Helmet saved my...

Dan Becker

In article <1q3v1g.ho.ln@vcn.bc.ca>, Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> In article <e3bt1g.im3.ln@vcn.bc.ca>,
> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes:
>

> > the condolescence and recovery of burn victims.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> <embarrassment> Please make that: "convalescence."

Actually, I kind of like it a lot. Nice coinage.

One definition...

Condolescence: What the current Secretary of State becomes when she is
obsoleted at the end of George Bush's final term.

Dan

Marz

On May 30, 12:45 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> ...noggin!

As a self confessed AMHLZ, I'm glad to hear that Bill's on his way to
recovery and that the fall was not any worse that it was and I don't
have a problem with this anecdotal account of how a helmet worked.
This, for me, is what a helmet is for, to save your head from bumps
and scratches. I don't think they can save lives or prevent brain
damage, fractured skulls, etc, but they can prevent superficial
injuries and why I always wear one mtbing.

SMS

bigjimpack@gmail.com wrote:
> H*lm*t saved your life - pray to the helmet gods. Remember your head
> hit the ground hard enough to crack styrofoam-- that indicates you
> were saved from death or coma.

You can learn about how HIPS works at
"http://www.perg.bham.ac.uk/pdf/IRCOBI03.pdf"

Of course you really already know why High Impact Polystyrene Foam is
used in a wide variety of single impact applications, from car bumpers
to packaging material, to helmets, child car seats, instrument panels, etc.

Calling helmets a "foam hat" in the belief that such a description
somehow will cause others to believe that HIPS is not an effective
impact absorbing material is the height of ignorance.

Bill Sornson

Marz wrote:
> On May 30, 12:45 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> ...noggin!
>
> As a self confessed AMHLZ, I'm glad to hear that Bill's on his way to
> recovery and that the fall was not any worse that it was and I don't
> have a problem with this anecdotal account of how a helmet worked.
> This, for me, is what a helmet is for, to save your head from bumps
> and scratches. I don't think they can save lives or prevent brain
> damage, fractured skulls, etc, but they can prevent superficial
> injuries and why I always wear one mtbing.

My whole "Subject:" title was a takeoff on those "helmet saved my life"
stories. HOWEVER, in this case I'm certain that my lid prevented more than
mere "bumps and scratches". Judging by the huge main crack and numerous
inner-core ones, it's clear that my head hit the pavement pretty darned
forcefully. It's not inconceivable that my skull would have been fractured
or I'd have been knocked unconcious, or at the very least lost some scalp
and even ear pieces.

I've hit my head seemingly harder while mountain biking more than once, and
the helmet(s) showed no damage whatsoever. That this time its core
completely fractured and outer shell buckled tells me that this impact was
mmuch more than "superficial".

The AHZs can believe whatever they choose. I'll go by what I see and know.

Bill S.

Bill Sornson

SMS wrote:
> bigjimpack@gmail.com wrote:
>> H*lm*t saved your life - pray to the helmet gods. Remember your head
>> hit the ground hard enough to crack styrofoam-- that indicates you
>> were saved from death or coma.
>
> You can learn about how HIPS works at
> "http://www.perg.bham.ac.uk/pdf/IRCOBI03.pdf"
>
> Of course you really already know why High Impact Polystyrene Foam is
> used in a wide variety of single impact applications, from car bumpers
> to packaging material, to helmets, child car seats, instrument
> panels, etc.
> Calling helmets a "foam hat" in the belief that such a description
> somehow will cause others to believe that HIPS is not an effective
> impact absorbing material is the height of ignorance.

Never mind, of course, that Little Jimmy Buttpacker {tm} is lying about what
I said. I never claimed it saved my life.

The first resort of a zealot is to demonize/distort the other side's
viewpoint. What better example?

Bill S.

SMS

Bill Sornson wrote:
> SMS wrote:

<snip>

>> Calling helmets a "foam hat" in the belief that such a description
>> somehow will cause others to believe that HIPS is not an effective
>> impact absorbing material is the height of ignorance.
>
> Never mind, of course, that Little Jimmy Buttpacker {tm} is lying about what
> I said. I never claimed it saved my life.
>
> The first resort of a zealot is to demonize/distort the other side's
> viewpoint. What better example?

