Hitting your head

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-8, Chalo wrote:
If injury and fatality rates among cyclists are a reflection of risk-- and I think they are-- them helmets don't help overall. In my cycling lifetime, helmet use has risen from approximately zero percent to something like half of all riders. There has been no statistically significant change in cyclist injury or fatality rates during that transition. Surely helmets provide some measurable physical protection, so I'm forced to conclude that they carry along with them other effects that more or less fully offset this benefit.

I don't wear a helmet when I ride, mostly because I can hear and see things around me better without one. I think that's a tangible safety benefit that functions to avoid, rather than only mitigate, a crash. I'd much rather avoid a crash than survive one.

One of the negative effects of cyclists wearing helmets (that is unrelated to their net protective effect, or lack thereof) is transferring perceived responsibility for cyclists getting hurt and killed by car drivers from the car drivers to the cyclists themselves. I think that's a very bad perception to promote.

I wrote a study a long time ago that is floating around on the net that shows that there is no difference in injuries or deaths among bicyclists with and without helmets.

I have since looked at it again since there was a great deal of criticism that this was mostly based upon Dutch commuters who ride at much lower average speeds than sports riders and training racers. Well, it appears that there is still no change between pedestrians who wear no helmets and bicyclists with increasing helmet use year to year.

I do believe that helmets do have one very positive effect - they change relatively light injuries from the most common accidents - single bike falls from rider error - from light injuries to little or much lighter injuries. Or instead of having painful scraping of an ear or scalp, these are eliminated. I see this as a reason to wear a helmet.

I do not agree with your belief that helmet laws in some manner transfer the blame for injuries from the driver to the rider. Traffic accident blame is clearly delineated in the laws and arguing that someone wouldn't have been as badly injured if he were wearing a helmet would not hold any water.

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 6:28:22 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 1/14/2020 11:19 PM, Chalo wrote:
If injury and fatality rates among cyclists are a reflection of risk-- and I think they are-- them helmets don't help overall. In my cycling lifetime, helmet use has risen from approximately zero percent to something like half of all riders. There has been no statistically significant change in cyclist injury or fatality rates during that transition. Surely helmets provide some measurable physical protection, so I'm forced to conclude that they carry along with them other effects that more or less fully offset this benefit.

I don't wear a helmet when I ride, mostly because I can hear and see things around me better without one. I think that's a tangible safety benefit that functions to avoid, rather than only mitigate, a crash. I'd much rather avoid a crash than survive one.

You may not like wearing a helmet, but the statistical evidence on the
benefit of helmets is overwhelming and irrefutable.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

Such a study and how it was done has to be deeply flawed. Since a helmet regardless of all other variables, can only protect the skull from a fracture with a speed of no more than 15 mph and a weight of no more than that of an "average" head these condition are NEVER present in an auto-bike collision and so there could be no possible reduction in rates of deaths or serious injuries.

Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 5:30:11 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

--
- Frank Krygowski

That bee is buzzing in your bonnet again, Franki-boy. Nobody here says
cycling is particularly dangerous except you. You keep that up, soon
somebody will believe you.

Andre Jute
Mein Kampf Too, or The Mother of All Battles Against Bicycle Helmets by
Franki-boy Krygowski


It’s like winding up the jack in the box isn’t it? You don’t know how many
turns but you’re certain what will pop up.

On 1/15/2020 6:32 PM, Uncle Wiggly wrote:

I do believe that helmets do have one very positive effect - they change relatively light injuries from the most common accidents - single bike falls from rider error - from light injuries to little or much lighter injuries. Or instead of having painful scraping of an ear or scalp, these are eliminated. I see this as a reason to wear a helmet.

I see this as a reason not to crash. So far that tactic has worked very
well. I've literally never needed the protection of a helmet.

Admittedly, I've only been riding for 50-something years as an adult.
(Plus maybe 15 years as a kid.) We'll see how things go in my future.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/15/2020 6:36 PM, Uncle Wiggly wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 6:28:22 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 1/14/2020 11:19 PM, Chalo wrote:
If injury and fatality rates among cyclists are a reflection of risk-- and I think they are-- them helmets don't help overall. In my cycling lifetime, helmet use has risen from approximately zero percent to something like half of all riders. There has been no statistically significant change in cyclist injury or fatality rates during that transition. Surely helmets provide some measurable physical protection, so I'm forced to conclude that they carry along with them other effects that more or less fully offset this benefit.

I don't wear a helmet when I ride, mostly because I can hear and see things around me better without one. I think that's a tangible safety benefit that functions to avoid, rather than only mitigate, a crash. I'd much rather avoid a crash than survive one.

You may not like wearing a helmet, but the statistical evidence on the
benefit of helmets is overwhelming and irrefutable.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

Such a study and how it was done has to be deeply flawed. Since a helmet regardless of all other variables, can only protect the skull from a fracture with a speed of no more than 15 mph and a weight of no more than that of an "average" head these condition are NEVER present in an auto-bike collision and so there could be no possible reduction in rates of deaths or serious injuries.

