tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post5792093565463090613..comments2024-03-21T03:15:06.288-04:00Comments on Cozy Beehive: Statisculation & Sporting Prejudice In Anti-Helmet PropagandaRon Georgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-1641379374393525952009-04-12T12:40:00.000-04:002009-04-12T12:40:00.000-04:00Thanks everyone for participating.Thanks everyone for participating.Ron Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-83674281382461133382009-04-12T12:37:00.000-04:002009-04-12T12:37:00.000-04:00Brad, this certainly isn't about winning or losing...Brad, this certainly isn't about winning or losing, because as long as we sit here and argue, there are people out there who're dying every year from head injuries. Just look up the statistics from the FARS <B>(http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedalcyclists.aspx)</B><BR/><BR/>Further, you accused me of spreading the fear that bicycling is inherently dangerous and has risks associated with it. But that wasn't just me saying it. For instance, the CPSC said it once , and estimated ER treatments was highest for cycling than any other sport or recreation in 2004. <B> http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/cpsr_nws40.pdf </B><BR/><BR/>You also labeled the paper "Bicycle Related Injuries Among Children And Adolescents In The United States" authored by professionals from the Nationwide Children's Hospital Research Institute as "shoddy". That was really interesting, since you provided zero facts and proof for this bold claim that the paper was just "bogus". If 16+ years of research is bogus, you definitely need to show it, which you didn't.<BR/>That shows lack of professionalism right there. Infact, you're ready to ignore any evidence that runs counter to your beliefs.<BR/><BR/>What that paper by the Nationwide Children's Hospital run along the same lines of whats being shown by various other medical groups in the U.S...that more and more children are being treated in ER for head injuries in bicycling. You defy logic when you oppose research papers like this, yet you ridicule me for blaspheming against Robinson's paper. Not good, Brad.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, from the beginning, I noted you as being a vocal supporter of Robinson's research paper...which was fine since it was arguing against helmet laws and I am against forcing people to wear helmets. But it started getting cloudier from there. I thought you respect things like "personal freedom" for people to decide YES or NO for helmets, I guess you defied your own principles by persuading others reading this that helmets are completely useless, and this you concluded not from any personal experience, but by sitting in your armchair somewhere studying some paper from here and there... I guess for some, it takes an experience or an incident to put perspective into things. You have lost perspective. For you, death is simply a number on paper, and you like to play some weird board game with it.<BR/><BR/>Believing helmets don't protect you is one thing, and persuading others to drop it is another. You do both. You are your own enemy, and you defy logic. I and others would like to advice you not to run any more safety "campaigns" for children. You're in some ways a danger to yourself and to children.Ron Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-46861326996052191352009-04-12T10:49:00.000-04:002009-04-12T10:49:00.000-04:00I'd imagine they'd do just as well as they had for...I'd imagine they'd do just as well as they had for all those years they didn't have them.<BR/><BR/>I think it's a fine thing Ron is giving up because as I have seen, there's no disuading him from his opinion.<BR/><BR/>That's as it will be, there are always going to be disagreements but after the issue has been kicked around for over 20 years one would think that if there was a definitive benefit to wearing helmets while riding bicycles, most people would wear them. That there are still only a minority of people who choose to wear helmets speaks volumes about what people think of themBradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-54329690382329430542009-04-12T07:57:00.000-04:002009-04-12T07:57:00.000-04:00Dr. D.L : Arguing that we should coerce cyclists i...<B>Dr. D.L : Arguing that we should coerce cyclists into either wearing helmets or finding alternative means of transport (with the result you have seen in the injury statistics) seems very strange behaviour for anyone who cares about cycling.</B><BR/><BR/>As far as I remember, I went through every single comment here and no one supports forcing anyone to wear helmets. We're calling for common sense. I guess we can safely end this discussion, since you can't compromise with common sense safety practices and I can't compromise with your regretful choices of action. Its interesting that you say kids should decide for themselves whether helmets are appropriate for them or not. Rather than having an experienced person advising them to do, I guess it will take a young prodigy to make that decision. Btw, did you see any of the videos posted by C. Taylor? Do take a look, as sometimes one needs humanity more than a debilitating analytic brain.