Re: Any helmet laws successfully overturned?

[one of the six billion]

"Michael Malak" > wrote in message
om...

> If every U.S. jurisdiction had a juvenile helmet law, only 137
> lives would be saved. 687 * 0.29 * (2/3) = 137
> http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
>

There would probably be many more lives saved by introducing greater
physical activity to our population of overweight under-exercised children.

How many childrens lives would be saved if there were mandatory helmet laws
for riding in cars?

How many childrens lives would be saved if all speed limits were lowered by
10 mph?
At the same time how much longer would the average motor vehicle trip then
take?

How many childrens lives would be saved here and now and also in
generations to come all over the world if we exchanged our system of
personal combustion engine transportation with mass transportation?

How many children under 21 will be killed directly and indirectly in oil
inspired wars over the next 50 years if our consumption levels aren't
radically reduced?

[DedCat]

"Michael Malak" > wrote in message
om...
> If every U.S. jurisdiction had a juvenile helmet law, only 137
> lives would be saved. 687 * 0.29 * (2/3) = 137
> http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

*Only* 137 lives... pffft... why even bother then?

[Peter Gardner]

> How many childrens lives would be saved if there were mandatory helmet laws
> for riding in cars?

Trying to redirect the flame war here....


The risk from being in a car is of a similar magnitude to the risk from
being on a bike. How about a push for manditory helmet laws in cars?
Perhaps that would discourage car use, as similar laws discourage bike
use.

Peter

[Jasper Janssen]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:09:20 -0700, "one of the six billion"
> wrote:

>How many childrens lives would be saved if all speed limits were lowered by
>10 mph?

Accident rates would go up, not down.

Jasper

[Rich Clark]

"Peter Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> > How many childrens lives would be saved if there were mandatory helmet
laws
> > for riding in cars?
>
> Trying to redirect the flame war here....
>
>
> The risk from being in a car is of a similar magnitude to the risk from
> being on a bike. How about a push for manditory helmet laws in cars?
> Perhaps that would discourage car use, as similar laws discourage bike
> use.

The helmet laws don't discourage cycling because people don't want to wear
helmets. They discourage cycling because they increase the perception of
cycling as being inherently dangerous.

There are already mandatory seat-belt and air-bag laws for cars, and their
existence doesn't seem to discourage driving. People's capacity for
self-delusion should never be underestimated; they will choose their desired
result (I want to drive, I don't want to cycle) and then choose whatever
evidence supports it and ignore the rest.

RichC

[Dave Rabinowitz]

>If every U.S. jurisdiction had a juvenile helmet law, only 137
>lives would be saved. 687 * 0.29 * (2/3) = 137
>http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

This is a phony argument. For every bicycle head injury that results in
death there are about a thousand head injuries which result in various other
problems including permanent disabilities. Do a google search on bicycle
head injury statistics and look at any of the more than 14,000 hits to get a
better idea of the real potential impact of helmet usage.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:11:17 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
Rabinowitz) wrote:

> Do a google search on bicycle
>head injury statistics and look at any of the more than 14,000 hits to get a
>better idea of the real potential impact of helmet usage.

Treat the results with caution, though, for many reasons including:

- some studies which claim to prove helmet effectiveness also prove
that helmets reduce leg injuries
- helmet laws do not generally apply on private land which is where
over 90% of child head injury cycle accidents happen
- cyclist injury rates in Virginia, Australia, rose following
compulsory helmet legislation
- claims of up to 85% head injury reductions from helmet use fail tyo
account for the proportion of head injuries which are to parts of the
head & face not covered by helmets
- helmets are designed for loss-of-control accidents up to about 12mph
so most adult cyclists will be riding outside their design parameters
much of the time, and all accidents involving motor vehicles will
exceed the design capabilites of the helmet.

I am of the view that children are the one group for helmets
definitely work, but since the majority of these accidents happen
offroad legislation is not an effective way to promote helmet use for
these children. Nor are helmets the first, best way to improve their
safety on or off road (better bike skills are the starting point
there). It is not a coincidence that the most ardent helmet advocates
are paediatricians.

There is a danger that helmets are seen as some kind of panacea, the
polystyrene foam deflector beanie as magic talisman. They distract
attention from primary safety and increase the perception of danger,
which is a self-fulfilling prophecy in that it deters cycling, and the
best way of making cycling safer is undoubtedly for more people to do
it.

For adult cyclists riding a bike even without a helmet, and with only
the average level of skill, the health benefits outweight the
increased dangers by up to 20:1, depending on the particular study and
methodology used. Cycling is *not* dangerous in terms of whole-life
risk, so helmets are one possible way of making a safe activity even
safer. Your chances of suffering serious head injury in a car crash,
particularly the worst type of torsional brain injury, are greater
than in a bike crash.

As an aside there is only one study I know of which incontrovertibly
links helmets with fatality, and that relates to children strangled by
their helmet straps while on play equipment.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
Advance notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP.
Obviously there will be a week of downtime between the engineer
removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same
equipment on the same line in the same exchange and billing it to
the new ISP.

