|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:34:12 -0700 (PDT), Peter Rathmann
wrote: On Apr 10, 10:11*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Apr 10, 9:59*pm, SMS wrote: They tested six helmets, priced between $10 and $207, and found no difference in simulations of real-world impacts. "http://www.bhsi.org/testbycost.htm" "http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100408/NEWS10/4080579/1027/You+..." Wow. *According to that article, "Medical research shows that bike helmets can prevent 85 percent of cyclists' head injuries." Isn't that astonishing? I also like this more recent study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19944823 where the abstract gives their results as: "RESULTS: Of 324 patients with bicycle-related head injuries, 90 (27.8%) had severe head injuries. Boys compared with girls had a higher proportion of severe head injuries (34.1% vs 23.4%; P = .048). Children aged 5 to 9 years had a higher proportion of severe head injuries compared with ages 10 to 14 years (65.2% vs 6.4%; P = .043). Bicycles without reflectors had a higher proportion of severe head injuries compared to bicycles with reflectors (69.0% vs 5.7%; P = . 004). Bicyclists carrying goods (such as backpacks or weighted toward the road) and speeding were associated with severe head injury (P . 05). Collisions with vehicles of a larger size resulted in a higher rate of severe head injury compared with collisions with pedestrians (76.9% vs 3.6%; P = .043)." Note the apparent effectiveness of having a reflector on the bike - the chance of a severe head injury dropped from 69% to 5.7%, so the presence of the reflector was over 90% effective in preventing severe head injury. More effective than a helmet, much less expensive, and far more convenient to use (just install once and leave it on the bike). Once again showing the problems associated with taking case-control studies (and their inherent self-selection bias) at face value. Dear Peter, Thanks for a nice example! Cheers, Carl Fogel |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bicycle foam hat to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap foam hats.
On 4/11/2010 11:34 PM, Peter Rathmann wrote:
[...] I also like this more recent study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19944823 where the abstract gives their results as: [...] Bicycles without reflectors had a higher proportion of severe head injuries compared to bicycles with reflectors[...] How does a bicycle have a head injury? -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On 11/04/10 10:34 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
And of course, all the riders who had a close call while not wearing a helmet - close enough that the helmet would have made contact. Think truck mirrors. Right. There must be millions of cyclists who have been injured because of truck mirrors that that one extra inch of helmet thickness is responsible for. Please don't ever attend a hearing where a helmet law is being debated and bring that myth up. Just stay home and keep telling yourself about the truck mirrors, or have a little get-together with Frank where he can talk about gardening helmets and you can reassure yourselves of that which is not so. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On 11/04/10 9:34 PM, Peter Rathmann wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:11 pm, Frank wrote: On Apr 10, 9:59 pm, wrote: They tested six helmets, priced between $10 and $207, and found no difference in simulations of real-world impacts. "http://www.bhsi.org/testbycost.htm" "http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100408/NEWS10/4080579/1027/You+..." Wow. According to that article, "Medical research shows that bike helmets can prevent 85 percent of cyclists' head injuries." Isn't that astonishing? I also like this more recent study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19944823 where the abstract gives their results as: "RESULTS: Of 324 patients with bicycle-related head injuries, 90 (27.8%) had severe head injuries. Boys compared with girls had a higher proportion of severe head injuries (34.1% vs 23.4%; P = .048). Children aged 5 to 9 years had a higher proportion of severe head injuries compared with ages 10 to 14 years (65.2% vs 6.4%; P = .043). Bicycles without reflectors had a higher proportion of severe head injuries compared to bicycles with reflectors (69.0% vs 5.7%; P = . 004). Bicyclists carrying goods (such as backpacks or weighted toward the road) and speeding were associated with severe head injury (P . 05). Collisions with vehicles of a larger size resulted in a higher rate of severe head injury compared with collisions with pedestrians (76.9% vs 3.6%; P = .043)." Note the apparent effectiveness of having a reflector on the bike - the chance of a severe head injury dropped from 69% to 5.7%, so the presence of the reflector was over 90% effective in preventing severe head injury. More effective than a helmet, much less expensive, and far more convenient to use (just install once and leave it on the bike). Once again showing the problems associated with taking case-control studies (and their inherent self-selection bias) at face value. Actually, what it shows (once again) is something that many people are unable to understand--correlation does not equal causation. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