I agree that the study is deeply flawed. It is, after all, a
meta-analysis - that is, essentially a compilation of existing studies.
This means it includes the mistakes in study design and data gathering
that were inherent in the parent studies. Meta-analyses hope to reduce
the effects of those errors by swamping them with more data from more
studies; but if each parent study is not analyzed for its shortcomings,
there's still a "Garbage in, garbage out" effect.

As an example, the very first study Olivier included was the 1989
Thompson-Rivera study in Seattle, that famously claimed 85% injury
reduction from helmet use. But that's the study in which patients taken
to emergency rooms were seven times more likely to have worn helmets
than the average cyclists, as shown by contemporary surveys done by the
same authors. That was also the study whose data, studied by other
statisticians, "showed" that helmets reduced leg injuries by about 75%.
The obvious conclusion is that the "cases" and "controls" in the study
were extremely different in ways beyond helmet us - a fact that
invalidates the studies foundation.

As a result (and as the result of a lawsuit by a bicycling organization)
a court determined that the Thompson-Rivera 1989 study did not meet
Federal standards for proof, and could not be used for propaganda by
agencies such as NHTSA or FHWA.

That didn't matter to Olivier. His entire academic career is centered on
helmet promotion, so he included that (and similar studies) in his meta
paper.

Note also that he did include the Crocker study, which found no
significant correlation between helmet use and head injury, but did find
very significant correlation between alcohol use and head injury. This
indicated that alcohol use was a significant confounding variable.
Still, almost none of the other studies include corrections for alcohol
use. More "garbage in, garbage out."

Another problem is that almost all the studies referenced by Olivier
discuss "head injury." The usual definition of "head injury" in these is
"any injury above the neck" with some studies including the face and
some excluding it. Thompson & Rivara specifically included cuts to the
ears as "head injuries." Yes, these meet that particular definition; but
such "head injuries" are not what are used for propaganda to sell
helmets or pass mandatory helmet laws. Helmet promoters (including
Olivier) purposely imply that their results apply to _brain_ injuries,
which is what the public and lawmakers fear. Conflating minor skin
injuries with brain injuries is simply dishonest.

Another indication of problems is the summary results: Olivier claims
"Helmet use is associated with odds reductions of 51% for head injury,
69% for serious head injury, 33% for face injury and 65% for fatal head
injury." By what mechanism can a foam helmet provide lower benefit
against minor injuries, but higher benefit against fatal ones? Its as if
helmets somehow gained strength the harder they were hit. It would mean
that given the choice, a cyclist should try for a more serious impact,
because the protection would be better. It's nonsense.

But finally, for those like Olivier who believe (or who perhaps find it
profitable to _pretend_ to believe) in the magic of helmets: Why only
for bicyclists? Why not for all the other people who suffer serious
brain injuries? Bicyclists make up only about 2% of all brain injuries
and only about 0.6% of fatal brain injuries.

When, oh when, will Olivier sell his magic to the other 98%-99%?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:27:58 -0800, sms wrote:

On 1/14/2020 11:19 PM, Chalo wrote:
If injury and fatality rates among cyclists are a reflection of risk--
and I think they are-- them helmets don't help overall. In my cycling
lifetime, helmet use has risen from approximately zero percent to
something like half of all riders. There has been no statistically
significant change in cyclist injury or fatality rates during that
transition. Surely helmets provide some measurable physical
protection, so I'm forced to conclude that they carry along with them
other effects that more or less fully offset this benefit.

I don't wear a helmet when I ride, mostly because I can hear and see
things around me better without one. I think that's a tangible safety
benefit that functions to avoid, rather than only mitigate, a crash.
I'd much rather avoid a crash than survive one.

You may not like wearing a helmet, but the statistical evidence on the
benefit of helmets is overwhelming and irrefutable.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...cycle-helmets-
reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

That is an arse pluck from a well know, log temr mouth frothing supporter
of mandatory helmet law.

Firstly, no Australian data meats requirements for comparison with
injutires before mandatory helmet laws were introduced as they did not
research the injury rates before the medical profession piled on to their
social media mob campaign for mandatory helmet laws.

Secondariy, ths is totall wrong; "The study also found neck injuries are
not associated with helmet use" as when the mandatory helmet law was
introduced, there suddenly appeared a significant number or rotational
neck and head injuries caused by bicyce helmets. This is wht the Bell
and others mushroom type of bicycle helmet no longer meets the Australan
bicycle helmet laws.

Thirdly, is the clear misrepresentation of the results This sentence
stinks strongy "Olivier’s findings were particularly significant for
serious or fatal head injuries and found the reduction was greater for
these kinds of more serious injuries." so that lttle bit of polystyrene
foam on your noggin suddenly conferes safety from death and magor injury.

I'd just love to know exactly what "the significance' was given that all
the genuie medical magazine, where this wasn't published, have declared
war on misty "levels of signficicance".

On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 1:10:32 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2020 6:32 PM, Uncle Wiggly wrote:

I do believe that helmets do have one very positive effect - they change relatively light injuries from the most common accidents - single bike falls from rider error - from light injuries to little or much lighter injuries. Or instead of having painful scraping of an ear or scalp, these are eliminated. I see this as a reason to wear a helmet.