I expect that I'm not the only person that actually finds it useful to
see posts with the derisive "foam hat" schtick. It simply confirms that
the poster knows not of what he (or she) speaks, which can be useful in
judging the quality of their posts for other subjects as well. Ditto for
the posts where the AHZ inquires as to why driving helmets, walking
helmets, etc., are not being promoted by physicians and other public
safety agencies. They can't come up with any coherent arguments, so they
resort to, as Ozark concisely stated, "tangential commentary,
logical fallacy, and outright falsehood."

Similar to endorsements for candidates for public office, the quality of
the candidate, or lack there-of, is usually indicated by the
endorsements they receive. For local offices and ballot measures, I have
a list of organizations and people that are key indicators to not vote
for a particular candidate or measure.

landotter

On Jun 2, 11:32*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > SMS wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Calling helmets a "foam hat" in the belief that such a description
> >> somehow will cause others to believe that HIPS is not an effective
> >> impact absorbing material is the height of ignorance.
>
> > Never mind, of course, that Little Jimmy Buttpacker {tm} is lying about what
> > I said. *I never claimed it saved my life.
>
> > The first resort of a zealot is to demonize/distort the other side's
> > viewpoint. *What better example?
>
> I expect that I'm not the only person that actually finds it useful to
> see posts with the derisive "foam hat" schtick. It simply confirms that
> the poster knows not of what he (or she) speaks, which can be useful in
> judging the quality of their posts for other subjects as well. Ditto for
> the posts where the AHZ inquires as to why driving helmets, walking
> helmets, etc., are not being promoted by physicians and other public
> safety agencies. They can't come up with any coherent arguments, so they
> resort to, as Ozark concisely stated, "tangential commentary,
> logical fallacy, and outright falsehood."

Bathing is as dangerous as cycling. Yes, we've brought this up before.
My grandad fell and bled to death in the bath two years ago. Shit
happens folks. Cycling still isn't statistically dangerous, neither am
I pushing for legislation to cover bathrooms with polystyrene though
my grandad's fall was tragic--it was an accident. Yes, he had safety
rails installed, much like some of us try to ride safely every day.
Sometimes shit just happens.

People die every day of a lot of horrible reasons--and you folks have
this luxury of moaning about whether or not to wear a bike helmet that
statistically probably will do very very very little to extend your
life. It's quite silly. Go donate $100 to Feed the Children or
something and live fifteen minutes less.

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 2, 12:32 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> I expect that I'm not the only person that actually finds it useful to
> see posts with the derisive "foam hat" schtick. It simply confirms that
> the poster knows not of what he (or she) speaks, which can be useful in
> judging the quality of their posts for other subjects as well. Ditto for
> the posts where the AHZ inquires as to why driving helmets, walking
> helmets, etc., are not being promoted by physicians and other public
> safety agencies. They can't come up with any coherent arguments, so they
> resort to, as Ozark concisely stated, "tangential commentary,
> logical fallacy, and outright falsehood."

Actually, neither "SMS," "Ozark" nor Bill Sornson are willing to
discuss any real facts regarding bike helmets. The latter two
characters just dish out juvenile mockery with no logical content
(although BS's recent crash seems to have awakened his missionary
spriit). Meanwhile, "SMS" repeatedly posts grand proclamations that
any argument he can't answer is inherently invalid.

I invite SMS to explain clearly why helmets should be so strongly
recommended, or even mandated, for an activity that generates fewer
than 1% of the head injury fatalities in the US; and why they should
_not_ be recommended for the activity that generates roughly 50% of
those fatalities. IOW, be serious: Why bicyclists, why _not_
motorists?

I invite SMS to explain clearly why helmets should be recommended for
an activity that causes 0.19 head injury deaths per million hours, but
not one that causes 0.34 head injury deaths per million hours. IOW,
be serious: why bicyclists, why _not_ pedestrians?

