|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
Per Jay Beattie:
I think its a good idea if you have symptoms. Otherwise, its a waste of resources. IIRC, Liam Nieson's wife recently died as a result of a fall while skiing. The story I heard was that she felt no undue symptoms at the time and declined medical treatment. The term "subdural hematoma" comes to mind - but I don't know enough to say any more - except that you can rap your melon, feel no undue ill effects, and then die sometime later when something swells up inside. -- PeteCresswell |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
Frank Krygowski writes:
On Apr 12, 8:41Â*am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote: Per Frank Krygowski: _If_ helmets kept people from showing up in the hospital, it would be detected by the reduction in percentage hospitalized due to head injury. Â*Seriously - Isn't that clear? Maybe it was covered somewhere and I didn't see it, but the first thing that jumps into my mind is the World War I anecdote where some government (Great Britain?) introduced protective helmets for their troops and saw the number of head injuries skyrocket. The explanation being that soldiers that would have been dead without the helmet were showing up in hospitals. Pete, you're hoping to find _some_ excuse to continue believing in magic protection. Magic protection? Frank : you're a total and utter idiot. I want you to know that. And be VERY sure that you are. once more : why are eggs stored in corrugated boxes? If your child cracked her skull on the kerb would you prefer he/she had a helmet or would you prefer the soft skull makes direct contact with the shark curb? You are a danger to yourself and others. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On Apr 12, 10:28*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:13*pm, SMS wrote: As we've seen, it's a good idea to seek medical treatment even if you feel okay after a head-impact crash. I think its a good idea if you have symptoms. *Otherwise, its a waste of resources. *The new way of making money for health insurers is to raise premium and decrease reimbursement rate for certain procedures, including sophisticated imaging (CT, MRI, PET, etc.) *Emergency room co-pays are also high and there is a lower reimbursement rate under many plans. *So in the typical "I bumped my head" scenario, if you go to an ER and complain enough to get a CT, you will be out of pocket about $1,000 -- or more, depending on where you are with your deductibles. *If I feel O.K., I don't go to the doctor. OTOH, if I was knocked out, I do -- or if I have other symptoms. I think it's likely that the fear mongering over bicyclist head injuries has caused a lot of unnecessary trips to ER "just to be sure." I know of one incident where that was definitely the case. The cyclist fell and very slightly dented her helmet (a tiny cosmetic dent). But since she was feeling "shaky" they back-boarded her and took her to ER. She was perfectly fine, but out the cost of the ambulance ride. Of course, the concerned true-believers still claim the helmet saved her, even though the dent was so tiny she still uses the same helmet. And regarding the shakiness: People are quick to diagnose any such reaction as head injury. My own similar incident was this - with no bicycle content: I'd gone outside in winter, taking out the trash. I wore smooth-soled slippers. Walking back up the drive, I suddenly slipped on unseen ice. I went down to my side faster than I ever had, with my hip landing about 3" away from a raised concrete corner of our side walk. I remember lying there just a second, thinking "Wow. If my hip hit that corner, I'd probably have broken it." Then I got up and walked into the house, unfazed. Or so I thought. Once inside the house, I began shaking. It was very odd, because consciously, I felt no fear. I'm sure that if that had been a bike crash and if my head even slightly brushed the ground, someone would have cried "Head injury!!" Oh, and to be clear: No, I wasn't wearing a helmet when I took out the trash, and no, I didn't even come close to hitting my head, so my helmet did NOT save me. - Frank Krygowski |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk writes:
I also find it interesting that (at least in my observation) the younger children are far more likely to be wearing helmets, yet they are apparently more likely to have head injuries. You find that interesting? You have to having a laugh???????????????? Have IQs dried up around here?????????? Youngsters are more likely to crash/fall off for a start. Secondly, youngsters have far softer skulls and are probably far less able to protect themselves in the event of a fall. I know that any and all bike injuries I had were as a kid doing stupid things on my bike. Whether pretending to be Evil Knievel or just generally being a carefree tit. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
Frank Krygowski writes:
On Apr 12, 10:28Â*am, Jay Beattie wrote: On Apr 11, 8:13Â*pm, SMS wrote: As we've seen, it's a good idea to seek medical treatment even if you feel okay after a head-impact crash. I think its a good idea if you have symptoms. Â*Otherwise, its a waste of resources. Â*The new way of making money for health insurers is to raise premium and decrease reimbursement rate for certain procedures, including sophisticated imaging (CT, MRI, PET, etc.) Â*Emergency room co-pays are also high and there is a lower reimbursement rate under many plans. Â*So in the typical "I bumped my head" scenario, if you go to an ER and complain enough to get a CT, you will be out of pocket about $1,000 -- or more, depending on where you are with your deductibles. Â*If I feel O.K., I don't go to the doctor. OTOH, if I was knocked out, I do -- or if I have other symptoms. I think it's likely that the fear mongering over bicyclist head injuries has caused a lot of unnecessary trips to ER "just to be sure." You are quite literally crazy. ANY head injury which is more than a tap should be checked out. The actress Natasha Richardson's untimely death being a great reminder of how seemingly innocuous head injuries can lead to pain, paralysis and even death. Suggesting that someone telling someone to have a head injury checked is "fear mongering" borders on the criminally insane. