Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

I submit that on or about Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:35:28 -0400, the person
known to the court as The Wogster 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.

The standards are worded in terms of energy absorption. They can
absorb the equivalent of a fall from a stationary or slow moving bike
(which was, of course, unlikely to be serious in the first place);
this amounts to an impact speed of maybe 12mph. But energy goes with
speed squared, so if the impact speed is 30mph, the helmet will reduce
that to the equivalent of 27.5mph (i.e. hardly at all). And that's
assuming it doesn't crack, which it probably will. Once it fails
(which it does quite rapidly in high-energy collisions) no further
energy is absorbed.

Most helmets aren't Snell certified anyway. CPSC is a self-certified
standard, no external tests are performed. A lot of helmets coming
into the UK fail the EN1078 test (less stringent than Snell).

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 16:11:02 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

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.

Actually the only documented directly provable link between helmets
and fatality (caused or prevented) is a small number of children
fatally strangled by helmet straps.

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

David Damerell wrote:
All argument about the usefulness of helmets pertain to cases where that tiny chance of having an accident has already come up; the supposed positive effects are equally
subject to that.

As are the supposed negative effects. You're not going to offer up an
anecdote, as has Tom "Statistics" Kunich?

Tiny x tiny = marshy ground to argue from. Point taken?


Because it would be too easy to admit the simple truth that people, not
having eyes on stalks, cannot see the tops of their own heads?

Perhaps you could let me know when you actually want to talk about this.

Duck/weave.

Yes, the "chin on the ceiling" is a pretty snappy response, but it *is*
the reason why the impacts are to the top of the head.

All pettifogging, unless you ride your bike in a cave.

Since caution is not a binary state, even
after road rash a helmet may still cause you to risk compensate.

Another finger priiiiied loose...

So you have a rationalisation as to why you, personally, don't risk compensate. Big deal. Essentially everyone, upon having risk compensation
explained to them, has a rationalisation as to why they, personally, don't
do it.

Mine is real. I don't follow too close when driving, either, just
because I have antilock brakes. Since I've avoided substantial (almost
"any") road rash since 1987, and some of those years rode a fair number
of miles, some in racing events and lots in fast, competitive groups,
the claim seems an easy one to make.

What I said was that we don't seem to do it [competitive ride groups] in Britain and I don't
understand the urge. That remains true.

I'll consider one half of the pooh-pooh pair withdrawn voluntarily.
Smooth. I guess we're getting there...

[Snide responses]
Well, too bad. Deal with it. You can whine about it all you like, but what
you can't do is produce a counterargument. I'm right and they are wrong,
what matters in terms of discussing the efficiency of helmets is who is
right and who is wrong, and that's all there is to it.

Not by any means is "that's all there is to it". Your choice, the
respect you have for others and the manner in which you choose to
dispute.

["helmets are unmitigated evil" theme]

Which doesn't exist, of course.

You could have fooled me. Including (yes, again) the response to people
who right or wrong testify that a helmet saved their lives, or the life
of a loved one, only to be told to try bashing said LO's head once more
without the helmet and report results. Emotional, scorched-earth
responses that don't generate much good will, or willingness to listen
to your "cause". See "not all there is to it", above.

Helmet laws are unmitigated evil and the
portrayal of helmets as the essence of cycling safety is pretty evil too,
but who's saying helmets are bad in and of themselves? I think the worst
anyone's come up with is that wearing one is "mildly socially
irresponsible".

"Mildly etc. etc."? That was you, of course. Circling your wagons
against the pro-helmet forces, who aren't going away and, however
fervently you may wish for the contrary, whose numbers will not be
thinned by your suggested impact experiments. Thanks for making a
distinction, again, "you could have fooled me"; for instance, with your
grasping at "helmets cause injury".

Still, no surprise to find a pro- attacking an anti- position that doesn't
exist.

I'm hardly a "Pro" pro, as I've made abundantly clear.

(me):
So you agree
to what would seem to be obvious, and what I reported, that helmets can
reduce pain and "trivial" injury?

