Helmet saves life of bike store owner hit by car......

"AustinMN" wrote in
:

Dan wrote:
Do you honestly believe that a 50 cent piece of Styrofoam that can be
crushed with a finger would protect a skull (which, by the way, is
many, many times harder than the Styrofoam hat) from that kind of
trauma? If that's the extent of your intelligence I don't want you to
respond should I ever need an EMT.

If bicycle helmets could protect from this kind of injury, then they
need to be required for much more dangerous activities such as
climbing stairs, walking, or taking a shower.

Austin

If you're stupid enough not to wear one, then you won't have to worry if I
respond. Use the protection, it can't hurt and may save your life. BTW, do
you use a seatbelt?

mrbubl wrote:


If not wearing a helmet on your head is safer for you and yours, more
power to yah and hope you are an organ donor so your choices may help
others.

The "organ donor" line is common, tiresome, and flat out wrong.

One of my best friends is an organ recipient. After his transplant, he
became an educator for a transplant organization.

He assures me that cyclists never have, and never will, be significant
sources of organ donations. First, there are FAR too few cyclist
deaths. In the US, only about 750 cyclists get killed each year.

Compare with about 40,000 motorists;
roughly 15,000 people who die from falls;
about 6000 pedestrians hit by cars;
perhaps 5000 drowning victims;
not to mention about over 700,000 heart attack victims and 150,000
stroke victims (the main sources of organ donors, he claims).

Furthermore, he pointed out that (contrary to the hype) most cyclist
fatalities are _not_ nice clean corpses that regrettably died from a
light tap on the head. Instead, almost all have been hit by cars and
suffered the sorts of multiple internal injuries that ruin organs.

So, as usual, another trite piece of pro-helmet propaganda is worthless
when examined seriously.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Scott Ehardt wrote:


I am not taking sides on this issue, but I will point out that in this form
your statistics are useless. Comparing number of showering injuries to
number of bicycling injuries is completely irrelevant. If you wanted to
prove something going in that direction, you would need to compare "injuries
per man-hour of showering vs. bicycling" or at the least "number of cycling
injuries per cyclist vs. number of showering injuries per showerer"

The injuries per hour figures are, unfortunately, very hard to come by.
But most data that addresses this seem to indicate cycling is _not_
unusually dangerous per hour.

One paper examined head injury deaths per million hours for cycling,
walking, motoring and motorcycling. (The data was for Queensland,
Australia). Here are the results:

cyclists: 0.19 HI deaths per million hours
pedestrians: 0.34 " " " "
motor vehicle occupants: 0.17 " " " "
motorcyclist : 2.90 " " " "

(From "Head Injuries and Bicycle Helmet Laws", D.L. Robinson, Accident
Analysis & Prevention, Vol 28, no 4

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html lists estimates of fatalities
per million hours for various activities. Cycling appears roughly four
times safer than swimming, by these numbers - from the largest risk
consultation firm in the USA.

Other sources tell roughly the same story. For example, other athletic
activities cause many more ER visits per hour than cycling does.

The current myth, propagated by the helmet pushers, is that cycling is
extremely dangerous. Obviously, those who can make money selling
helmets don't care about disparaging cycling. Just as obviously, those
handwringers who are anxious to bubble-wrap every little kid, don't care
about disparaging cycling.

But it always amazes me that so many cyclists are eager to jump on that
bandwagon. How foolish!

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


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Dan wrote:


I've seen these arguments so many times and always wanted to say

something but never have. It's so simple, if you don't care about your
safety, then don't wear a helmet. If you hit your noggin', you're gonna
be a vegetable or die more than likely.

People have been hitting their heads since prehistory. Cyclists have
been riding without helmets, by the hundreds of millions, for well over
100 years. The idea that every fall off a bike or every bump on the
head is a likely fatality is absolute nonsense.

Cycling isn't even on the map for fatal head injuries! HI fatalities in
the US are estimated to be between 56,000 and 115,000 per year,
depending who's doing the estimating. (The lower figure is probably more
reliable.) Cycling fatalities from _all_ injuries are only about 750
per year. Cycling head injury fatalities are less than 1% of the
country's total HI fatalities!


Here in Texas, you have the option, I don't care
what others do to look cool, but I look pretty cool as a walking,talking
Texan that wears a helmet.

When you're walking, keep that helmet on. There are far more fatal HIs
from simple falls than from cycling.

Keep it on when you're driving, too. Motorists are roughly 50% of the
fatal HIs in the US. Again, cyclists are less than 1%.