<BR/><BR/>Hope you get well and get back on the bike. I'm watching the Paris-Roubaix now. Can't imagine what those guys would do without helmets. :)Ron Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-5564750769167615372009-04-12T03:40:00.000-04:002009-04-12T03:40:00.000-04:00Ron said: “It would be really interesting to inter...Ron said: “It would be really interesting to interview Dr. Robinson and her friends to see if they buy cars with seatbelts and airbags at all, or do they buy one and still complain about their effectiveness, digging into spurious statistics when they could all shut their mouth and be practical and drive safely and DO WHAT'S RIGHT.”<BR/><BR/>The last car I bought was in Jan 1990. It has seatbelts (which I wear whenever I use it) but only much more expensive (and fuel inefficient models) had airbags at the time.<BR/><BR/>I tried wearing my bike helmet in the car, in view of the research that <I>“The total benefits associated with headwear in the form of a soft shell bicycle helmet were estimated to be … <B>$476 per car equipped with airbags</B> ($626 for cars without airbags)</I> – see http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb160.html<BR/><BR/>However, the helmet wasn’t particularly comfortable, so in view of the fact that I spend much more time on the bike than in the car, I don’t bother. I’ve seen the crash tests showing how often the heads of seatbelted dummies hit the windscreen, at forces severe enough to cause brain damage though moderate enough (thanks to the seatbelt) for the helmet to help. Even though it may be more sensible to wear a helmet in the car than on the bike, I spend a lot more time on the bike than in the car, so not wearing one in the car doesn't seem like a significant risk.<BR/><BR/>But, as I’ve said, I spend a lot more time cycling, so reduced safety in numbers because helmet laws discourage cycling is important to me.<BR/><BR/>There were at least 3 surveys where the equivalent of 42%, 52% and 64% of people who cycled <B>actually said they had either given up or cycled less because of the helmet laws</B>. Either all these people were telling lies, or helmet laws really do discourage people from cycling.<BR/><BR/>Our Council Bicycle Committee is trying to encourage cycling, so I continually hear about people who still tell me they don’t cycle because of helmet laws. <BR/><BR/>It’s silly to say that people who oppose helmet laws oppose helmets, or claim as Bike_boy does that “Helmet designs and their testing standards have considerably improved from the days of yore, in which Dr. Robinson and her recalcitrant "no-helmet" peers seem to have deeply planted their feet in.”<BR/><BR/>The change in helmet performance in the UK was described by Brian Walker, from helmet testing lab Head Protection Evaluations: <I>“During the early 1990s there were helmets available in the UK for less than £10, which nevertheless offered extremely good performance. The helmets were manufactured to the Snell B-90S standard, were fashionably stylish, were not heavier than the norm, were well ventilated, and had a comfort factor on a par with other makes. None of these helmets is available today. Cycle helmets sold in the UK today generally offer a lower level of protection than those sold in the early 1990s.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Despite all helmets sold here supposedly satisfying Australian standards, my impression is that our trends were along the same lines. I know that some of the older helmets were safer than the ones currently on sale. <BR/><BR/>When the Australian standard was up for review in 2008, I sent in a submission arguing for a sliding impact test (now common for motorbike helmets) to reduce the risk of rotational injury and a ‘star’ rating to show which helmets are best at attenuating accelerations. New designs such as the conehead obviously provide far superior impact protection for no extra weight than the models currently on sale, and the Phillips helmet is much more likely to prevent brain damage from rotational injuries. A star rating for helmets would allow consumers to be informed about the superior protection of these helmets, which might be enough to create a market for them, instead of being available only for motorcyclists. <BR/><BR/>Doing the right thing means checking the facts and actually looking at the data. Helmet laws created a unique dataset where, in 5 different jurisdictions at 5 different dates between 1990 and 1994, helmet wearing increased dramatically (average pre-law = 35%; average post-law = 84%) within a few months. Very few argue that they can see a change in the head injury rate corresponding to this massive increase in helmet wearing by many millions of cyclists. Almost equally few argue that cycling became safer – in all cases the injury rate per cyclist appears to be higher than would have been expected without the laws.<BR/><BR/>Apart from the ones that gave up, you are essentially comparing the same group of cyclists under the same conditions, the main difference being that they were mostly unhelmeted pre-law and helmeted post-law. <BR/><BR/>This should provide a more realistic idea of the benefits of helmet wearing than comparing a group of generally safety conscious cyclists who chose to wear helmets with another group that did not - there are usually so many differences between the groups that it’s almost impossible to decide what might be due to helmets and what to the other differences.