Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

wvantwiller wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote in
:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:07:35 -0400, wvantwiller
wrote:

I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be alive
today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the trauma
of minor bicycle falls;

How do you know that?



Mostly the newspaper articles quoting the doctors that the internal
trauma would probably been prevented if the riders had been wearing
helmets. Both accidents were recent enough to have involved newer
helmets, also.

To put that in perspective: We had one poster here who told of his
doctor's evaluation. He was in a bike crash, went to the emergency
room and was being treated by the ER doctor. He was not wearing a
helmet when he crashed.

The doctor asked him if he had been wearing a helmet. Not wanting to
hear a lecture, he lied and said "Yes."

The doctor told him "It's a good thing. It probably saved your life."

Unfortunately, I don't recall the name of that poster. If he's still
hanging around, perhaps he'll chime in.


Oh, and there's little reason to think a newer generation helmet is
more protective than an older one. If anything, the older ones
probably had more impact protection. Helmet manufacturers are
constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while
still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification
tests.

- Frank Krygowski

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:07:35 -0400, wvantwiller
wrote:



Why you think something that increases the lever arm won't hurt in
torsional impacts.


Why you think something that dissapates and redistributes the point
stresses that will inevitably also be present in the non-torsional part of
the impact isn't a good thing?


But there is no known case where cyclist safety has improved with
increasing helmet use, so obviously what goes on after the crash is
only part of the story.


I think the pro-helmet lobby has over-emphasized the ability of a
helmet's life saving abilities in a crash. People therefore think that
they can take more risks because the magical foam hat will save them
from harm.

The anti-helmet lobby has under-emphasized the ability of a helmet's
life saving abilities in a crash. They then think that the helmet is
useless in all cases, and fight against them.

The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
same riding style as if you don't have one.

W

I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:56:21 -0400, the person
known to the court as The Wogster made a
statement in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

I think the pro-helmet lobby has over-emphasized the ability of a
helmet's life saving abilities in a crash. People therefore think that
they can take more risks because the magical foam hat will save them
from harm.

Seems fair to me :-)

The anti-helmet lobby has under-emphasized the ability of a helmet's
life saving abilities in a crash. They then think that the helmet is
useless in all cases, and fight against them.

Really? Since I don't actually know of anybody in any anti-helmet
lobby, I couldn't say, but I'd be intrigued to know what you would
consider a realistic estimate of the life-saving capabilities of
helmets. I tend to go by the findings of the largest study of its
kind, by Rodgers in 1988, which found no measurable effect on injuries
and a small but significant increase in risk of fatality, which I'm
quite happy to write off as an artifact.

So as far as I'm concerned the effect on serious and fatal injuries is
zero plus or minus blind luck.

The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
same riding style as if you don't have one.

Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way.
Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find
myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on.

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 in message
The Wogster made a
statement to the following effect:

The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
same riding style as if you don't have one.

Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way.
Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find
myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on.


Are you riding faster now with a helmet on than 20 years ago before
decent helmets existed and it was popular to wear one, and do you have
a study showing that faster speeds are more likely to contribute to
brain injury or death over medium speeds?

And charging more for less protection, more marketing. The conspiracy of
ignorance masquerades as common sense.


wrote in message
ps.com...


wvantwiller wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote in
:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:07:35 -0400, wvantwiller
wrote:

I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be alive
today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the trauma
of minor bicycle falls;

How do you know that?



Mostly the newspaper articles quoting the doctors that the internal
trauma would probably been prevented if the riders had been wearing
helmets. Both accidents were recent enough to have involved newer
helmets, also.

To put that in perspective: We had one poster here who told of his
doctor's evaluation. He was in a bike crash, went to the emergency
room and was being treated by the ER doctor. He was not wearing a
helmet when he crashed.

The doctor asked him if he had been wearing a helmet. Not wanting to
hear a lecture, he lied and said "Yes."

The doctor told him "It's a good thing. It probably saved your life."

Unfortunately, I don't recall the name of that poster. If he's still
hanging around, perhaps he'll chime in.


