You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

In article
,
Jay Beattie wrote:

On Apr 11, 8:13*pm, SMS 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.

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. -- Jay Beattie.

Hey, man, my hair saved my life in a crash once.

In article ,
Simon Lewis wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Apr 12, 8:41*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. *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?

Not for the reason you think.

On 12/04/10 5:10 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

My helmet probably saved me $200 in sutures and maybe more, if you
assume I could have fractured my skull. Like I said, my injury stopped
at the helmet line -- not because of my belief in magical foam hats,
but because the helmet protected my head. And I assume the blow that
fractured the helmet would have been absorbed by my soft scalp and my
bony cranium. I would much prefer to have a helmet take that blow
than my tissue. I never want my head tissue to touch the ground. I'm
very sensitive in that way. I'm a sensitive helmet wearer.

Jay, Jay, we're disappointed in you.

Don't forget, every time you wear a helmet, you're silently voting for
compulsion. I mean, even though in reality you're not.

And of course the helmet would not have prevented any injuries in this
mishap, even though in reality it clearly did.

Remember that if you hadn't been wearing a helmet you would have
risk-compensated and not gotten yourself into that situation in the
first place, even though in reality it would have made no difference.

You could have avoided this accident entirely if you had simply been
riding in the Netherlands, where you don't live.

Plus your helmet cost you $200 so the fact that it prevented $200 in
sutures is simply break-even, even though of course it probably did not
cost $200 since you strike me as someone that would not foolishly spend
$200 on a product where a $20 version is just as good.

It's hard to believe that you were even cycling, since "studies show"
helmet usage reduces cycling levels, despite the fact that no
statistically sound, peer-reviewed, studies show that to be the case.

You would not have even hit your head on the ground if you weren't
wearing a helmet because the extra 1 inch of the helmet made your head
so much bigger that it caused the contact, except for the fact that in
reality it didn't cause it.

Furthermore, you probably aren't wearing a helmet when driving--even
though your car likely has head, side, and front air bags that provide
crash protection, so why would you wear one when cycling because cycling
is safer in both per-mile and per trip terms, even though it isn't.

On Apr 12, 12:07*pm, SMS wrote:
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...

All?

This one
http://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S...649-9/abstract
was instituted by a physician who hoped the evidence would lead to an
all-ages mandatory helmet law in his city, Austin TX.

Instead, his work found no benefit for helmet use. Head injuries were
not significantly correlated with lack of helmets. Instead, they were
significantly correlated with blood alcohol content.

And as I've mentioned previously, this demonstrates a confounding
factor not addressed in previous case-control studies involving
adults, since none (AFAIK) adjusted their findings for alcohol's
effects. (As if case-control studies of self-selected subjects
weren't weak enough already!)

I know Scharf will ignore this study, just as he'll ignore this entire
post and any factual data that he doesn't like. He'll keep claiming
"all" studies show benefits.

We're far beyond the point where we can charitably assign his claims
to mere ignorance. He's deep into the realm of deliberate lies.

- Frank Krygowski

On Apr 12, 2:04*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:


What makes his reality the alternate one? *Every statistic is promoted
by a party with an agenda.

Jay, there is an underlying reality in life. When agendas conflict,
that doesn't mean neither side is correct.

If one person claims that every study has shown helmet benefit, while
another person gives citations and links to studies that show NO
helmet benefit, it should be clear which side is truthful.

None of the statistics have proven true in
my town, where helmet use and ridership are up and injury rates are
down. *I don't think any of these numbers are connected, however.

You must understand that you live in a very unusual town!

But our issues here are not "can bicycle use and helmet use both
increase?" nor "is it possible for injury rates to drop?"

What we - or at least, I - am trying to discuss are these questions:

1) Does ordinary bicycling carry such a severe risk of serious head
injury that head protection is highly desirable?

2) Do current bike helmets cause significant reductions in the per-
rider rate of serious head injury?

3) Does promotion and/or mandating of bike helmets tend to dissuade
people from cycling?

4) Is such promotion and/or mandating a net positive, or a net
negative for cyclists and for society?

My answers, based on over a decade of study, reading and discussing,
are very firm: 1) Not even close 2) Not even close 3) Almost
certainly 4) A net negative.