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On 12/04/10 7:18 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In , wrote: On 11/04/10 7:42 PM, wrote: How about the FACT that people who are not injured generally don't go to the hospital? If they don't go to the hospital they are out of the count - right? That's a big problem with the case studies. They can compare helmeted versus unhelmeted cyclists that have injuries serious enough to warrant medical treatment, but they leave out all the cyclists where the helmets prevented any injury or mitigated the injuries to a level where no hospital treatment was sought by the cyclists. There you go again with your faith-based mathematics. Not at all. I accept the statistical evidence of scientifically conducted case studies that you do not. However even those that conduct those studies warn of the cases that fall outside the study. In the ER helmet case studies it is important to look at the big picture and understand that though they all show a large preventative effect regarding injuries and fatalities, they obviously leave out those whose injuries were prevented, or mitigated to the point where medical treatment was not sought. Your problem is that you're so desperate to believe the junk science that people like Frank are so fond of, that you've lost the ability to think critically. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On 12/04/10 8:42 AM, Simon Lewis wrote:
The actress Natasha Richardson's untimely death being a great reminder of how seemingly innocuous head injuries can lead to pain, paralysis and even death. Yes, that's what I was thinking about when I made the statement, "As we've seen, it's a good idea to seek medical treatment even if you feel okay after a head-impact crash." Suggesting that someone telling someone to have a head injury checked is "fear mongering" borders on the criminally insane. True. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On 12/04/10 8:32 AM, Simon Lewis wrote:
Phil W Leephil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk writes: I also find it interesting that (at least in my observation) the younger children are far more likely to be wearing helmets, yet they are apparently more likely to have head injuries. You find that interesting? You have to having a laugh???????????????? Have IQs dried up around here?????????? You have to realize that, with people like Phil, there is a hypocritical divide between what they say in public and what they actually know to be true. Youngsters are more likely to crash/fall off for a start. Secondly, youngsters have far softer skulls and are probably far less able to protect themselves in the event of a fall. Yes, this is true. That's why even in the Netherlands and Denmark there are campaigns for helmets for children. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On 12/04/10 8:20 AM, Simon Lewis wrote:
Frank writes: On Apr 12, 8:41 am, wrote: Per Frank Krygowski: _If_ helmets kept people from showing up in the hospital, it would be detected by the reduction in percentage hospitalized due to head injury. Seriously - Isn't that clear? Maybe it was covered somewhere and I didn't see it, but the first thing that jumps into my mind is the World War I anecdote where some government (Great Britain?) introduced protective helmets for their troops and saw the number of head injuries skyrocket. The explanation being that soldiers that would have been dead without the helmet were showing up in hospitals. Pete, you're hoping to find _some_ excuse to continue believing in magic protection. Magic protection? Frank : you're a total and utter idiot. I want you to know that. And be VERY sure that you are. Don't form an opinion of someone solely from what they write on Usenet! In the case of Frank, and several others posting on this topic, there is a hypocritical divide between what they say in public and what they actually know to be true. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On Apr 12, 9:19*am, SMS wrote:
On 12/04/10 8:42 AM, Simon Lewis wrote: The actress Natasha Richardson's untimely death being a great reminder of how seemingly innocuous head injuries can lead to pain, paralysis and even death. Yes, that's what I was thinking about when I made the statement, "As we've seen, it's a good idea to seek medical treatment even if you feel okay after a head-impact crash." Suggesting that someone telling someone to have a head injury checked is "fear mongering" borders on the criminally insane. True. That's ridiculous. We all bump our heads. I've rung my bell skiing a number of times, and not on bunny slopes. People fall on the bunny slopes all the time -- it is a perpetual state of carnage. Natasha Richardson developed severe headaches an hour after the fall, along with other symptoms. She delayed follow-up for an hour or more, and she was remote from a major medical facility. She was also trending toward a higher risk category, the elderly. She was not a no-symptom case, or a fall and die case. I also question whether, with her initial symptoms (minor headache) she would have gotten anything more than an aspirin and an order to return if it got worse. Really, you need to think through a no-symptom/minor headache ER visit -- the doctor asks you if you have pain. He checks your pupils and your cranial nerve response. He looks for blood in your ear canals (and at the quality of your eardrums, which is secondary). He judges your speech and orientation and asks if you were knocked out. If your clinical picture is benign, you go home -- with a big bill and an order to take some Tylenol and call back if symptoms worsen. It's not like "House" where a magical doctor determines that there are sinister implications to a totally benign exam. You're not going to get a CT scan unless you are very old. If I have no symptoms (or a minor headache), I don't go to an ER. I take a Tylenol and then go to the ER if I start having persistent or significant symptoms (serious headache, nausea). That has not happened, and my only head exams (including CT) have only occurred after I was knocked out and injured in other ways (facial laceration, separated shoulder). When my son whacks his head skiing, I do the quick neuro exam, give him Tylenol and watch him. So far so good. -- Jay Beattie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This is getting expensive (helmets) | Mike Jacoubowsky | General | 34 | December 16th 07 11:13 PM |
This is getting expensive (helmets) | Tom Sherman[_2_] | Recumbent Biking | 15 | December 12th 07 04:14 AM |
How about this bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) | Ken Aston | General | 20 | November 14th 06 05:14 PM |
How about a Marin bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) | Ken Aston | UK | 6 | November 9th 06 04:59 PM |
How about this bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) | Ken Aston | Australia | 3 | November 9th 06 02:23 AM |