Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

The Wogster wrote:

SMS wrote:
The Wogster wrote:

The question has always been, and always will be, by how much...

Ridiculous. The information isn't worth the cost of obtaining it. And
has been pointed out, statistics are more prone to abuse than a
cyclist's skull anyway. Black will become white.

What I would like to see, is two new pieces of information added to
police reports, helmet yes or not, then on ER reports, indicate the
police report number. The police report would indicate what happened,
if it can not be determined - for example if one or more participants is
unable to provide information, a reconstruction crew would reconstruct
the incident.

Who is the sucker paying for the "reconstruction crew?" JFC. What I
would like to see is a lay off of the police and all other people
wasting time/money with this nonsense. You could give helmets away with
the money saved.

Now you wait for enough data, on a national basis, 4 - 5 years worth of
data would be sufficient. However we are still missing the 50% of
incidents where there are no injuries, and everybody just calls each
other dumbass, and heads off in their own direction. We are also still
missing the 99.9999% of bicycle rides, where there are no mishaps.

I don't know what you're driving at. I've destroyed at least 4 helmets
in crashes. None of these "incidents" was reported.

The Sheeple luv the guvmint running their lives in every possible way.
Why take care of yourself when the guvmint can do it for free (meaning
TAX THE RICH GREEDY *******S!)? We have FEMA, ag subsidies, The Fed
(monetary policy), Fiscal policy, The Dept. of Ed., NASA, the FDA,
SoshalInSecurity, Medicare, Medicaid, and on and on to all manner of
parasitic behavior on the taxpayer. Why should helmet special interests
be any different? I think it is in the General Welfare clause or
something. LOL

I submit that on or about Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:10:34 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

since the injury rate per capita went up, it must have been
the cyclists that rode more carefully to begin with, that gave up
cycling completely!

The risk of a motorist colliding with a cyclist or walker increases at
roughly 0.4 power of the number of people walking or cycling, so
doubling the number of cyclists reduces risk by 32%.

"Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling", P L Jacobsen, Injury Prevention 2003;9:205–209

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

I submit that on or about Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:10:34 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:


since the injury rate per capita went up, it must have been
the cyclists that rode more carefully to begin with, that gave up
cycling completely!


The risk of a motorist colliding with a cyclist or walker increases at
roughly 0.4 power of the number of people walking or cycling, so
doubling the number of cyclists reduces risk by 32%.

You've never done the 5-borough bike tour.

Steve

"Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling", P L Jacobsen, Injury Prevention 2003;9:205–209

Guy


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

I submit that on or about Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:31:37 GMT, the person
known to the court as Mark & Steven Bornfeld
made a statement
(J4xFe.9769$ab2.8618@trndny07 in Your Honour's bundle) to the
following effect:

The risk of a motorist colliding with a cyclist or walker increases at
roughly 0.4 power of the number of people walking or cycling, so
doubling the number of cyclists reduces risk by 32%.

You've never done the 5-borough bike tour.

Heh! You got mail...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"David Damerell" wrote in
message ...
Quoting SMS :
factor. Bicycle use has also gone down in areas without any
helmet laws,
but this is conveniently ignored.

By 40% in a couple of years? No. But why bother with the whole
truth, you
never have before.

According to Jacobsen, P. L. "Safety in numbers: more walkers and
bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling ." Injury Prevention 9
(2003): 205-209, total miles ridden in the U.K. plummeted by
more than 70% between 1952 and 1999 (Figure 5). According to the
authors, this was due in part to seatbelt laws which made drivers
more aggressive and bicyclist more scared: "This change may be
related to the seatbelt law in 1983. One review suggested that
the increase in seatbelt use transferred some risk to pedestrians
and bicyclists as motorists felt safer and drove more
aggressively and further. Average motorist speeds in built up
areas in the United Kingdom increased from 45 km/h in 1981,
before compulsory use of seatbelts, to 53 km/h in 1997. Less
bicycling is a plausible response to more aggressive and faster
motorists." Thus, the obvious way to increase bicycling safety
is to get motorists to quit wearing their seatbelts. Fewer
seatbelts, more cyclists. I think I will write a letter to
NHTSA. If they strip out airbags, too, I figure we will get a
ten-fold increase in bicyclists. I am personally working on a
study which proves that the fall in ridership is directly related
to the number of Nintendo game systems produced in a given year
divided by the total broadcast time of the Cartoon Network times
the average number of Skittles in a bag. -- Jay Beattie.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
The risk of a motorist colliding with a cyclist or walker increases at
roughly 0.4 power of the number of people walking or cycling, so
doubling the number of cyclists reduces risk by 32%.

"Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling", P L Jacobsen, Injury Prevention 2003;9:205–209

The number is 31.48%, is Jacobsen using bad science and rounding up?

-e

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

Ah, "common sense", that reliable guide in all things.
... Sadly, real life shows a disappointing unwillingness
to back up "common sense" in practice.

That is silly. "Common sense," otherwise known as making the "best
decision" you can for the "information" you can afford (or by following
cultural rules which have been environmentally sorted), is backed up as
valid by "real life" results. Yes, only a crank would say "common
sense" is "always right." But our information is necessarily bounded,
and it more often costs less to make an occasional error, or "suffer"
from "non-optimal" results, than to acquire more complete data.

Our decisions are made on bounded information, so to say the results of
common sense are "dissappointing" is to deny the fact that people do
live and thrive. Common sense is sometimes wrong -- even "bad wrong."
This does not negate the fact that it is more often adequate, and that
it is how most decisions are effectively made in day-to-day life.

It is true that "common sense" evolves in cultures over time. The nice
thing is, that in situations where common sense lags, it can be replaced
with a newer paradigm of common sense. People work off maps, and maps
have necessary imperfection (after all, maps aren't the thing itself).
But by-and-large, maps increase effectiveness. Common sense is a map --
it mostly works. It is often a "reliable guide," as you call it.

So yes, read the studies. Fully. All of them.

No. Don't waste your time. A quick guess is easily enough in deciding
whether to buy and wear a helmet (or not). I can work a few hours and
earn enough money to buy a helmet, if that suits me. It isn't worth
pouring over reams of statistics and arguments for hours and hours and
hours. Moreover, statistics more often turn the generator's and
reader's mind into jello, much worse than a concussion might cause.

Nor does one need to waste time pouring over the arguments to decide if
legislation is warranted. Even if there was good statistical evidence
that suggested helmet use was beneficial, there can be no good argument
in granting power to the government in forcing helmet usage upon free
citizens. That could never be justified -- just shortcut the whole
thing by more foundational arguments regarding the enumerated powers of
government.


Let's say it is "proven" that helmets don't do much for a rider in a
crash. Is the downside of "wasting" a few bucks on a helmet all that
bad given the other problems of survival typically faced by an
individual?

In article , gwhite
wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

Ah, "common sense", that reliable guide in all things.
... Sadly, real life shows a disappointing unwillingness
to back up "common sense" in practice.

That is silly. "Common sense," otherwise known as making the "best
decision" you can for the "information" you can afford (or by following
cultural rules which have been environmentally sorted), is backed up as
valid by "real life" results. Yes, only a crank would say "common
sense" is "always right." But our information is necessarily bounded,
and it more often costs less to make an occasional error, or "suffer"
from "non-optimal" results, than to acquire more complete data.

Our decisions are made on bounded information, so to say the results of
common sense are "dissappointing" is to deny the fact that people do
live and thrive. Common sense is sometimes wrong -- even "bad wrong."
This does not negate the fact that it is more often adequate, and that
it is how most decisions are effectively made in day-to-day life.

It is true that "common sense" evolves in cultures over time. The nice
thing is, that in situations where common sense lags, it can be replaced
with a newer paradigm of common sense. People work off maps, and maps
have necessary imperfection (after all, maps aren't the thing itself).
But by-and-large, maps increase effectiveness. Common sense is a map --
it mostly works. It is often a "reliable guide," as you call it.

So yes, read the studies. Fully. All of them.

No. Don't waste your time. A quick guess is easily enough in deciding
whether to buy and wear a helmet (or not). I can work a few hours and
earn enough money to buy a helmet, if that suits me. It isn't worth
pouring over reams of statistics and arguments for hours and hours and
hours. Moreover, statistics more often turn the generator's and
reader's mind into jello, much worse than a concussion might cause.

Nor does one need to waste time pouring over the arguments to decide if
legislation is warranted. Even if there was good statistical evidence
that suggested helmet use was beneficial, there can be no good argument
in granting power to the government in forcing helmet usage upon free
citizens. That could never be justified -- just shortcut the whole
thing by more foundational arguments regarding the enumerated powers of
government.