<BR/><BR/>Safety in Numbers is important. We used to be a cyclist-friendly town so, sadly, census data on cycling to work show a bigger reduction here than elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>After 37 years of cycling almost every day without needing hospital treatment, my luck gave out on November 4 (long after I wrote the paper on safety in numbers) when a vehicle driver came out of a stop sign without looking for cyclists. I was off the bike for 2 months and am still receiving physiotherapy.<BR/><BR/>More cyclists = safer cycling = fewer head injuries per cyclist. Arguing that we should coerce cyclists into either wearing helmets or finding alternative means of transport (with the result you have seen in the injury statistics) seems very strange behaviour for anyone who cares about cycling. <BR/><BR/>Far better to let cyclists (or in the case of children their parents or guardians) weigh up the risks and decide for themselves.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09159002290094374927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-85625329301130450532009-04-12T01:50:00.000-04:002009-04-12T01:50:00.000-04:00Anon @ 5:27pm : Not surprising at all. Actually, n...Anon @ 5:27pm : Not surprising at all. Actually, not only do they NOT favor helmets, a majority of them are also not in favor of the rules of traffic. <BR/><BR/>http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/study-finds-cyclists-disobey-traffic-laws/<BR/><BR/>Not even helmets can protect for plain stupidity.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-78083851786082833732009-04-12T00:46:00.000-04:002009-04-12T00:46:00.000-04:00Lets put aside number crunching and take a look at...Lets put aside number crunching and take a look at some real videos.<BR/><BR/>Here's a <A HREF="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=21f_1234452965" REL="nofollow">video</A> of young man jumping stairs on his bicycle. Head receives a full blown slam on the ground.<BR/><BR/>Another <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4RLVQCuX4" REL="nofollow">video</A> of a biker doing the same thing, only this time the crash looked so much more severe. Head was hit and he seems to be bleeding from there, with what seems to be a slash just above his right eye.<BR/><BR/>Here's a clip showing<A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=filV7pzMmkQ" REL="nofollow">videos</A> of kids and adults falling off bikes. Some are wearing helmets, some aren't but its obvious to see that you don't need to be hit always with a motor vehicle to crash. What may turn out to be a joke or playfulness could turn into something ugly.<BR/><BR/>Here's <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0tMhlhnga0" REL="nofollow">one</A> of a huge track cycling pileup in Melbourne. A good percentage of those involved had their helmeted heads strike the banked floor. Crashes like this are so quick there's very little time to think or respond.<BR/><BR/>Injuries need not always involve the head. <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdEO41nzyVw" REL="nofollow">In this video,</A> this child bicyclist got a handlebar brake lodged into his stomach.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c55_1234680736" REL="nofollow">Here's</A> a Chinese bicyclist horribly injured in an accident. No helmet. Face sideways against the road.<BR/><BR/>Here's a <A HREF="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=703_1174970762" REL="nofollow">video</A> of a cyclist getting hit by a motor vehicle right in front of an officer. He is launched in the air, lands on the road in front of the car and slides a few feet before coming to rest.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes cyclists are a danger to themselves.<A HREF="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=03e10613d2" REL="nofollow">This non-helmeted</A> female cyclist puts her foot into the spokes of her front wheel on her jolly ride and gets launched off the front end of the bike, landing directly on her face.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7meUsSgSs1E" REL="nofollow">Here's a helmeted</A> mountain biker launching off a ramp and landing in a terrible way. He's breathing hard but later manages to laugh it off. Wonder if he'd done the same without the helmet. :)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Here's <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yghjaHwvEa8" REL="nofollow">one</A> where a tiny child wearing a helmet misjudges the speed during a right turn and crashes his head directly into a wall around his house. The mom is laughing and the kid apparently is laughing after the incident. Its plain obvious to see that the helmet came in the way of a more serious injury to the child.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Finally, here's <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb0f16IoNfk" REL="nofollow">another child cyclist</A> without a helmet whose trike meets the curb bump and throws her off the bike, planting her head and face into the ground.<BR/><BR/>More videos such as these are out there on the internet, and sadly, they make laughter and entertainment for people. Such is the vile state of our internet age.