I'm trimming your horror story. If you're really an EMT, don't tell us
about pictures you've seen. Tell us about the last 100 serious (say,
hospitalizable) brain injuries you've hauled in.

If your area is representative of national stats, no more than one of
them would be a cyclist.

So: What's the count?

(Hint: The last 3 EMTs I've asked never responded. They all slunk away.)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski wrote in
:

Dan wrote:


I've seen these arguments so many times and always wanted to say

something but never have. It's so simple, if you don't care about
your safety, then don't wear a helmet. If you hit your noggin',
you're gonna be a vegetable or die more than likely.

People have been hitting their heads since prehistory. Cyclists have
been riding without helmets, by the hundreds of millions, for well
over 100 years. The idea that every fall off a bike or every bump on
the head is a likely fatality is absolute nonsense.

Cycling isn't even on the map for fatal head injuries! HI fatalities
in the US are estimated to be between 56,000 and 115,000 per year,
depending who's doing the estimating. (The lower figure is probably
more reliable.) Cycling fatalities from _all_ injuries are only about
750 per year. Cycling head injury fatalities are less than 1% of the
country's total HI fatalities!


Here in Texas, you have the option, I don't care
what others do to look cool, but I look pretty cool as a
walking,talking Texan that wears a helmet.

When you're walking, keep that helmet on. There are far more fatal
HIs from simple falls than from cycling.

Keep it on when you're driving, too. Motorists are roughly 50% of the
fatal HIs in the US. Again, cyclists are less than 1%.

I'm trimming your horror story. If you're really an EMT, don't tell
us about pictures you've seen. Tell us about the last 100 serious
(say, hospitalizable) brain injuries you've hauled in.

If your area is representative of national stats, no more than one of
them would be a cyclist.

So: What's the count?

(Hint: The last 3 EMTs I've asked never responded. They all slunk
away.)


I'll see 100 cars before I see a bicycle. So, we talking percentages or
are you just giving lip service for the sake of argueing. If you don't
want to wear a helmet, then don't. but if one person does wear it becuz
of my horror story then maybe that's one less i'll see laying in the
road. No, I'm not really an EMT, I just love saying EMT,jerk.

psycholist wrote:

If a cyclist has a bad fall and hits
his head and the helmet does its job and he/she gets up and rides happily on
his/her merry way, they don't end up in any statistics. But they were quite
possibly saved from serious injury by a helmet.

...

You can argue statistics and findings and such all day long. They don't
capture the incidents like the one I cited at the outset of this post. Nor
am I aware of any statisticians who were present to record my awful episode.
I don't believe any of the statistics on helmets that I read and hear. I
don't believe anyone is accurately recording these incidents.

sigh Why is this hard to understand?

It's not _necessary_ to have a statistician standing at every accident
site. That's not how this stuff works. If helmets prevent as many
injuries as claimed, then the tremendous surge in helmet use in the past
15 years should have caused a big drop in head injuries per cyclist.
But it hasn't! If anything, more data shows a _rise_ in head injuries
per cyclist. (See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html)

Some people have claimed that helmets are wonderfully protective, but
that - through amazing coincidence - cycling has gotten much more
dangerous in exact proportion to the helmets' use and protection. It's
a strange argument - sort of like this:

"My rabbit's foot is perfect protection against elephant attacks. Yeah,
I know there weren't any elephant attacks before I got my rabbit's foot,
but there _would_ have been if I didn't have it!"

But even that "reasoning" is belied by studies examining head injury
rates when helmets are forced on people all at once. In some places,
helmet use suddenly tripled (to as much as 90%) because of helmet laws.
One classic paper examined cyclists' head injury hospitalizations
while that sudden increase happened (just before a MHL), and found no
detectable improvement at all. ("Trends in Cycle Injury in New Zealand
under Voluntary Helmet Use", Scuffham, P. et. al., Accident Analysis &
Prevention, vol 29 no 1)

You're free to believe whatever foolish thing you want to believe. I'm not
arguing for mandatory helmet laws. I just know that I'm very glad I had my
helmet on when I was hit. And it's my opinion that any serious cyclist who
logs serious mileage is playing a foolish game of roulette if they believe
they'll never get hit.

I understand that getting injured as you did must be psychologically, as
well as physically, traumatic. It's not uncommon for people who survive
an airplane crash to never fly again - despite the airlines' tremendous
safety record. It's not uncommon for people to develop unrealistic
fears of everything from dogs to spiders to canoes, based on one bad
experience.