Let's say it is "proven" that helmets don't do much for a rider in a
crash. Is the downside of "wasting" a few bucks on a helmet all that
bad given the other problems of survival typically faced by an
individual?

This is not about deciding to use a helmet. It is about someone
else making that decision for me; that is mandatory helmet laws;
where "common sense" will not convince a legislative body not to
enact the law. "Common sense" only came into the discussion by way
of one who disparages the arguments of any who question the
statistical efficacy of helmets.

--
Michael Press

gwhite wrote:


Our decisions are made on bounded information, so to say the results of
common sense are "dissappointing" is to deny the fact that people do
live and thrive. Common sense is sometimes wrong -- even "bad wrong."
This does not negate the fact that it is more often adequate, and that
it is how most decisions are effectively made in day-to-day life.

IOW, there are a lot of decisions that make little difference, one way
or the other. I can certainly accept that. And I can accept it in
this specific case, in regard to an individual's helmet decision. Lack
of a helmet is very unlikely to cause any real damage, since one
moderate head injury every 2.7 million miles is a risk undetectable in
any one individual. And presence of a helmet is very unlikely to
produce any benefit, even if one does experience a crash that endangers
the head.

The problem with the helmet issue, though, is that it causes helmet
promoters to take actions which _are_ detrimental, such as portraying
cycling as dangerous, or passing restrictive laws. These discourage
cycling, and cycling is marginal enough as it is. Reducing cycling
means fewer accommodations - fewer bike-sensitive traffic light
actuators, fewer bike parking racks, fewer accommodations for bikes on
buses or trains, etc etc. And less sympathy in the courts, when
cyclists are harmed by negligent drivers. IOW, more attitudes like
"You know cycling is crazy-dangerous. If you're so foolish as to ride
a bike, you deserve what you get."


Let's say it is "proven" that helmets don't do much for a rider in a
crash. Is the downside of "wasting" a few bucks on a helmet all that
bad given the other problems of survival typically faced by an
individual?

For the typical American, it won't kill their pocketbook. (For some,
it actually can. Those of us typing on our personal computers with
fast internet access tend to forget there are very poor people in the
US - and elsewhere!)

If it won't kill your pocketbook, and if you like wearing a helmet for
whatever reason, it should be personal choice to do so. Just as
personal as the color of your socks.

The problems come when people try to justify their choice in terms like
"It's the only smart thing to do. Everyone should do it," or worse.
That seems to invariably lead to people making cycling sound dangerous,
or making helmets sound like miracles of protection. And that leads to
other abuses.

Still: Personally, I'm wary of the idea of saying about _any_
commercial product, "But it doesn't cost much. Everyone should buy
one." No thanks. I think it's wiser to make informed choices on how
to spend money.

- Frank Krygowski

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:


So yes, read the studies. Fully. All of them. Don't believe what
helmet zealots like Scharf tell you about them (or sceptics like me
for that matter), get the data, look at it and make up your own mind.
If you find troubling discrepancies like massive differences in motor
vehicle involvement between case and control groups (Thompson, Rivara
and Thompson), or supposedly expert statisticians confusing percentage
change with percentage points change (Cook & Sheikh), then you may
conclude it is reasonable to ignore that evidence.

I'd expand on what Guy says. I'd say yes, read the studies. (You
probably won't want to read _all_ of them; there are too many.) But
don't stop there.
Read some of the discussion on the studies.

In the case of certain journals, you can read questions, comments and
rebuttals written by professionals who respond to the studies, and
these can be at least as educational as the studies themeselves. Also
- dare I say it? - read these Usenet discussions. I'm sure I learned
at least as much from serious internet discussions as I did from the
original studies themselves.

If I had read, say, the 1989 Thompson & Rivara paper before being told
what to look for, I might not have noticed the big discrepancies in the
"case" and "control" groups. If I had not read the internet
discussions, it might not have occurred to me that case-control studies
of helmets were almost guaranteed to be distorted by self-selection of
subjects, and I _know_ I wouldn't have found the strong evidence that
this distorts those results. Furthermore, I might not have noticed
that it's the case-control studies that found the pro-helmet argument,
and the large population time-series studies that argue against
helmets.

Few people are so brilliant as to completely grasp an issue without
learning from others. Read the papers _and_ the discussions, pro and
con.

- Frank Krygowski