No Helmets Needed?

I have a nice 3 inch scar in my forehead from a bicycle crash in 1977.
This scar would have been avoided had I been wearing a helmet. Yeah, I
look like a dork, but 25 stitches in my forehead was not a lot of fun
either.

Edward Dolan wrote:


I maintain that you have to wear something on your head when you go cycling.
Therefore, it might as well be some kind of helmet.

Wait - did you not examine the links I posted? There are many people
pictured who did were _not_ wearing anything on their heads when
cycling. That's proof that you _don't_ have to.


PS. Yes, I am intolerant of the kind of ignorance that is daily displayed on
Usenet.

Then why contribute to it?

If you're going to make pronouncements about what people must wear, at
least learn enough about the issue to avoid looking totally foolish.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote in message
ups.com...
snip

And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling
is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor
vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is
roughly 40% of the problem.

snip snip snip

Could it be that cycling results in such a low percentage of head injuries
because most localities mandate the wearing of helmets? And the higher
percentage of head injuries for accidents in cars and homes could be due to
helmets never being worn when in those situations? Seems to make as much
sense to me as anything else. On the other hand I generally don't read
helmet threads (they make my hair hurt) so I don't know the tons of
statistics, lies, and damned lies that are batted about.

HH (who once visited an emergency room to have a bunch of gravel picked out
of his head because he wasn't wearing a helmet)

"HH" wrote in message
...

Could it be that cycling results in such a low percentage of head injuries
because most localities mandate the wearing of helmets?

"Most"?

According to http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm the only US cities of any size
with mandatory adult helmet laws are Dallas and a bunch of places in
Washington State.

Maybe you should compare statistics between those cities and other
municipalities of the same size and climate.

RichC

HH wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
snip

And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling
is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor
vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is
roughly 40% of the problem.

snip snip snip

Could it be that cycling results in such a low percentage of head injuries
because most localities mandate the wearing of helmets?

No, for the simple reasons that most localities do NOT mandate the
wearing of helmets. In fact, except for Australia and New Zealand,
very few do except for kids. And in the US, even the laws for kids are
generally ignored.

... On the other hand I generally don't read
helmet threads (they make my hair hurt) so I don't know the tons of
statistics, lies, and damned lies that are batted about.

Nor the accurate data, obviously.

- Frank Krygowski

SMS wrote:

Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with
logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it
relates to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies

Like the ones that tell us that various discredited "healthcare"
procedures are a Really Good Idea...

and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account
the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population.

It looks solely there because that's where you'll find the best
controlled data which is hit by the exact same factors. And anywhere
you do this, despite differences in myriads of other factors between the
different national population data sets, no positive change is seen is
serious head injuries among helmet wearing cyclists.

studies are superficially impressive, including seemingly precise
statistical calculations. They appear "scientific" but they don't meet
the fundamental criteria for science, rather they try to look at various
variables, and create inferences that are not based on the data.

It's very straightforward science. There is no positive change so we
suspect no positive effect. OTOH the "legitimate control-group studies"
can usually be laughed out of court for the shocking attempts at science
they represent, yet people are still quoting them.

A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law
was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding
of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not
fall for.

Quite so, but that's a straw man because nobody serious about a helmet
sceptic position with a Clue is actually /saying/ such a thing.

I.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I
found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one."

Is not saying what you suggest above at all. I used to consider they
were necessary, and always wore one. I have since changed my mind and
no longer wear one on the road. They are clearly /not/ necessary or
cycling would not have been possible. I enjoy my cycling now more than
when I always wore a helmet. These are all simple statements of fact
and nothing to do with correlation and causation.

I'm not
sure if this poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really
has fallen for the junk science.

You have fallen into the trap of reading more into a simple sentence
than was there in the first place. I stated some simple facts and you
tried to twist them into "junk science" for the purpose of making a
straw man.

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

NYC XYZ wrote:

Can't hurt, I know.

Actually, it can. A head with a helmet is bigger and heavier than one
without so more likely to get a head hit at all, and being bigger it
provides the extra leverage to add some interesting rotational leverage
to your neck and spine.

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

NYC XYZ wrote:

Hell, forget about killed -- I'd always maintained that at least then
my problems would be over! I'm worried about crippled, as in paralyzed
or brain-impaired!

There is no conclusive evidence that helmets have reduced serious head
injuries in any population of cyclists. Cripples, paralyzed and brain
damaged all count as "serious" in my book.

Which kinds are these? If I'm gonna wear a helmet, it might as well be
the best.

Motorcycle helmets. You don't want to wear one on a bike...
The best ones generally available for cycling are Snell certified cycle
helmets (this is a tougher spec than EN1078). Again, don't expect them
to improve your odds against serious injury.

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

wrote in message
oups.com...

If you're going to make pronouncements about what people must wear, at
least learn enough about the issue to avoid looking totally foolish.


Yes. With a lot of hard work and study, you can look partially foolish.
Like Frank.

Edward Dolan wrote:


I like to wear a horse riding kind of helmet for my recumbent cycling. They
look sharp, you can fit them perfectly and they are not expensive. Most bike
helmets these days are for racers and look just awful. Esthetics count after
all.

I don't think they look bad as helmets -- I just think they look bad on
me! Makes me look like a cartoon mushroom (hey, you shoulda seen me in
my Army days -- people thought I looked like a Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtle!).

Horseback riding helmets sound like a good idea. Funny how that sport
seems so female, though.

Yeah, but who cares - and who needs to know any of this?

Well, I guess you do, since you've been asking and asking!

It has nothing to
do with recumbents and/or cycling. He is doing nothing but crowing about
himself.

Well, how's that any different from customizing your 'bent with decals
and such?

Furthermore, he is not Great like I am. See my signature to know
who I am.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Do riders carry rifles up there? Just in case they see a deer or a car
or something. ^_^

aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Ah, you're that "Prairie Home Companion" regular, huh?