<BR/><BR/>Kids learning to ride bikes can fall. Laughter can turn to tears even if that crash may look like a mere 'bump to the head'. Men and women using their bikes to commute and race can meet with an accident at any time. And bicycling is a wonderful and fun sport and transportation medium. Put all these facts together and you know you have to make a compromise somewhere if you have to enjoy bicycling for the rest of your life. If that means wearing a "lid" on your head, so be it. That may end up being a very important decision you make. It may even not. What was the probability that the decision you took was a good one? You'll soon find out :)<BR/><BR/>It seems like a reverse survivor bias takes prominence among the those who oppose helmets. But hardly anyone notices your typical mundane bicycling accidents involving a child riding around the house or park where a helmet came in the way and protected against the chances of more serious injury.C. Taylor, Calgarynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-61855949811928945672009-04-11T23:27:00.000-04:002009-04-11T23:27:00.000-04:00Byron : What is YOUR point of you. We want to hear...Byron : What is YOUR point of you. We want to hear it. You haven't even told us which side you're picking and why. :)<BR/><BR/>You're quick to fire off attacks on how others should show 'humility' and consume time henpecking for 'contradictory ignorance' and 'baseless arrogance'. But I'd say put aside the moral science lessons for now and bring something to the table. As far as this discussion is concerned, if there's anything baseless, its your comments so far.Ron Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-7731706819394647952009-04-11T23:11:00.000-04:002009-04-11T23:11:00.000-04:00To All : Please stick to the topic and avoid beati...To All : Please stick to the topic and avoid beating about the bush. Any further use of language or attacking anyone personally, whether that be proponents or opponents of helmets will be deleted. We're having lots of one and two sentence comments here that are nothing but devoid of quality argument.Ron Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-4680999730809539122009-04-11T22:25:00.000-04:002009-04-11T22:25:00.000-04:00an expected response. Those who are arrogant rarel...an expected response. Those who are arrogant rarely engage in self reflection. They're so wrapped up in themselves that they can't understand a different point of view.<BR/><BR/>you should try a little humility. It's a wonderful quality.Byronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-77644847467176477092009-04-11T20:56:00.000-04:002009-04-11T20:56:00.000-04:00Byron :Yes, believing that helmets reduce risk of ...Byron :<BR/><BR/>Yes, believing that helmets reduce risk of injury is arrogance. Absolutely!<BR/><BR/>Hey if that is arrogance, and if 'finding out the hard way' means one is being able to 'keep his brain', his sense of self, his responsibilities towards his job and family, all the while not burdening society to take care of folks with catastrophic head injuries, anyone should welcome that arrogance any day!<BR/><BR/>Excluding any unwanted discussions on the topic of helmet laws...I hope kids, if not the more rebellious of adults, learn the right things about bicycling safety and are taught about protective bicycling equipment, what they do, why they are important, whats in the market today and how thay must be worn to take "full advantage" of their protection. I don't think these young minds that are the pillars of tomorrow deserve the delusional garbage that "helmets are useless". Losing them is a far worser cost for a family, and for a society. Put that into perspective.Ron Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-28705141991308263072009-04-11T19:42:00.000-04:002009-04-11T19:42:00.000-04:00wow. after reading through this, I find the basele...wow. after reading through this, I find the baseless arrogance outstanding. <BR/><BR/>one day Ron (and others) you'll learn, but I hope it's not the hard way. Until then, try to be more humble and try not to display your contradictory ignorance to openlyByronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-17618030036206292322009-04-11T18:45:00.000-04:002009-04-11T18:45:00.000-04:00Dr. Robinson and others : Please keep up with the ...Dr. Robinson and others : Please keep up with the trends in helmet design. For 2009 atleast, you can start your study here.... <B>http://www.bhsi.org/helmet09.htm </B><BR/><BR/>Good luck.Ron Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-7346795210114388072009-04-11T18:26:00.000-04:002009-04-11T18:26:00.000-04:00BB : Thanks for the time and effort in commenting....BB : Thanks for the time and effort in commenting. Helmets are far from perfect, so are helmet standards. But like you said, its clear that they have a significant effect on reducing fatal blows and tissue injuries in the brain. Heck, nothing is perfect out there. People complain about anything and everything. Helmets, seatbelts, airbags .. the list is endless.<BR/><BR/>It would be really interesting to interview Dr. Robinson and her friends to see if they buy cars with seatbelts and airbags at all, or do they buy one and still complain about their effectiveness, digging into spurious statistics when they could all shut their mouth and be practical and drive safely and DO WHAT'S RIGHT.