I also invite SMS to explain his frequent claim that mandating helmets
does not reduce bicycling. I've listed citations or links to roughly
12 different studies showing that they definitely do, yet SMS says "no
studies show this." Be serious: Why haven't you read the studies?

In fact, I invite SMS to _any_ serious, factual discussion on this
subject. My hopes are slim, though.

- Frank Krygowski

dgk

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:17:45 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 2, 12:32 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I expect that I'm not the only person that actually finds it useful to
>> see posts with the derisive "foam hat" schtick. It simply confirms that
>> the poster knows not of what he (or she) speaks, which can be useful in
>> judging the quality of their posts for other subjects as well. Ditto for
>> the posts where the AHZ inquires as to why driving helmets, walking
>> helmets, etc., are not being promoted by physicians and other public
>> safety agencies. They can't come up with any coherent arguments, so they
>> resort to, as Ozark concisely stated, "tangential commentary,
>> logical fallacy, and outright falsehood."
>
>Actually, neither "SMS," "Ozark" nor Bill Sornson are willing to
>discuss any real facts regarding bike helmets. The latter two
>characters just dish out juvenile mockery with no logical content
>(although BS's recent crash seems to have awakened his missionary
>spriit). Meanwhile, "SMS" repeatedly posts grand proclamations that
>any argument he can't answer is inherently invalid.
>
>I invite SMS to explain clearly why helmets should be so strongly
>recommended, or even mandated, for an activity that generates fewer
>than 1% of the head injury fatalities in the US; and why they should
>_not_ be recommended for the activity that generates roughly 50% of
>those fatalities. IOW, be serious: Why bicyclists, why _not_
>motorists?
>
>I invite SMS to explain clearly why helmets should be recommended for
>an activity that causes 0.19 head injury deaths per million hours, but
>not one that causes 0.34 head injury deaths per million hours. IOW,
>be serious: why bicyclists, why _not_ pedestrians?
>
>I also invite SMS to explain his frequent claim that mandating helmets
>does not reduce bicycling. I've listed citations or links to roughly
>12 different studies showing that they definitely do, yet SMS says "no
>studies show this." Be serious: Why haven't you read the studies?
>
>In fact, I invite SMS to _any_ serious, factual discussion on this
>subject. My hopes are slim, though.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

I don't agree with Frank on most of this and I do wear a helmet. But I
agree that having to wear helmets does discourage people from riding
bikes. It makes it seem more dangerous than it is, and, incredibly,
people don't want to have to deal with helmet hair.

I happen to look good with helmet hair so it's a non-issue for me.

SMS

dgk wrote:

> I don't agree with Frank on most of this and I do wear a helmet. But I
> agree that having to wear helmets does discourage people from riding
> bikes. It makes it seem more dangerous than it is, and, incredibly,
> people don't want to have to deal with helmet hair.

The real question is whether a potential cyclist will be discouraged
from riding a bicycle because he sees others wearing helmets and assumes
that bicycling is inherently dangerous.

Do people avoid driving cars because they see all the safety equipment
added to a car, i.e. crumple zones, impact absorbing bumpers, seat
belts, shoulder belts, and air bags all over the car (head, side,
front)? Of course not. Do they believe that all that safety equipment is
going to save them in a really horrific crash? Of course not. Do they
forbid their kids from playing softball or baseball because the kid must
wear a batting helmet to protect their head in the unlikely event of a
wild high pitch? Of course not.

Cyclists wear helmets because they know that in the unlikely event of a
head-impact crash they'll fare better with a helmet than without one,
and they understand that such crashes can be beyond their control no
matter how careful they are.

In reality, the bicycle helmet often encourages bicycling among many
people because they mistakenly believe that wearing a helmet makes them
invulnerable.

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 3, 8:33 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> I don't agree with Frank on most of this and I do wear a helmet. But I
> agree that having to wear helmets does discourage people from riding
> bikes. It makes it seem more dangerous than it is, and, incredibly,
> people don't want to have to deal with helmet hair.