Oh, and there's little reason to think a newer generation helmet is
more protective than an older one. If anything, the older ones
probably had more impact protection. Helmet manufacturers are
constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while
still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification
tests.

- Frank Krygowski

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:56:21 -0400, the person
known to the court as The Wogster made a
statement in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:


I think the pro-helmet lobby has over-emphasized the ability of a
helmet's life saving abilities in a crash. People therefore think that
they can take more risks because the magical foam hat will save them

from harm.

Seems fair to me :-)


The anti-helmet lobby has under-emphasized the ability of a helmet's
life saving abilities in a crash. They then think that the helmet is
useless in all cases, and fight against them.


Really? Since I don't actually know of anybody in any anti-helmet
lobby, I couldn't say, but I'd be intrigued to know what you would
consider a realistic estimate of the life-saving capabilities of
helmets. I tend to go by the findings of the largest study of its
kind, by Rodgers in 1988, which found no measurable effect on injuries
and a small but significant increase in risk of fatality, which I'm
quite happy to write off as an artifact.

So as far as I'm concerned the effect on serious and fatal injuries is
zero plus or minus blind luck.


Isn't this proof of the magical foam hat (M.F.H.)attitude.
Realistically there should be no increases in fatalities or serious
injuries, if there are, then the study is skewed by people taking more
risks and chances.

There are really about 4 kinds of bike accident.

1) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars and lands
nose first, gaining a 3rd degree case of road rash. Helmet effect - none.

2) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars, and
while airborne hits another object head first. Helmet effect moderate
to good.

3) Bike hits object and rider is partially crushed against object,
helmet effect none.

4) Operator loses control and bike goes down sideways in a skid. Helmet
effect none.

Out of the 4, a helmet is only involved in one, and it could more often
then not, result in a broken neck as forces are transmitted by the
helmet to the skull, and then to the neck. Gee morgue or paraplegic
wheelchair (like Christopher Reeves), hmmmmm, given those two choices,
the morgue actually sounds better.

The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
same riding style as if you don't have one.


Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way.
Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find
myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on.

But knowing that the M.F.H., has such little effect, the question is,
why would you take more chances?

W

I submit that on or about 16 Jul 2005 08:34:41 -0700, the person known
to the court as "Carl Sundquist" made a statement
s.com in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
same riding style as if you don't have one.

Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way.
Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find
myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on.

Are you riding faster now with a helmet on than 20 years ago before
decent helmets existed and it was popular to wear one,

I ride faster now with one than I do now without one. Specifically, I
corner faster when going down hills.

This applies only to my drop-bar bike. On the recumbent I go faster
than on the wedgie, and haven't noticed a hat / no hat difference.

20 years ago? Can't recall how fast I was back then, but it's
immaterial since i was an early adopter and enthusiastic advocate of
foam hats, so rarely if ever rode without one.

and do you have
a study showing that faster speeds are more likely to contribute to
brain injury or death over medium speeds?

Good point. No. The only differentiating factor which is well
documented is motor vehicle involvement.

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

I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:03:03 -0400, the person
known to the court as The Wogster made a
statement in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

So as far as I'm concerned the effect on serious and fatal injuries is
zero plus or minus blind luck.

Isn't this proof of the magical foam hat (M.F.H.)attitude.
Realistically there should be no increases in fatalities or serious
injuries, if there are, then the study is skewed by people taking more
risks and chances.

Oh sure. I think risk compensation, and propensity to take risk,
varies so widely in cyclists that it is probably impossible to
separate out the effect of helmets in any statistical series. Seems
to me that the risk compensation effect (or whatever else it is)
balances out the benefits so closely as to make the whole thing moot
anyway :-)

There are really about 4 kinds of bike accident.

Oh I have to disagree. I think that if in an average year there are
100,000 bike accidents, then there will be at a first approximation
100,000 different types of bike accidents. No two crashes I've had
have been the same.

This is one reason I think the one-size-fits-all approach is flawed.

The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
same riding style as if you don't have one.

Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way.
Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find
myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on.