I see this as a reason not to crash. So far that tactic has worked very
well. I've literally never needed the protection of a helmet.

Admittedly, I've only been riding for 50-something years as an adult.
(Plus maybe 15 years as a kid.) We'll see how things go in my future.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank I consider myself as a competent and cautious bike rider and I thought I could prevent a crash if I was riding alone and could control my own risk. That believe came to an end with my crash last year into a woman that suddenly appeared out of the bushes from the dark onto a well lit bike path I was riding on. I was wearing conspicious clothes and running top af the bill lights. I took a hit on my head, broke two ribs and my collarbone, so it was a serious crash which I have no remembrance of. Result is that now I not only wear a helmet on group rides, off road rides or hilly/mounain rides but also on my evening rides in the dark. It took a while before my confidence was such that I leave my helmet off now and then on flat rides, alone in daylight. I'm not claiming anything and don't trust any statistic studies about helmets use and I don't care. I just do my own risk assesment and I discovered that there are people that do stupid things you can't anticipate on. I have no opinion about other peoples reasons to wear a helmet or not, maybe you should do the same.

Lou

On 1/15/2020 7:31 PM, news18 wrote:

snip

That is an arse pluck from a well know, log temr mouth frothing supporter
of mandatory helmet law.

I have never favored MHLs.

Adults can make their own decisions about the level of risk they wish to
accept in activities that they participate in. Personally, I do
sometimes ride without a helmet.

However there is no dispute about the benefits of helmets in terms of
injury prevention and reduction. The scientific evidence is irrefutable.
The statistical evidence is irrefutable.

Anecdotal evidence of "well I've ridden a bicycle for many years and
never been involved in an incident where a helmet would have benefited
me because I ride extra carefully," is refutable. First, because riding
extra carefully doesn't help when someone else does something
exceedingly stupid. Second, because riding extra carefully makes riding
expeditiously impossible.

Also, there has never been any evidence that variations in bicycle usage
varies based on the presence or absence of the encouragement or
requirement of helmet usage.

On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 12:01:30 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 1:10:32 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2020 6:32 PM, Uncle Wiggly wrote:

I do believe that helmets do have one very positive effect - they change relatively light injuries from the most common accidents - single bike falls from rider error - from light injuries to little or much lighter injuries. Or instead of having painful scraping of an ear or scalp, these are eliminated. I see this as a reason to wear a helmet.

I see this as a reason not to crash. So far that tactic has worked very
well. I've literally never needed the protection of a helmet.

Admittedly, I've only been riding for 50-something years as an adult.
(Plus maybe 15 years as a kid.) We'll see how things go in my future.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank I consider myself as a competent and cautious bike rider and I thought I could prevent a crash if I was riding alone and could control my own risk. That believe came to an end with my crash last year into a woman that suddenly appeared out of the bushes from the dark onto a well lit bike path I was riding on. I was wearing conspicious clothes and running top af the bill lights. I took a hit on my head, broke two ribs and my collarbone, so it was a serious crash which I have no remembrance of. Result is that now I not only wear a helmet on group rides, off road rides or hilly/mounain rides but also on my evening rides in the dark. It took a while before my confidence was such that I leave my helmet off now and then on flat rides, alone in daylight. I'm not claiming anything and don't trust any statistic studies about helmets use and I don't care. I just do my own risk assesment and I discovered that there are people that do stupid things you can't anticipate on. I have no opinion about other peoples reasons to wear a helmet or not, maybe you should do the same.

Lou

Every crash is preventable, just don't ride your bike, and if you must ride, don't (1) ride in a group, (2) ride near cars or pedestrians, (3) ride in low traction environment like wet, snowy or icy roads. Riding at night is probably a bad idea, and never, ever ride a mountain bike on an actual trail. My last crash was dopey, but I wasn't doing anything wrong. My friend bobbled and ran into me -- which would be no big deal except that our bars got tangled. I bumped people a million times on the track, but hitting elbows or shoulders is different from getting equipment tangled up.

Frank also lives in this idyllic village where drivers waive and congratulate him on his fine dyno lighting. In downtown PDX, I'm dodging students and/or lunatic homeless people launching off the curb into the road willy-nilly. I was JRA in the middle of the lane on 9/11/01 and a bus hit me from behind. WTF? I wasn't hurt, but sh** happens even when you're riding in the middle of the lane and "controlling traffic."

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 11:38:00 PM UTC, Duane wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 5:30:11 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

--
- Frank Krygowski

That bee is buzzing in your bonnet again, Franki-boy. Nobody here says
cycling is particularly dangerous except you. You keep that up, soon
somebody will believe you.

Andre Jute
Mein Kampf Too, or The Mother of All Battles Against Bicycle Helmets by
Franki-boy Krygowski


It’s like winding up the jack in the box isn’t it? You don’t know how many
turns but you’re certain what will pop up.

Heh-heh!