Some of those bad effects can be overcome. As one draconian example,
if automobiles were made illegal at the same time bike helmets were
mandated, you'd see a big rise in bike use despite the helmets. But
in a realistic world, scaring people with exaggerated head injury
tales has to dissuade _some_ people. So does mandating helmets. And
yes, despite Scharf's absurd claims, there is plenty of evidence of
that. I think it's not reasonably contestable.

However, *I was watching the UCI World Cyclocross Championships last
night. *I would not ride that course without a helmet (snow, ice, 150
degree corners with metal barriers all over the place). *That is head
whackage waiting to happen. *8oz of foam will help -- at least with
preventing scalp injury and skull fracture on some obstacle.

FWIW, I've never claimed helmets have ZERO protective capability.
While I no longer wear one even riding in snow, or for the gentle
mountain biking to which I now restrict myself, I do believe that
their very limited protective capability is a good fit for those
activities. (Their necessity is another matter.)

Likewise, if I were to enter a crit race, I'd wear a helmet even if it
weren't required. Amateur racers (at least in America) are notorious
for mistakes and crashes, so the odds of a significant head impact are
enormously greater than for ordinary riding. And again, those crashes
are far more likely to be within the tiny capacity of a bike helmet.

Not that they always work, of course. See
http://members.shaw.ca/jtubman/deadhelmet.html

Helmets have some protective capacity, just as egg cartons do.* But
any dispassionate examination of the certification tests should show
how limited that capacity is. And any dispassionate examination of
head injury or fatality stats in America will show that cycling is off
the radar for risk.

(Once, when acting as an expert witness in a machine design case, I
was asked "But wouldn't the weld have had _some_ strength, even though
it was mostly machined away?" It struck me as a question that was
either extremely naive, or - more likely - indicative of strong bias.
If a design is nowhere close to required strength, it's nonsense to
talk about it still having "some" strength.)

- Frank Krygowski

On Apr 12, 2:42*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:


Seems to me like there are extremes in cycling environments.

So far, nobody has drawn a distinction between one extreme:
riding down a bikeway along a river (i.e. grass on each side of
the path, no curbs, no proximity to traffic) and the another
extreme: *going downhill though a rock garden full of baby heads.

Actually, I've talked about the extremes many times. Not that I
expect anyone to remember everything I write here.

You'll note that I frequently talk about "ordinary cycling." That's
to distinguish it from higher-risk activities like extreme,
challenging mountain biking, or from the riskier types of racing.
Briefly, if someone chooses to race down a narrow rocky trail at 20
mph, it's sensible to put at least a helmet on. It's probably more
sensible to skip the entire exercise, though. Again, read up on the
actual test standards for bike helmets. That activity could easily
exceed a standard helmet's capability.

Keep in mind that ordinary road riding just doesn't have a high risk
of serious head injury. And that massive uptake of helmets for
ordinary road riding has not reduced that already small risk.

Back to mountain biking: Many years ago, I went on a group mountain
bike ride to an off-road recreation area, one set aside for macho off-
road 4-wheelers, motorcycles and mountain bikes. Two of us had no
helmets.

The other six guys had helmets. At a certain point, they had a "big
air" contest, down one steep hill, up the short rise, and see how far
they could fly. We without the helmets decided it was too
dangerous.

Sure enough, after about three tries, one of the helmeted guys botched
the landing. We slowly escorted him as he walked back to the cars,
nursing his thoroughly broken collar bone.

I figure, if he _hadn't_ worn a helmet, he probably wouldn't have been
injured.

- Frank Krygowski

On Apr 12, 5:00*pm, SMS wrote:


Hold on there, please don't imply that there is _anywhere_ where helmets
have resulted in lower ridership and higher injury rates. There is zero
evidence of this having happened _anywhere_.

The evidence has been cited so many times that we must call that a
lie.

See http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/campaigns/velo.htm for some
discussion of this. It's far from the only reference that's been
cited, but it's the easiest to link. Read the information under
"Bicycle Helmet Legislation."

- Frank Krygowski

On Apr 12, 6:36*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 12, 2:04*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:



What makes his reality the alternate one? *Every statistic is promoted
by a party with an agenda.

