Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

The Wogster wrote:

Yes, and they should then make tobaco and alcohol illegal, because both
of those are responsible for far larger costs to the health care system
the a few unfortunate cyclists, who got a broken leg or arm, because
they were not wearing a helmet.

Neither of those are good examples.

First of all, used as intended, alcohol helps reduce costs to the health
care system. Only when abused does it increase health care costs, but
this is offset by lower Social Security costs.

Tobacco use costs the health care system money, but in the U.S. it's
actually a net gain because most people have private health insurance
which pays for health-care costs, but since smokers have, on average, a
shorter life-span, there are big savings in Social Security costs.

Estimates of reduced life expectancy from smoking range from nine years
to eighteen years, depending on which study you believe.

The Wogster wrote:

snip

For example if x is 45MPH to cause brain death, and 30MPH to cause
permanent injury, and the helmet reduces it by 6MPH, and your going
53MPH (downhill), doesn't matter if your wearing a helmet or not, your
brain dead. If your going from 44MPH, YOUR STILL SCREWED.

"You're," not "your."

Clearly you have no concept of the mechanics of a bicycle crash.

SMS wrote:
The Wogster wrote:

The question is, and every time you say the above, I am going to ask
this same question. By how much?


And the answer will be the same. No one knows for sure. There are
numerous studies out there, all of which reach different conclusions as
to the amount they reduce injury severity and death, but every study
reaches the conclusion that there is a reduction.

I suggest that you go read all the reputable studies, average them all
together, and take that as your answer, if it's so important to you to
have an exact figure. Of course the result won't be exact, but it may
stop you from asking a question which you know in advance that there is
no absolute answer to.

Cite the studies your talking about, provide Internet links where
possible, and I'll give at least some a read.....

W

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:21:26 -0400, The Wogster wrote:
gwhite wrote:
Weed has been illegal for a long time. The anti-weed (including

Depends on where you are, in the United States which tends to be anal
retentive over weed, that is true. In some other countries (like

It was legal longer in the US than it has been illegal. Out founding
fathers grew and used it.


Bob

"The Wogster" wrote in message
.. .
Tom Kunich wrote:

Try reading the ACTUAL HELMET STANDARD on the Snell Foundation site:

Doesn't say anything about the effects of the tests on tissues, and that
is what is more important.

Ahh, yes, that little odd thing about how the standard is ONLY applicable to
a bodyless head falling perfectly linearly.

For example if x is 45MPH to cause brain death, and 30MPH to cause
permanent injury, and the helmet reduces it by 6MPH, and your going 53MPH
(downhill), doesn't matter if your wearing a helmet or not, your brain
dead. If your going from 44MPH, YOUR STILL SCREWED.

OK after all that crap here's the point - if you're going 8 mph you're dead.
If you're going 3 mph and the mass of your body is behind your head, you're
dead.

In fact, if you ACTUALLY READ the standard and are enough of a scientist and
mathematician to do the calculations you find that a helmet has almost no
effect at all under the best of conditions.

"SMS" wrote in message
...

As I stated, you'd be hard-pressed to ever find an accident where the
injuries were made worse by the wearing of a helmet.

I've already quoted one several times. A lawyer I ride with fell into a
cyclone fence which caught the helmet and snapped his neck. He was lucky to
survive but he spent a couple of months in a halo.

I was in a paceline accident and went over the bars in a perfect flip.
Because my helmet hit on the furthest back side it snapped my head forward
and knocked me silly. It took over an hour to get my complete bearings
again.

Any number of people who would never have hit their heads if they hadn't
been wearing a helmet hit their helmeted heads due to the greater size (a
helmeted head has about twice the volume as a helmetless head) and anyone of
those who sustained a concusion can thank their helmets.

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.bicycles.tech.]
On 2005-07-28, Bill Sornson wrote:
David Damerell wrote:
[snip]
Yes, but for the rest of us it's more important to talk about helmets
than to grind your tedious properatarian axe. Would you mind not
changing your posting address so you stay killfiled?

LOL! This from the guy who purposely posted using code to confound most
people's newsreader just to be a prick.

KEEP DOING WHAT YA GOTTA DO, 'G'!

Delicious irony, that...



Most seasoned usenet users have enough clue not to use Outlook
Express and have found better clients. Can't seem to find the client
breakdown somebody posted a few months ago for some of the cycling
groups though.
--
Tim.

I submit that on or about Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:25:58 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

And because they don't work.

You removed the context.

That is precisely the issue. The reason that there should be no helmet
laws, either for motorcycles or bicycles, is because the government
should not be dictating the level of risk people take.

And because they don't work. And because cycling is not actually
especially dangerous in the first place. And because they draw
attention away from the actual source of danger, which is careless
driving. And a few other reasons besides.

So, helmet laws don't work. And there is a lot of evidence to prove
it. Here's a bit more info:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1122.html

All the evidence shows that helmets do exactly what they are intended to
do. In the event of a head impact crash they reduce the severity of
injury to the head.

All of it, eh? Well well. You've read the whole lot? I haven't,
only a couple of hundred papers, so I can't say with any confidence
whatsoever that helmets are proven to do anything very much. As far
as I can tell the evidence overall is equivocal to say the least.
Maybe it depends on whether you define "all the evidence" as meaning
"all the evidence which does not conflict with Scharf's cherished
beliefs".

No matter how many times you say that they don't work, it still won't be
true.

No matter how many straw men you erect, they will still be straw men.

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 Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:41:00 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

And the answer will be the same. No one knows for sure. There are
numerous studies out there, all of which reach different conclusions as
to the amount they reduce injury severity and death, but every study
reaches the conclusion that there is a reduction.

This statement is simply false. The largest helmet study ever, by
Rodgers, reaches the conclusion that helmet use is associated with a
small increase in risk of injury and a significant increase in risk of
death.

Actually most of the pro-helmet studies merely show that the kinds of
cyclists likely to wear helmets, are less likely to have severe
crashes.

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 Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:53:10 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

For example if x is 45MPH to cause brain death, and 30MPH to cause
permanent injury, and the helmet reduces it by 6MPH, and your going
53MPH (downhill), doesn't matter if your wearing a helmet or not, your
brain dead. If your going from 44MPH, YOUR STILL SCREWED.

"You're," not "your."
Clearly you have no concept of the mechanics of a bicycle crash.

Clearly you are using logical fallacies in place of argument. Again.

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