<BR/><BR/>It is pretty clear to me that people fight "laws" that could be instrumental in spreading safer practices not because they know anything about helmets, more so because their ego and "personal freedom" gets invaded. Researchers will steadfastly support any of their own number crunching ofcourse...because that's what they were paid to do. Its interesting what they'd all think and how they experiences would change had any of them met with a real bicycle crash without a helmet. I doubt they would be here to tell the story...Ron Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-89310545727840031922009-04-11T17:59:00.000-04:002009-04-11T17:59:00.000-04:00The bullshit that's being purported by folks in su...The bullshit that's being purported by folks in support of Dr. Robinson's paper and who are against helmets is frustrating and plain ridiculous. <BR/><BR/>I didn't have time to go through all 90 comments but i picked up on bunch of them who mouthed out the same unintelligent thing over and over again, one among them being the question 'why do car drivers don't wear helmets, if bicylists have to ?' ... C'mon people, put things into perspective here. This is ridiculous.<BR/><BR/>A car has four wheels, seatbelts, airbags, a crumple zone and so much more momentum. Compare this to a two wheeled bicycle weighing some 20 pounds with skinnny tires and there's significantly lesser room for error to prevent a "fall". NASCAR and other auto racers deliberately put themselves in danger, because afterall, racing is all about adrenaline, speed and big money. These people recognize the need for safety because the worst injuries result in death. They wear helmets and have seatbelts, including 5 point restraining systems. Stock cars used in racing are not built safety wise like the automobiles we use to transport ourselves daily. When it comes to performance and big money, weight matters and advertising sponsors make the decisions. Lately, there have been numerous basal skull fractures received by drivers like Dale Earnhardt and Adam Petty. Doctors have determined that a helmet harness is a good protective measure to stop some of these injuries. A basal skull fracture can result fro a severe whipping forward motion and/or a sudden abrupt stop - as in Dale Earnhardt's case. A basal skull fracture almost always results in immediate death.<BR/><BR/>Asking the much more sane and normal motorists to wear helmets is as ridiculous as asking bicyclists to wear parachutes.<BR/><BR/>Most of the comments here also surround the supposed inability of a helmet to stop impact and its ability to prevent injuriy. This comes out of a misunderstanding of what a helmet does.<BR/><BR/>Without a helmet, hitting your head can transmit a thousand or more g's of acceleration to your brain in about two thousandths of a second as you come to a violent, very sudden stop on the hard, completely unyielding pavement. With a helmet between you and the pavement your stop is stretched out for about seven or eight thousandths of a second by the crushing of the helmet foam. That little bit of delay and stretching out of the energy pulse can make the difference between life and death or brain injury. <BR/><BR/>Other concerns from the folks here are that helmets almost always don't protect you against a collision with a motor vehicle. <BR/><BR/>In a report covering bicycling fatalities in NYC from 1995-2005, the NYC department of health in association with the NYPD concluded with the following :<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>This report describes bicyclist fatalities in New York City over a ten-year period, as well as bicyclist serious injuries for an 8-year period. Several key points emerge from the analysis. <B>First, nearly all bicyclist deaths were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.</B> In particular, a high proportion of bicyclist fatalities were due to a crash with a large vehicle, such as a truck or a bus. Second, the vast majority of deaths occurred outside of bicycle lanes and other bicycle facilities. When a fatal bicycle crash with a motor vehicle occurred on a city street with a bicycle lane, the bicyclist was always outside of the lane itself, suggesting that dedicated bicycle paths or lanes may help reduce crashes with a motor vehicle. Third, human factors on the part of both motorists and bicyclists were the most common type of contributing factor for bicyclist deaths. For motor vehicle drivers, inattention was the most frequent cause of involvement in a fatal bicyclist crash. For bicyclists, disregarding traffic signs or signals at intersections<BR/>was demonstrated to be particularly deadly. <B>Fourth, most bicyclists who died had head injuries, and nearly all of the bicyclists killed were not wearing a helmet at the time of the crash.</B> Head injuries may not have been the primary cause of death in all cases, but these findings do highlight the head as being particularly vulnerable to injury and a likely major cause of bicyclist fatalities. <B>While the rate of helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low, it was six times higher than the rate among those bicyclists killed.</B> These data suggest that helmet use is a critically important protection for all bicyclists. Fifth, nearly all bicyclists who died were male. While the majority of bicyclists in NYC may indeed be male, these findings suggest that they<BR/>are at greater risk for having a fatal accident.