It may be worth repeating, having people wear helmets (that is,
enforcing helmet laws) has _definitely_ discouraged people from
riding. This has shown up as large and rapid drops in cycling
occurring precisely when helmet laws have been passed; and when laws
have continued to be enforced, cycling has continued to remain low.
Finally, in at least one jurisdiction, telephone surveys confirmed the
cause-and-effect relationship. See http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/campaigns/velo.htm,
for instance.

If helmets are not mandated, but are merely heavily promoted, would
the effect still be present? The evidence isn't as strong, but let's
be realistic. If newspaper articles, magazine stories, "safety"
flyers, Safe Kids moms, internet sites and even bike shop salespeople
say "You could get killed by riding a bike!" do you not think that
will dissuade some people from riding? Do you not think that will
cause some mommies to say "I'm not going to let my little darling risk
his life"?

If helmet promotion were done realistically - by calling it "scratch
and bump protection" (which is all it really is, by test and by
design), I think we'd see much more cycling. If helmet promotion
didn't falsely associate ordinary cycling with brain death, many more
people would ride.

As it is, the helmet manufacturers are doing wonderfully. And fewer
and fewer kids are riding.

(Last week I saw five teenagers riding bikes up our residential
street. That scene would have been absolutely normal 30 years ago.
But it's the first time I've seen it since at least 1990.)

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 3, 8:33 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:17:45 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>
>
> >I invite SMS to explain clearly why helmets should be so strongly
> >recommended, or even mandated, for an activity that generates fewer
> >than 1% of the head injury fatalities in the US; and why they should
> >_not_ be recommended for the activity that generates roughly 50% of
> >those fatalities. IOW, be serious: Why bicyclists, why _not_
> >motorists?
>
> >I invite SMS to explain clearly why helmets should be recommended for
> >an activity that causes 0.19 head injury deaths per million hours, but
> >not one that causes 0.34 head injury deaths per million hours. IOW,
> >be serious: why bicyclists, why _not_ pedestrians?
>
> >I also invite SMS to explain his frequent claim that mandating helmets
> >does not reduce bicycling. I've listed citations or links to roughly
> >12 different studies showing that they definitely do, yet SMS says "no
> >studies show this." Be serious: Why haven't you read the studies?
>
> >In fact, I invite SMS to _any_ serious, factual discussion on this
> >subject. My hopes are slim, though.
>
> >- Frank Krygowski
>
> I don't agree with Frank on most of this and I do wear a helmet.

I'm separating my replies, to deal with two topics.

"dgk" says he doesn't agree with me on most of this. I'm curious,
"dgk," about what factual points you disagree with.

IOW, do you doubt that bicycling causes fewer than 1% of the head
injury deaths in the US? Do you doubt that motor vehicle occupants
are about half those fatalities? Or that simple falls around the home
are about 40%?

Do you have different numbers than I do on the number of head injury
fatalities per hour for cyclists and for pedestrians? How about for
motorists? Recall, my numbers show that cycling is NOT very dangerous
per hour exposure.

Do you have evidence that increasing helmet use has actually
benefitted cyclists by preventing significant numbers of serious head
injuries? Remember, my data shows that serious head injuries do not
decline, per remaining rider - only that fewer people ride.

I've repeatedly given citations for my statements. I can give them
again, if you like.

Admittedly, most people never think about these things in detail. The
typical helmet wearing cyclist never reads much beyond the false
propaganda saying "You could get killed!!!" and "85% benefit!!!"

Have you read more, and found me to be wrong? Or are you just buying
the propaganda without examining it?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 3, 10:38 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> The real question is whether a potential cyclist will be discouraged
> from riding a bicycle because he sees others wearing helmets and assumes
> that bicycling is inherently dangerous.
>
> Do people avoid driving cars because they see all the safety equipment
> added to a car, i.e. crumple zones, impact absorbing bumpers, seat
> belts, shoulder belts, and air bags all over the car (head, side,
> front)? Of course not. Do they believe that all that safety equipment is
> going to save them in a really horrific crash? Of course not. Do they
> forbid their kids from playing softball or baseball because the kid must
> wear a batting helmet to protect their head in the unlikely event of a
> wild high pitch? Of course not.