Jay, there is an underlying reality in life. *When agendas conflict,
that doesn't mean neither side is correct.

If one person claims that every study has shown helmet benefit, while
another person gives citations and links to studies that show NO
helmet benefit, it should be clear which side is truthful.

None of the statistics have proven true in
my town, where helmet use and ridership are up and injury rates are
down. *I don't think any of these numbers are connected, however.

You must understand that you live in a very unusual town!

But our issues here are not "can bicycle use and helmet use both
increase?" nor "is it possible for injury rates to drop?"

What we - or at least, I - am trying to discuss are these questions:

1) *Does ordinary bicycling carry such a severe risk of serious head
injury that head protection is highly desirable?

2) *Do current bike helmets cause significant reductions in the per-
rider rate of serious head injury?

3) *Does promotion and/or mandating of bike helmets tend to dissuade
people from cycling?

4) *Is such promotion and/or mandating a net positive, or a net
negative for cyclists and for society?

My answers, based on over a decade of study, reading and discussing,
are very firm: *1) Not even close *2) Not even close *3) Almost
certainly *4) A net negative.

Some of those bad effects can be overcome. *As one draconian example,
if automobiles were made illegal at the same time bike helmets were
mandated, you'd see a big rise in bike use despite the helmets. *But
in a realistic world, scaring people with exaggerated head injury
tales has to dissuade _some_ people. *So does mandating helmets. *And
yes, despite Scharf's absurd claims, there is plenty of evidence of
that. *I think it's not reasonably contestable.

However, *I was watching the UCI World Cyclocross Championships last
night. *I would not ride that course without a helmet (snow, ice, 150
degree corners with metal barriers all over the place). *That is head
whackage waiting to happen. *8oz of foam will help -- at least with
preventing scalp injury and skull fracture on some obstacle.

FWIW, I've never claimed helmets have ZERO protective capability.
While I no longer wear one even riding in snow, or for the gentle
mountain biking to which I now restrict myself, I do believe that
their very limited protective capability is a good fit for those
activities. *(Their necessity is another matter.)

Likewise, if I were to enter a crit race, I'd wear a helmet even if it
weren't required. *Amateur racers (at least in America) are notorious
for mistakes and crashes, so the odds of a significant head impact are
enormously greater than for ordinary riding. *And again, those crashes
are far more likely to be within the tiny capacity of a bike helmet.

Not that they always work, of course. *Seehttp://members.shaw.ca/jtubman/deadhelmet.html

Helmets have some protective capacity, just as egg cartons do.* *But
any dispassionate examination of the certification tests should show
how limited that capacity is. *And any dispassionate examination of
head injury or fatality stats in America will show that cycling is off
the radar for risk.

(Once, when acting as an expert witness in a machine design case, I
was asked "But wouldn't the weld have had _some_ strength, even though
it was mostly machined away?" *It struck me as a question that was
either extremely naive, or - more likely - indicative of strong bias.
If a design is nowhere close to required strength, it's nonsense to
talk about it still having "some" strength.)

I wore my helmet gardening today -- I aerated the front lawn
yesterday, and those cores were all over the place, so after I rode
home from work tonight, I parked my bike in the garage, pulled out the
leaf blower and cleared the walk. I didn't want the cores turning in
to mud on the walk when it started to rain. I did this while wearing
my tights, cleats and helmet. It struck me after finishing up that I
was endorsing gardening helmets. I'm sorry. -- Jay Beattie.

On Apr 12, 9:14*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

I wore my helmet gardening today -- I aerated the front lawn
yesterday, and those cores were all over the place, so after I rode
home from work tonight, I parked my bike in the garage, pulled out the
leaf blower and cleared the walk. I didn't want the cores turning in
to mud on the walk when it started to rain. *I did this while wearing
my tights, cleats and helmet. *It struck me after finishing up that I
was endorsing gardening helmets. I'm sorry. -- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

That's not a gardening helmet--this is a gardening helmet!

http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/20...en_helmet.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On 4/12/2010 10:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 12, 10:28 am, Jay wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:13 pm, 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.

butbutbut, bicycle foam hats prevent 70% of leg injuries!

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007