(DD):
I agree that it's possible. I don't think we know how risk compensation,
the increased side of the head, etc. would play off against having that
foam in the way of trivial injuries, but it could well be, but so what?
This big controversial thread isn't there because anyone thinks the things
prevent scratches and bruises.

Well, I'm in here even after having the scales fall from my eyes (so to
speak)and I've been talking for a good while about "scratches" (having
a substantial area of the face/nose ground off) and "bruises" and pain.
Add "concussion" in. I understand those hurt. Lessening of impact...?

(me):
What do you think about Tom Kunich's experiment of trying to touch your
head to the ground or floor while lying on your shoulder? He said
"impossible", but I can easily touch (hit) my head any way I lie down,
and what do you know? The helmet's size increase makes the bend of the
neck somewhat less severe. Limiting neck injuries, perhaps?

(him)
By reducing the magnitude of a bend the neck can manage anyway?

I wouldn't claim to understand the mechanism, but "low C number"
fractures were the cause of a couple of bike accident deaths I know
of-- no motor vehicles involved, one with, one without helmet. I'd
guess the neck didn't "manage" a bend. But, just a guess.

(me):
Like a
bicycle Hans device (NASCAR, other motor racing orgs.)? Or is this
possibility on the wrong side of the fence for you to admit?

Now, wait an minute. No-one with any sense is saying that we know exactly
_why_ helmets are ineffective against KSI; there are a number of
speculations as to why, like risk compensation and torsional effects, but
no-one is trying to put an exact magnitude on these, and no-one is trying
to say that there aren't some protective effects (including, potentially,
the one you outline). What _is_ being said is that the overall effect is
plainly effectively zero.

Marshy ground, considering ("your") RC, torsional effects, plus
accident scene reporting, after-the-fact categorization of injury
type/severity in the hospital (MD assessment/insurance policy
influence). Minus the people who don't go to the hospital because it's
very expensive, which I expect is exaggerated in the bicycling
community due to average income and lack of health insurance.

I've told my kids, and the 11-year-old gets this, that even though I am
"no helmet, no bike", that the helmet is of very limited usefulness. My
riding mistake that got me hit (and could have easily killed me), i.e.,
being very tired and not looking before I rode into an intersection,
being subsequently "impacted by a Ford Explorer chopping a right turn",
made a big impression. They were in the car when Mom came and picked me
up; they saw my potato-chip front wheel and the police, the minor
traffic jam, the gawkers, noticed I was a little gimpy for a day or
two. I told them I made a stupid mistake and could have been run over.
Yes, they understood the "lesson". All, hardly a glorification of the
helmet.

Thus, if somewhat ruefully by bruised example, continuing with the
"limit/eliminate exposure to danger" theme we started when they were
little and had to hold hands to cross a parking lot or street. IOW, we
started very early showing them (verbalizing, demonstrating) where the
"risks" are likely to come from, and how to protect themselves with
their brains, not a clump of foam. IMO, it's a matter of getting an
understanding of traffic laws and flow, and from those, how to fit in
safely; "helmet is extra". Maybe they still will risk-compensate, but
as long as they don't get hit or run over by a motor vehicle, the
injuries are indeed likely to be "trivial". As will be the RC effect.
It's a lifestyle choice g. I don't have control of what they do in
other houses.
--TP

SMS wrote:
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.

Having been involved in a few, and witnessed a few others, I think I can
figure it out pretty well......

The real concern comes down to 4 pieces of information, that so far are
fairly unknown.

1) What is the typical or average distance riden between crashes, this
will be different depending on riding style, quite rare for road and
touring rides, more common for racing, MTB, technical MTB, etc.

2) How many of those crashes will be serious enough to seek medical
attention.

3) How many of those serious crashes, will involve head injury serious
enough to make a helmet a necessity. A bump, or small laceration not
needing stitches is probably preventable with a helmet, but isn't
serious enough to be other then a bother.