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. -- PeteCresswell |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
In article ,
SMS wrote: On 11/04/10 9:34 PM, Peter Rathmann wrote: On Apr 10, 10:11 pm, Frank wrote: On Apr 10, 9:59 pm, wrote: They tested six helmets, priced between $10 and $207, and found no difference in simulations of real-world impacts. "http://www.bhsi.org/testbycost.htm" "http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100408/NEWS10/4080579/1027/ You+..." Wow. According to that article, "Medical research shows that bike helmets can prevent 85 percent of cyclists' head injuries." Isn't that astonishing? I also like this more recent study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19944823 where the abstract gives their results as: "RESULTS: Of 324 patients with bicycle-related head injuries, 90 (27.8%) had severe head injuries. Boys compared with girls had a higher proportion of severe head injuries (34.1% vs 23.4%; P = .048). Children aged 5 to 9 years had a higher proportion of severe head injuries compared with ages 10 to 14 years (65.2% vs 6.4%; P = .043). Bicycles without reflectors had a higher proportion of severe head injuries compared to bicycles with reflectors (69.0% vs 5.7%; P = . 004). Bicyclists carrying goods (such as backpacks or weighted toward the road) and speeding were associated with severe head injury (P . 05). Collisions with vehicles of a larger size resulted in a higher rate of severe head injury compared with collisions with pedestrians (76.9% vs 3.6%; P = .043)." Note the apparent effectiveness of having a reflector on the bike - the chance of a severe head injury dropped from 69% to 5.7%, so the presence of the reflector was over 90% effective in preventing severe head injury. More effective than a helmet, much less expensive, and far more convenient to use (just install once and leave it on the bike). Once again showing the problems associated with taking case-control studies (and their inherent self-selection bias) at face value. Actually, what it shows (once again) is something that many people are unable to understand--correlation does not equal causation. Whoooossshhhh! |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
In article ,
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. There you go again with your faith-based mathematics. Really, Steven, did you even take high school algebra? Is your best defense of helmets positing an unknown but presumably massive number of people whose life-threatening head injuries were prevented by 8-10 ounces of styrofoam who just never show up in the data? What about the massive number of people not wearing helmets who didn't get a brain injury and didn't go to the hospital. You can't prove there weren't 7.3 times as many of them as people whose foam hats saved them. I'll say this for you, Steven: you're consistently entertaining in your dreadful earnestness. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
In article ,
SMS wrote: On 11/04/10 5:47 PM, AMuzi wrote: I know a few right wingers, none of whom wears a helmet. That's the best explanation I've seen of what happened to the brains of Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, etc. None of those would be caught dead on a bicycle. Maybe Coulter. Hannity and Beck could obviously use some exercise, though. Coulter and Palin look like they keep fairly fit. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
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. Why not read the paper I cited to see what it actually says? On that particular point you raise: there were never anywhere near enough cyclist fatalities to produce the effect you seem to be hoping for. Footnote #2 of the paper says "There were approximately 10 cyclist fatalities in each six-month period of the study. The majority of these fatalities had sustained severe injuries to multiple body regions, including the head." Translation: The number of fatalities didn't drop after helmet use suddenly jumped to 90% for kids, 70% for teens and 50% for adults. The number of fatalities didn't make any difference in the hospital results. And most fatalities wouldn't have been prevented by a helmet anyway. Now why not go to the library and ask them to get you the paper? - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This is getting expensive (helmets) | Mike Jacoubowsky | General | 34 | December 16th 07 11:13 PM |
This is getting expensive (helmets) | Tom Sherman[_2_] | Recumbent Biking | 15 | December 12th 07 04:14 AM |
How about this bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) | Ken Aston | General | 20 | November 14th 06 05:14 PM |
How about a Marin bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) | Ken Aston | UK | 6 | November 9th 06 04:59 PM |
How about this bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) | Ken Aston | Australia | 3 | November 9th 06 02:23 AM |