</I><BR/><BR/>Full report is here : <B>http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf </B><BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm sure researchers like Robinson will choose to conveniently ignore the good amounts of research done that show how helmets reduce the risk of head injury in a crash. This is shown by the bio-mechanical and epidemiological evidence reviewed in this paper (<B>http://www.bhsi.org/henderso.htm</B>). Scientific research has uncovered hard evidence on the benefits of bicycle helmet wearing, quite independent of issues related to the acceptability and effects of legislation. <BR/><BR/>While those studies showing that helmets reduce the risk of injury or death by 85% may be debatable and may even be exaggerated, he most careful, conservative estimates from good studies show that the reduction in risk of head injury to a bicyclist as a result of wearing a helmet is in the order of 45 per cent. In other words, at the very minimum a helmet halves the risk of head injury.<BR/><BR/>Old-style helmets that do not comply with the Australian Standard reduce the risk of head injury by little or nothing. Helmet designs and their testing standards have considerably improved from the days of yore, in which Dr. Robinson and her recalcitrant "no-helmet" peers seem to have deeply planted their feet in. <BR/><BR/>Even today, helmets that are misused and not worn properly can prematurely suffer failure or come off in a crash which could expose your head to serious injury. If you really want to argue that helmets are bad safety wise, investigate first if the helmets were WORN CORRECTLY and not misused in the first place, before shitting on helmets and being bad examples for people who are more safety conscious.<BR/><BR/>It is suffice to say the good news is that these recalcitrant people who are against helmets is quickly becoming a minority. I firmly believe that the vast majority of people who cycle today are concerned about their safety and are indeed wearing helmets, among other things such as learning how to ride safely. This is a big win for safety.<BR/><BR/>This is an excellent topic and I thank Ron for exposing the delusions that some people suffer from concerning helmets.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16268869622833968439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-73115978413696223362009-04-11T17:37:00.000-04:002009-04-11T17:37:00.000-04:00'cmon Phil. Use your noggin. How many people in NY...'cmon Phil. Use your noggin. How many people in NYC wear a helmet? Is it surprising to find out in places where everybody wears helmets, those who die are wearing helmets and in places where they don't, they aren't?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-28744594937173992872009-04-11T15:41:00.000-04:002009-04-11T15:41:00.000-04:00Here's a study linking alcohol use and bicycle dea...Here's a study linking alcohol use and bicycle deaths. <BR/><BR/>http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/study-links-alcohol-and-bike-deaths/<BR/><BR/><BR/>Of the 220 or so plus fatalities in NYC during a 10 year study, only 3% of those who died wore helmets. The rest didn't wear them and head injuries contributed to three quarters of bicycle deaths.<BR/>The NYC Department of Health and Hygiene has advised that the takeaway from this is that helmets save lives. I don't doubt it. Great job on this blog Ron.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-82037356625832207332009-04-10T02:51:00.000-04:002009-04-10T02:51:00.000-04:00I argued: cyclists should decide for themselves wh...I argued: cyclists should decide for themselves whether they, and their family, wish to wear helmets, but be careful not to expect a helmet will save their lives. Cyclists who wouldn’t ride a route without a helmet, probably shouldn’t ride it wearing one. <BR/><BR/>Ron relied: Interesting. All this point, you were arguing about how helmet laws decrease cycling. Now you want to jump into the conclusion that helmets won't save lives. <BR/><BR/>Ron, you have missed the point completely!!! Ever heard of risk compensation? There was a scientific study where children ran an obstacle course with and without a helmet and wrist guards. With them, risk-taking behaviour (falling, tripping and bumping into things) increased by 48-60%.<BR/><BR/>Remember the ski helmet website: <I>“Dr Morrow was of the opinion that of 54 deaths at commercial ski areas in Vermont from 1979/80 to 1997/98, helmets would not have been of any particular value in saving any of the lives lost - as the degree of trauma simply overwhelmed any benefits that the helmet might convey in an impact. To quote Shealy et al again - a team of highly respected ski injury researchers - "On the basis of results to date, there is no clear evidence that helmets have been shown to be an effective means of reducing fatalities in alpine sports". <BR/>It’s a sobering fact that more than half of the people involved in fatal accidents last season at ski areas in the USA were wearing helmets at the time of the incident (Source - NSAA). As Shealy states "[E]ven though the prevalence of helmet utilization is rising by 4 to 5 percent per year in the U.S., there has been no statistically significant observable effect on the incident of fatality."