4) How many of the serious crashes, will involve a head injury where the
rider is screwed anyway with or without a helmet.


From personal experience, about 12,500km on average between crashes.
None had an injury that required me to seek medical attention.
The other two questions, do not apply.

As a road cyclist, I would think that this is pretty average. I would
consider for road riding, a helmet is really optional. The chances of a
crash would be considerably higher if you like Technical MTB riding, so
in that case a helmet is probably a good idea, but then so are elbow,
shoulder and knee protection.

W

Tom Kunich wrote:
"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.


Kinda what I figured......

W

"SMS" wrote in message
...
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.

And that is an untruthful evasion since the maximum amount of energy that a
helmet COULD absorb if it was properly made to the highest standards is
completely known and we know that it is small in comparison to the
calculated forces of such collisions.

wrote in message
oups.com...
David Damerell wrote:
All argument about the usefulness of helmets pertain to cases where that
tiny chance of having an accident has already come up; the supposed
positive effects are equally
subject to that.

As are the supposed negative effects. You're not going to offer up an
anecdote, as has Tom "Statistics" Kunich?

Instead what we see is someone like yourself ASSERTING that a helmet works
and expecting others to present statistics showing they don't. Despite the
fact that there are no reliable statistics that show anything except that
fatal or serious bicycle accidents are exceedingly rare.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:03:03 -0400, The Wogster
wrote:

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

It just happens. The same reason, people with airbags drive less carefully
than without.


Jasper

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:45:38 -0400, The Wogster
wrote:

In the last 40,000 kilometres of riding, I have had three crashes, one
resulted in a little road rash, the other two had no injuries. Most of
those kilometres are without a Magical Foam Hat, including the times of
the three crashes.

In something like probably 10.000 km or so over a lifetime of commodity
cycling (My bike is still my primary form of transport, and I don't have a
car license), as far as I can remember, I have had 2 crashes against cars,
one while nearly standing still (from braking) against a 6 year old girl,
and half a dozen or so times a semi-crash from things breaking or the gear
train slipping under load. Something like probably 8000 km of those 10
grand were on undermaintained pieces of crap, which neatly explains the
breakages.

Both times at cars were when I was going faster than perhaps advisable
(30-35 kph, where most bikes do 15-20, in fairly heavy traffic), with
crappy (hub) brakes, and a car was suddenly in the way because the ****er
didn't see me (in one case, pulling out of a parked position and in
another case turning off, so I'd have priority over him). In both cases I
was pretty much all right, modulo maybe a scraped knee or something,
despite flying through the air very nicely on at least one of those
occasions. One of them, the bike was fine, the other one, the front fork
and fender were damaged beyond repair because the fork blades were bent
far enough back that the fender was cought directly between the tyre and
the downtube.

The 6 year old girl was when I was 13, just started going to "the Big
School", and while I was passing fairly slowly by a line of parked cars
since I saw some people standing on the sidewalk clearly waiting to cross.
About a car length before I was going to pass them, she suddenly sprang
out onto the road, and I didn't have time to brake to a complete stop any
more. She was invisible behind the parked cars because she was so short.
No damage whatsoever to me or my bike, for obvious reasons, and there
didn't appear to be any serious damage to the girl either, despite being
knocked on her ass. The father then started verbally abusing me, which
added a lot to the traumatic nature of the event.

All the breakages and skips (especially when the Sturmey Archer was
maladjusted) resulted in semi controlled crashes, at worst, with maybe
again a scraped knee here or there.


Jasper

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:53:42 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:


5) Front wheel washes out on mud, canted wet tree root, slippery stone or
whatever. Operator goes down hard, sort of sideways/face-first, slapping head
sideways on hard ground - hard enough to lose conciousness.

Been there, done that. The several-inch-high pyramid shaped outcropping that
was a few inches from where the side of my melon slapped the ground completed my
little attitude adjustment.

That would have killed you *with* helmet nearly as easily as without.
Helmets are a *lot* better against flat surfaces than against points.

Jasper