[zeldabee]

(blech) wrote:
> (Michael Malak) wrote...
> > I'm considering embarking upon a campaign to overturn bicycle
> > helmet laws in my area. <snip>
>
> You should focus your attention on all the strange aircraft noise
> in the DC area.

Yes indeed! The helmet makes a good substratum for the tinfoil.

--
z e l d a b e e @ p a n i x . c o m http://NewsReader.Com/
Honest, never intended to contribute to a helmet-flame thread...

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:16:39 GMT, Jasper Janssen >
wrote:

>>How many childrens lives would be saved if all speed limits were lowered by
>>10 mph?

>Accident rates would go up, not down.

Unless you believe the research evidence, of course. Injury and
fatality rates would still fall even if accident rates rose, though.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
Advance notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP.
Obviously there will be a week of downtime between the engineer
removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same
equipment on the same line in the same exchange and billing it to
the new ISP.

[Gary Mishler]

"Rich Clark" > wrote in message
...
>

>> ... they will choose their desired
result (I want to drive, I don't want to cycle) and then choose whatever
evidence supports it and ignore the rest. <<

Bingo!

That simply and distinctly describes the entire helmet-law issue (as well as
many other life issues).

[Bernie]

zeldabee wrote:

> (blech) wrote:
> > (Michael Malak) wrote...
> > > I'm considering embarking upon a campaign to overturn bicycle
> > > helmet laws in my area. <snip>
> >
> > You should focus your attention on all the strange aircraft noise
> > in the DC area.
>
> Yes indeed! The helmet makes a good substratum for the tinfoil.
>
> --
> z e l d a b e e @ p a n i x . c o m http://NewsReader.Com/
> Honest, never intended to contribute to a helmet-flame thread...

That's positively brilliant! One could make a tinfoil sombrero if it had a
styrofoam substrate!
Bernie
"Always wear your seatbelt - it makes it harder for the aliens to suck you
out of your car"

[John Bartley K7AAY]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:11:17 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
Rabinowitz) wrote:

>>If every U.S. jurisdiction had a juvenile helmet law, only 137
>>lives would be saved. 687 * 0.29 * (2/3) = 137
>>http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
>
>This is a phony argument. For every bicycle head injury that results in
>death there are about a thousand head injuries which result in various other
>problems including permanent disabilities. Do a google search on bicycle
>head injury statistics and look at any of the more than 14,000 hits to get a
>better idea of the real potential impact of helmet usage.

Please also visit brainplace.com, where a pediatric psychiatrist uses brain
scans to prove small head trauma can have drastic impact on skils,
abilities and temprament.



--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.

[zeldabee]

(John Bartley K7AAY (ex-KGH2126)) wrote:
> (Dave Rabinowitz) wrote:
>
> >Do a google search on
> >bicycle head injury statistics and look at any of the more than 14,000
> >hits to get a better idea of the real potential impact of helmet usage.
>
> Please also visit brainplace.com, where a pediatric psychiatrist uses
> brain scans to prove small head trauma can have drastic impact on skils,
> abilities and temprament.

....And spelling, I'd imagine... ;o)

--
z e l d a b e e @ p a n i x . c o m http://NewsReader.Com/

[Jasper Janssen]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:24:09 -0500, Kevan Smith
/\/\> wrote:

>Since head injuries can occur at any time or place, perhaps we should all wear
>foam hats all the time. But what's that? People who bicycle are more likely to
>get head injuries than those who don't? Ahh, now it's a different subject. Prove
>it.

Playing soccer or american football, let alone rugby or aussie rules, in
gym class is probably a much bigger risk.

Jasper

[Doug Huffman]

Now there's a terse argument! So terse that it is a valueless appeal to
authority. I guess that I need to reinstate my filter against this anile
topic. It is a 'religion' and no law should be made respecting an
establishment of religion.


"Michael Davis" > wrote in message
om...
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5204a1.htm

[John Bartley K7AAY]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:16:25 GMT, (John Bartley
K7AAY (ex-KGH2126)) wrote:
>>>>Please also visit brainplace.com, where a pediatric psychiatrist uses brain
>>>>scans to prove small head trauma can have drastic impact on skils,
>>>>abilities and temprament.

>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:24:09 -0500, Kevan Smith
>> > wrote:
>> >Since head injuries can occur at any time or place, perhaps we should
>> >all wear foam hats all the time.

Or, perhaps, soften the edges of our environment.

>> >But what's that? People who bicycle are more
>> >likely to get head injuries than those who don't? Ahh, now it's a different
>> >subject. Prove it.

Please indicate where in the above I made the assertion.
Use a #2 pencil and stay between the lines.

>"Jasper Janssen" > wrote in message
...
>> Playing soccer or american football, let alone rugby or aussie rules, in
>> gym class is probably a much bigger risk.

Yep. That's what Dr Amen says.
Go watch Muhammed Ali for details.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:20:23 -0700, "one of the six billion"
> wrote:
>A lifetime of eating at McDonalds is probably an even bigger risk.
<snip>

Risk to mental functioning? That was the thread, not risk to lifespan. You
seem to be engaging in topic drift.


