the point. If the research "method" is valid then it could
not be applied to data and demonstrate that helmets prevent knee
injuries. The fact that this can be done rather implies that the
"method" is bogus and thus tells us nothing about helmets.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:05:22 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
bhatch@luhar.net (Roberta Hatch) wrote this:-

>The fact of the matter is we are talking about safety on public
>roads, not some freak accident involving slipping "on a puddle of frozen
>vomit"

People slip on vomit on public roads regularly. Whether it is frozen
or not depends on the temperature.

>or falling down a flight of stairs.

Many people fall down stairs every day, often suffering head
injuries in the process.

Neither of these things are freak accidents. They are regular and
predictable.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On 28 Nov 2004 11:55:36 -0800, jkeenan7@optonline.net (Joe Keenan)
wrote in message <5fe0f312.0411281155.1e3c6c9a@posting.google.com>:

>Yikes. Put razors on your cycling shoes and jump all over me.

I'd slip - those Look cleats are a bugger ;-)

>I'm not
>trying to change your opinion, but your posts are trying to change
>mine.

A bit. Actually what I want is for you to go and read the source data
and its published discussions. Having done that you may or may not
agree with me - I don't mind. The enemy here is widespread public
ignorance, on which the cynical helmet lobby play. You will not hear
a helmet company say "this helmet will prevent 85% of injuries"
because they know damned well it won't. That figure comes from a
single study with more holes than a Swiss cheese. So the helmet
manufacturers fund SafeKids to say it for them, and the 85% figure is
still "out there" and being promoted despite the fact that it is the
highest figure from any of the major studies, substantially higher
than the others, and is known to be /completely wrong/. People who
profess themselves experts, campaigning on the issue, are quoting this
figure as gospel. They are either ill-informed or liars.

Helmet promoters do this:

- exaggerate the number of injuries
- conflate genuinely serious injuries with the kinds of knocks and
bangs we took in our stride twenty years ago
- exaggerate the risk of death
- state that helmets prevent nearly all head injuries
- imply that helmets are as effective against serious injuries as
minor ones
- imply that helmets are effective against the kinds of injuries
people are afraid of, those causing permanent intellectual disablement
- imply that helmets will be effective against the major source of
serious injuries, motor traffic.

All these are false.

In the UK the major helmet promoters put out a figure of 50 child head
injury deaths due to cycling every year. The real figure is ten, out
of 22 fatalities in total. They said this was an "estimate based on
under-reporting". I leave it to you to calculate the likelihood of
80% of fatal child cyclist head injuries going unreported! The
official figure for unreported cyclist fatalities is: 0%.

>I'm saying that I believe it "might"
>lessen or minimize injury to me. That's all. It works for me.

Might is a good word in this context :-)

>I'd like to hear your counter arguements (and yes..I'm sure willing to
>listen to the other side) about how not wearing a helmet would have
>helped me in this one.

>Cycling along at a pretty good clip.
>Hit a rock which was almost impossible to see. (For this scenario,
>assume you couldn't see the rock even if you tried, and you really
>couldn't. Know key lighting? Bright brights? Dark Darks? Was looking
>at the road because of debris seen earlier, and never saw the
>"camoflaged" rock. And I was looking at the spot where the rock was.)
>See it at last minute. Try to avoid it. Don't.
>Large enough rock to cause an endo.
>Landed on the side of my head (top right skull portion) and right
>shoulder.
>Slid, rubbing the shirt and much skin off my shoulder.
>The slide also wore away the plastic on the helmet and much of the
>foam.
>With what scenarios "sans helmet" do I not come up with severe road
>rash on my scalp and side of my face?

This one: you are not wearing a helmet so you ride more cautiously and
miss the rock, or crash much slower.

Actually it is quite possible that any decent hat would prevent
cranial road-rash (a fact not so much overlooked as walked by
whistling and looking the other way in the helmet studies).

The most consistent conclusion from helmet studies is that helmeted
and unhelmeted riders ride differently.

Well done for thinking though :-) The key point is this: prospective
studies measure the probability of any injury given crash; population
studies measure the probability of serious injury given ride.
Population studies consistently show no benefit. So the likely
explanation is: helmets prevent many trivial injuries, and cause as
many serious ones as they save.

Oh, and the largest ever prospective study, covering eight million
crashes in the USA over a 15 year period, found that helmeted cyclists
were more likely to die.

It is nothing if not confusing.

Check out http://www.cycle-helmets.com/ and
http://www.cyclehelmets.org to be confused even more :-)

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

Tony Raven

Roberta Hatch wrote:
>
> I'd like a pointer to that paper. I find it hard to believe that
> anyone would claim that helmets help prevent knee injuries.
>

A recent paper - Cook and Sheik - proudly announced a 60% reduction in
head injuries from helmet wearing. Until that is someone pointed out
(and the authors agreed) that they had made a simple mathematica mistake
and in fact their evidence indicated that every helmet worn prevented a
head injury in two people!

Tony

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:39:28 +0000 (UTC), bhatch@luhar.net (Roberta
Hatch) wrote in message <codd20$2t4$1@blue.rahul.net>:

>>Er, not quite. There is good evidence that rigid chin bars exacerbate
>>neck injuries.
> Really?! Care to provide that evidence? Care to provide a
>scientific study that refutes Hurt?

Interesting. You have prompted me to find out more: I was told this
by a usually reliable source, who did post citations, but looking into
it just now I see there is "some dispute" about that [read: lots of
people saying "Oh no it doesn't" ;-)]. So I will follow the usual
model and read the sources.

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

Jon Senior

Roberta Hatch bhatch@luhar.net opined the following...
> Your graphs do not prove anything about helmet safety. I sugesst
> you read and learn from those research papers I gave you earlier.

So. There are two graphs showing a timeline of head injuries to cyclists
over a period. At some point in that period, the proportion of cyclists
wearing helmets was doubled. Since "A helemt [sic] will help prevent
serious injury to the head whenever it comes between a head and an
object that it shouldn't.", we can expect there to be an obvious point
at which head injuries to cyclists take a noticeable dive (~50%). If you
do not believe that this would be the case, could you offer an
explanation as to why. If you do believe this to be the case, perhaps
you could point out where on the graphs it lies.

Exactly how much does the real world evidence have to fly in the face of
the "research" [1] papers before you would start to question your
knowledge?

Jon

[1] I have quote-marked "research", as a genuine scientific study would
reasonably be expected to produce results that match real world
observations, and to modify their methodology if that was not the case.