</I><BR/><BR/>The article implies that the proportion of skiers who die wearing helmets is greater than the population wearing rates. The same is true for bicycle helmets. Helmet-law enforcement has dropped off a bit, so wearing rates have fallen to perhaps 60%, compared to about 80% in fatally injured cyclists. <BR/><BR/>If the forces in all 54 ski fatalities were so great that helmets wouldn’t have saved lives, what chance is there if a helmeted cyclist is hit by a fast-moving truck? People who believe that helmets can save their lives seem to be more likely to ride on dangerous roads and so end up dead. <BR/><BR/>Ron: You do not appreciate helmets, the improvements in helmets happening these days, and the improvements in their design, testing and certification process. No doubt that safer roads and safer cycling practices can help reduce fatalities, but by shunning helmets, you aren't a good advocate for safety.<BR/><BR/>Expensive helmets have more ventilation than earlier models, but they are certified to the same standards and aren’t designed to cope with the impact forces in bike/motor vehicle crashes that cause the vast majority of seriously debilitating head injuries to cyclists. <BR/><BR/>The two most promising improvements in helmet design are the Conehead and the Phillips helmet, but they are available only for motorcyclists. The developer of the Conehead was inspired to develop a better helmet because he: <I>“went out with the traffic investigation squad to understand the accidents and to retrieve the helmets. What he discovered was bone fragments, fluid and teeth embedded into the foam but the liners showed little or no evidence of damage.”</I> <BR/><BR/>If you compare a group of helmeted kids who are learning to ride and have minor falls, with a group of non-helmeted ‘street-smart’ kids many of whom are hit by cars or trucks, the first group is bound to have a lower head injury rate than the second – cyclists in bike/motor vehicle crashes have about 5 times the head injury rate of bike only crashes. So the fact that the kids learning to ride were more likely to wear helmets and had a lower head injury rate doesn’t necessarily mean the difference has anything to do with helmet wearing, perhaps just that they wobbled and had a few minor bashes. <BR/><BR/>The statistical models I’ve seen fitted to such data to “prove” that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries have so many holes in them that, according to one numerate fellow cyclist, you could drive a truck through them. “Statisticulation” is not a bad way description.<BR/><BR/>Note also that for more serious crashes, under the logistic regression models fitted by the statisticulators, if 99% of non-helmeted and 96.8% of helmeted cyclists had brain injuries, the odds ratio is 0.31, which virtually everyone who promotes helmets or helmet-laws describes as “helmets prevent 69% brain injuries”. It’s a pity that more people don’t actually look at the data and perhaps even work out that the real difference is 99%-96.8% = 2.2%.<BR/><BR/>I’ve looked at many real-world datasets where helmet wearing increased dramatically when helmet laws were passed (average pre-law = 35%; average post-law = 84%), but I’ve yet to see any convincing evidence of corresponding reductions in head injuries, as percentage of total injuries to cyclists. If anything, head injuries seem to increase relative to the amount of cycling. <BR/><BR/>There’s no magic in looking at data. If helmets were anything like as effective as claimed, why didn’t we see an obvious response in percent head injuries when wearing rates increased from 35% to 84%? If it’s risk compensation, then my advice is perfectly sound – don’t believe that helmet will save your life, otherwise you’ll be tempted to ride on more dangerous roads and so end up dead.<BR/><BR/>The parents of the kid who died of a brain injury were devastated. His helmet didn’t save him, but a couple of no-parking bollards probably would have. It’s much better to ride without a helmet on a safe road than with a helmet on a more dangerous road. I’m sure we’d all be far safer if the police spent their time ticketing speeding and drunk drivers than non-helmeted cyclists.<BR/><BR/>So in summary, helmet wearers (like a good deal of other safety equipment) are better off if they believe that the helmet won’t save lives. Then they won’t be tempted to ride on more dangerous roads, and increase the chances of being hit by a carelessly driven motor vehicle.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09159002290094374927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-16834619728111014792009-04-09T19:48:00.000-04:002009-04-09T19:48:00.000-04:00but you see, I would say I'm only a helmet skeptic...but you see, I would say I'm only a helmet skeptic when someone claims they can provide protection beyond what they're capable of.<BR/><BR/>I wore a helmet for over 20 years, far before it was the popular thing to do. I campaigned for their use and ran instruction courses for children where I would explain why it is they should wear them.<BR/><BR/>The trouble is that too many people are claiming an effectiveness that is far beyond a helmets capacity to provide.