But I'll take the real-world data over your single experience, thanks.
That data indicates I would have to cycle for thousands of years to get
up to a 50% chance of dying on the bike, even if I can keep doing
thousands of miles every year. My risk per year is literally negigible.
More to the point, my risk is not affected by the presence or absence
of a helmet.

And if I do pay attention to individual experiences, I prefer my own.
I've been riding seriously as an adult for over 30 years now, and as a
kid for, oh, at least 15 years before that. I've never had an injury
worse than a childhood scraped knee. And like almost all the world's
cyclists, I probably never will.


And let me ask you something. If you knew you were
going to get hit, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not?

Did you mean while walking, where the risk of fatal head injury per hour
is about twice that of cycling? Or did you mean while riding in a car,
where the risk is almost exactly the same?

Or did you mean we should wear a helmet _only_ while cycling? If so...
why only then??

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

eq2 sux wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote in
:

Tell us about the last 100 serious
(say, hospitalizable) brain injuries you've hauled in.

If your area is representative of national stats, no more than one of
them would be a cyclist.

So: What's the count?

(Hint: The last 3 EMTs I've asked never responded. They all slunk
away.)



I'll see 100 cars before I see a bicycle. So, we talking percentages or
are you just giving lip service for the sake of argueing.

I've been talking absolute numbers, I've been talking percentages, and
I've been talking risk per hour of exposure. Take your pick. By any of
these measures, cycling is NOT very dangerous.

I'm sorry if this is hard for you to understand. I'm sorry if it
challenges your preconceived notions. But it's fact.

If you don't
want to wear a helmet, then don't.

Why, thank you for your gracious permission!


but if one person does wear it becuz
of my horror story then maybe that's one less i'll see laying in the
road.

Numbers, please! These vague hints of horrors just don't make it. How
many seriously head injured cyclists have you seen lying in the road in
the past ten years? How many seriously head injured motorists have you
pulled out of cars, or off the road?

Nationally, the numbers favor the cyclists. Nationally, the per-hour
figures also favor the cyclists. And if you don't understand "per hour"
let me know, and I'll explain it to you!

No, I'm not really an EMT, I just love saying EMT,jerk.

I have no idea if you are or aren't. I know what's happened with the
last few folks who claimed to be EMTs. When asked for real numbers,
they left in a huff.

Since you're not giving numbers either (and are even changing your
screen name) I assume you're in the same situation: Caught with your
data down!


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

psycholist Wrote:
...You're free to believe whatever foolish thing you want to believe.
I'm not
arguing for mandatory helmet laws. I just know that I'm very glad I
had my
helmet on when I was hit. And it's my opinion that any serious cyclist
who
logs serious mileage is playing a foolish game of roulette if they
believe
they'll never get hit. And let me ask you something. If you knew you
were
going to get hit, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not?

Bob C.



Bob, feel free to believe whatever foolish thing you want to believe -
and believe me your beliefs are unbelievably foolish. I for one would
argue that I am in fact safer riding without a helmet (as I do) for the
good reason that wearing a helmet compromises the innate and unconscious
reflex actions that tend to avoid head impacts. The awareness of an
exposed head is has a sort of subconscious programming effect and
ensures that the natural reflexes of avoidance of head impact will
continue to be the priority reaction response in an accident.

What amazes me is how people can be so lacking in psychological acuity
- so foolish as to delude themselves as you do.

Roger


--
RogerDodger

eq2 sux Wrote:
...
If you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't. but if one person does
wear it becuz of my horror story then maybe that's one less i'll see
laying in the
road. No, I'm not really an EMT, I just love saying EMT,jerk.

Well, whoever you are you appear to be stroking your own self
importance here, Oh what magnaminous benefactance you display - and how
dramatic - one less person laying on the road all because of your horror
story. How old are you - I'd guess ten maybe twelve, or perhaps you're
an adult with the mental age of a ten year old? Well hate to puncture
your pretty little delusion but science and the statistics support the
contrary to your comforting illusion.

Jerk? Oh, that's right - language typical of a brash impertinent ten
year old.
Put your nappies on and get back in your cot.

Would you like a helmet lullaby to help put you to sleep?


--
RogerDodger

eq2 sux Wrote:
...If you're stupid enough not to wear one, then you won't have to worry
if I
respond. Use the protection, it can't hurt and may save your life. BTW,
do
you use a seatbelt?

Argument befitting a cognitively challenged ten year old- call people
who don't wear a helmet stupid. Stupidity is...a childish behaviour of
calling other people stupid. Definition: stupid people show themselves
by incautiously calling other people stupid. I suspect that the poster
in question might be incapable of recognising his condition.


--
RogerDodger