The difference is this: Car manufacturers and safety advocates do not
trumpet the fact that "You could be killed by driving! You could end
up a vegetable!" They do not say "40,000 Americans die in their cars
each year, most due to head injury!" They do not say "Riding in motor
vehicles causes the greatest number of head injury fatalities in
America year after year! Car crash victims are one of the biggest
sources of organ donations!"

Kids sports associations don't say "Playing sports causes more visits
to hospital emergency rooms per year than any other activity." They
don't say "Make your kid wear water wings, because the fatality rate
for swimming is four times as high as bicycling."

IOW, other activities are not saddled with the terrorizing that's used
to promote bike helmets. Only bicyclists shoot themselves in the foot
with the "DANGER! DANGER!!" warnings.

Furthermore, even if you did convince Americans that cars were as
dangerous as bicycles, the typical American wouldn't dream of reducing
their car use. They see car use as absolutely essential.

Bicycling is not seen as being essential. When you scare a young
mommy into thinking her darling will likely die without a foam hat,
it's easier for Mommy to say "Oh Honey, why do you want to ride to
Joey's house? Why don't you just play with your toys? Maybe we'll
let you ride your bike tomorrow, when we drive you to the nice safe
bike path."

> Cyclists wear helmets because they know that in the unlikely event of a
> head-impact crash they'll fare better with a helmet than without one,
> and they understand that such crashes can be beyond their control no
> matter how careful they are.
>
> In reality, the bicycle helmet often encourages bicycling among many
> people because they mistakenly believe that wearing a helmet makes them
> invulnerable.

:-) Hah! Good one!

I know it's useless to ask you to ever back up your wild speculations,
but let me try:

Please post your reference showing that bicycle helmets encourage
cycling. A nice example would be an increase in cycling immediately
after a mandatory helmet law is passed. Got a citation?

- Frank Krygowski

SMS

Bill Sornson wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> bigjimpack@gmail.com wrote:
>>> H*lm*t saved your life - pray to the helmet gods. Remember your head
>>> hit the ground hard enough to crack styrofoam-- that indicates you
>>> were saved from death or coma.
>> You can learn about how HIPS works at
>> "http://www.perg.bham.ac.uk/pdf/IRCOBI03.pdf"
>>
>> Of course you really already know why High Impact Polystyrene Foam is
>> used in a wide variety of single impact applications, from car bumpers
>> to packaging material, to helmets, child car seats, instrument
>> panels, etc.
>> Calling helmets a "foam hat" in the belief that such a description
>> somehow will cause others to believe that HIPS is not an effective
>> impact absorbing material is the height of ignorance.
>
> Never mind, of course, that Little Jimmy Buttpacker {tm} is lying about what
> I said. I never claimed it saved my life.
>
> The first resort of a zealot is to demonize/distort the other side's
> viewpoint. What better example?

In their world perhaps there is nothing between dead and not-dead.

It remind me of what the old Cingular in the western region used to tell
customers that called to cancel service because of coverage issues.
'Well you know that no carrier has 100% coverage.' They were trying to
make the case that since the other carriers didn't have 100% coverage
that all carriers were equal in providing coverage of less than 100%.
Nice try.

In terms of helmets, it's true that in a horrific crash with a vehicle,
the cyclist will be equally dead with or without a helmet. But there's a
lot of cases where head injuries will be greatly reduced or eliminated
entirely by virtue of a helmet. All the statistics on crash data bear
out this fact.

Of course the usual response to actual crash data is to immediately
change the subject to whole population studies with the bogus claim that
deaths and injuries don't change much after the implementation of a
helmet law, so this proves that helmets don't offer any protection.

When that doesn't work, it's time to bring up driving helmets and
walking helmets, claim that people will die of heart attacks because
they will gain weight after deciding not to ride a bicycle because they
have to wear a helmet. "Tangential commentary, logical fallacy, and
outright falsehood," is what Ozark called all this, and it's the most
accurate and concise description I've seen to describe the postings of
the AHZ and what's at cyclehelmets.org.