<BR/><BR/>This problem becomes even more exaggerated when helmet promoters spread misinformation about the proportion and severity of head injuries cyclists receive.<BR/><BR/>There's nothing at all wrong with wearing a helmet, but spreading misinformation like Ron has here, runs counter to anything resembling the advocacy cycling deserves.Bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-627890087136177282009-04-09T19:20:00.000-04:002009-04-09T19:20:00.000-04:00True, thus he would proably not be able to objecti...True, thus he would proably not be able to objectively judge the qualities of any pro-helmet paper either.<BR/>Which I guess also would apply for myself (prolly also for Brad or for any other sceptic bastard).<BR/>So at least, he could be consistent and strap on a high quality helmet on every car-trip (while remembering the oil-refinery simile).Just a cyclistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-70673724620744677672009-04-09T19:06:00.000-04:002009-04-09T19:06:00.000-04:00... the irony runs deep when Ron complains about S...... the irony runs deep when Ron complains about Statisculation and engages in it. <BR/><BR/>Even in the related blog, Latest Research : Bicycles Second To Automobiles In Child Injuries, he engages in some pretty shoddy research that doesn't distinguish between minor or severe injuries.<BR/><BR/>I know there will be those who will side with Ron, but I think any reasonably intelligent person with a modicom of common sense and maybe a bit of experience can see Ron hasn't backed his opinions up very well and can pass over this blog without missing much of any value.Bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-62791488051802848722009-04-09T17:29:00.000-04:002009-04-09T17:29:00.000-04:00Ron, if you could come up with a pro-helmet study ...Ron, if you could come up with a pro-helmet study that is not outdated, that uses unpecable statistical models and - last but not least - contains unbiased correlations and causations... well, then you'd have a case.<BR/>As it is now you just sound angry.Just a cyclistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-29287274220510909462009-04-09T12:26:00.000-04:002009-04-09T12:26:00.000-04:00actually, that we're even spending time responding...actually, that we're even spending time responding to this blog shows we can be a bit wasteful at times.<BR/><BR/>Still, a bit of time I can spare, a lot I won't.Bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-65936461801462917442009-04-09T11:58:00.000-04:002009-04-09T11:58:00.000-04:00So what should cyclists do?1) Decide for themselve...<B><BR/><BR/>So what should cyclists do?<BR/><BR/>1) Decide for themselves whether they, and their family, wish to wear helmets, but be careful not to expect a helmet will save their lives. Cyclists who wouldn’t ride a route without a helmet, probably shouldn’t ride it wearing one. </B><BR/><BR/>Interesting. All this point, you were arguing about how helmet laws decrease cycling. Now you want to jump into the conclusion that helmets won't save lives. People have accused me of bias, but you have a bias to begin with. It is pretty clear that you don't like helmets, and NOT just helmet laws. It is "researchers" like you who give backbone to unsafe cycling practices. You do not appreciate helmets, the improvements in helmets happening these days, and the improvements in their design, testing and certification process. No doubt that safer roads and safer cycling practices can help reduce fatalities, but by shunning helmets, you aren't a good advocate for safety.<BR/><BR/>I take reservations to accepting your research. Please show us a research study that has been "longitudinally constructed", that show how cycling has decreased from the time of helmet law to now...are non-head injuries still decreasing today because a helmet law in the 1990's still influences that figure?<BR/><BR/>While you may be really impeccable in how you "collect" data, you have to be careful about drawing the wrong conclusions or misplacing causation and correlations.<BR/><BR/>The fact that most of you who are arguing with me are referring me to the same website, cyclehelmets.org, I have reason to reckon you all are from the same apple basket.Ron Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-32360270646650536112009-04-09T11:36:00.000-04:002009-04-09T11:36:00.000-04:00Brad,You're again diverting the topic here and mis...Brad,<BR/><BR/>You're again diverting the topic here and misleading others. I did not think that cycling is NOT an inherently healthy activity. The topic I wanted to address in this post is : Why should cycling gain superiority over others, as a form of exercise (not transport)? <BR/><BR/>Not considering the deaths that occur in cycling...I'm sure that for an equal number of rsearch papers that address how cycling can extend one's year in life, there will be others that address how other exercises can also do the same. <BR/><BR/>Regular exercise, in whatever shape or form (provided it doesn't go into excess), reduces cortisol formation, gets ride of bodily toxins, increases the efficiency of the heart and lungs and keeps our brains healthy through improved cognitive functioning and positive hormone production. <BR/><BR/>I'm not burying my head in anything. You're needlessly stretching the issue and pouring sand over my head.Ron Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.com