--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.

[John Bartley K7AAY]

On 30 Jun 2003 20:39:18 GMT, zeldabee > wrote:

(John Bartley K7AAY (ex-KGH2126)) wrote:
>> (Dave Rabinowitz) wrote:
>>
>> >Do a google search on
>> >bicycle head injury statistics and look at any of the more than 14,000
>> >hits to get a better idea of the real potential impact of helmet usage.
>>
>> Please also visit brainplace.com, where a pediatric psychiatrist uses
>> brain scans to prove small head trauma can have drastic impact on skils,
>> abilities and temprament.
>
>...And spelling, I'd imagine... ;o)

Yes, ma'am. Guilty as charged.

But was it Webster, or Clemens, who found folks boring if they only knew
one way to spell a word?

--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.

[zeldabee]

(John Bartley K7AAY (ex-KGH2126)) wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2003 20:39:18 GMT, zeldabee > wrote:
> (John Bartley K7AAY (ex-KGH2126)) wrote:
> >>
> >> Please also visit brainplace.com, where a pediatric psychiatrist uses
> >> brain scans to prove small head trauma can have drastic impact on
> >> skils, abilities and temprament.
> >
> >...And spelling, I'd imagine... ;o)
>
> Yes, ma'am. Guilty as charged.
>
> But was it Webster, or Clemens, who found folks boring if they only knew
> one way to spell a word?

Could even be George Bernard Shaw or Lincoln, I suppose, who knows. Maybe
Bartleby would know...I just thought it was funny in context.

--
z e l d a b e e @ p a n i x . c o m http://NewsReader.Com/

[Pete]

"David Kerber" > wrote
>
> Which makes no sense, so recheck your assumptions. There are a few
> possible confounding circumstances, though. One is that the people who
> put in the most miles may wear their helmet more consistently than
> occasional riders.

And those people with more miles should, by virtue of experience, be better
riders. *Less* likely to crash.

Pete

[archer]

In article >, says...
>
> "David Kerber" > wrote
> >
> > Which makes no sense, so recheck your assumptions. There are a few
> > possible confounding circumstances, though. One is that the people who
> > put in the most miles may wear their helmet more consistently than
> > occasional riders.
>
> And those people with more miles should, by virtue of experience, be better
> riders. *Less* likely to crash.

Less likely *per mile*, but with enough extra miles, they are going to
have more crashes overall. A guy who puts in 30 miles per day, every day
has a lot more chance of crashing in any given year than a kid who rides
only 1 block to his friends house twice in a year.


--
David Kerber
An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good
Lord, it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

[Dorre]

archer > wrote:
: In article >, says...
:>
:> "David Kerber" > wrote
:> > Which makes no sense, so recheck your assumptions. There are a few
:> > possible confounding circumstances, though. One is that the people who
:> > put in the most miles may wear their helmet more consistently than
:> > occasional riders.

Most people understand helmet wearing rates to be the proportion
of cyclists wearing helmets in street counts or other observational
surveys. This should be pretty close to the proportion of miles
ridden by helmeted cyclists. The chances of being counted in such
a survey are more or less proportional to the amount the rider
cycles.

My guess is that the claim in that paper that only 41% of TBI
happen to non-helmeted cyclists isn't correct. But it's only a guess.

There is a school of thought that a glancing blow to the
helmets can deliver a rotational force to the head.
A study of squirrel monkeys showed just how damaging rotations
of the brain can be. Gennarelli et al, (1972) subjected 12 to linear
acceleration with peak levels 665-1230 g, and 13 primarily to rotational
acceleration in the range of 348 to 1025 g. Contact phenomina were
minimised by the design of the apparatus producing the head acceleration.
Non of those subjected to the linear acceleration were concussed, whereas
all 13 receiving rotational acceleration suffered concussion, and the
group showed a high incidence of subdural haematoma, subarachnoid
haemorrhage and intracerebral petechial haemorrhage.

I don't know if the above is important or not, but I do know
that when helmet laws were introduced in Australia and millions
of cyclists were forced to wear healmets, there was no obvious'
effect on the rate of head injuries.

So, if helmet laws don't work, it would be a good thing to
repeal them and allow cyclist freedom of choice. As you suggest,
the main factors determining the risk of head injury are not
whether you wear a helmet, but how you ride, where you ride,
and how likely you are to be hit by a motor vehicle. Nearly
all serious TBI result from bike/motor vehicle crashes. The
best way a cyclist can avoid TBI is therefore to reduce this
risk by obeying traffic laws, using lights at night, riding
predicably and, if necessary, avoiding routes with high-speed,
erratic or irresponsible motoritsts.

Dorre

:> And those people with more miles should, by virtue of experience, be better
:> riders. *Less* likely to crash.

: Less likely *per mile*, but with enough extra miles, they are going to
: have more crashes overall. A guy who puts in 30 miles per day, every day
: has a lot more chance of crashing in any given year than a kid who rides
: only 1 block to his friends house twice in a year.
: David Kerber
: An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good
: Lord, it's morning".

: Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.