But knowing that the M.F.H., has such little effect, the question is,
why would you take more chances?

Tell me about it. I think it's the separation between the rational
being and the residual animal. But as humans we love to play with
that dichotomy - every time we ride a roller-coaster our analytical
brain is sitting there laughing at the terrified monkey :-)

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 Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:03:03 -0400, the person
known to the court as The Wogster made a
statement in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:


So as far as I'm concerned the effect on serious and fatal injuries is
zero plus or minus blind luck.


Isn't this proof of the magical foam hat (M.F.H.)attitude.
Realistically there should be no increases in fatalities or serious
injuries, if there are, then the study is skewed by people taking more
risks and chances.


Oh sure. I think risk compensation, and propensity to take risk,
varies so widely in cyclists that it is probably impossible to
separate out the effect of helmets in any statistical series. Seems
to me that the risk compensation effect (or whatever else it is)
balances out the benefits so closely as to make the whole thing moot
anyway :-)


Agreed, however the helmet lobbyists seem to push the idea that once you
don the M.F.H. you will be safe in all cases, and that is one of the
reasons people take extra risks......


There are really about 4 kinds of bike accident.


Oh I have to disagree. I think that if in an average year there are
100,000 bike accidents, then there will be at a first approximation
100,000 different types of bike accidents. No two crashes I've had
have been the same.


They may all be different, but they all have similarities as well, which
is why I broke it down, the way I did. MV accidents are the same,
except there are fewer possibilities but more different consequences.
You either hit something, or lose traction. I did want to show that in
some cases the M.F.H. might actually help. Also in those particular
cases, it can also make it worse, i.e. skull fracture versus neck
fracture....


This is one reason I think the one-size-fits-all approach is flawed.


The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well,
but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the
same riding style as if you don't have one.


Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way.
Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find
myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on.


But knowing that the M.F.H., has such little effect, the question is,
why would you take more chances?


Tell me about it. I think it's the separation between the rational
being and the residual animal. But as humans we love to play with
that dichotomy - every time we ride a roller-coaster our analytical
brain is sitting there laughing at the terrified monkey :-)


I think it's more likely that the M.F.H. lobby has psychologically made
you wonder if maybe the M.F.H. lobby is somehow correct, and that the
M.F.H. will protect you......

W

The Wogster wrote:


Agreed, however the helmet lobbyists seem to push the idea that once you
don the M.F.H. you will be safe in all cases, and that is one of the
reasons people take extra risks......

Helmet lobbyists do have a problem there. They typically want to
convince everyone that:

1) Bicycling without a helmet is really dangerous - so dangerous that
you should NEVER bike without a helmet!!!

2) Helmets are VERY, VERY protective. Even though their certification
standards are so low, they still prevent almost 100% of head injuries -
specifically, 85%. It's such a simple way to remove almost all of that
terrible danger!!!

3) There is nothing you can do that's more important for bike safety
than wearing a helmet!!!

The problem is, they've touted the incredible protection so long that
now, many riders feel incredibly protected, and behave accordingly.

What can they do? Start saying "Um, wait, we didn't mean they protect
you THAT well." If they start getting specific and giving the public
real certification numbers and real population results of helmet use,
people will see helmets are about as effective as lucky rabbits feet.

The current trend seems to be to (finally) add some other safety advice
onto the helmet propaganda, while still claiming helmets are the most
important step... more important than, say, lights at night, riding on
the proper side of the road, etc.

I note, though, that in the US, the push for MHLs seems to have slowed
somewhat. There are still individual communities being deluded into
enacting laws, but the enactment of state laws has slowed to a trickle.
Perhaps this is because obesity and lack of exercise are getting much
more attention, and those problems argue against discouraging cylcing.

Well, we can hope - or pretend - that's the case.

I'd prefer to see widespread acknowledgement of the fact that ordinary
bicycling is _not_ particularly dangerous, certainly not dangerous
enough to require protective gear. I suppose I'll never forgive the
helmet pushers for that slander of my favorite activity.

- Frank Krygowski