Austin to Evaluate Local Emergency Room Data to Determine Whetheror Not to Implement an All-Ages Helmet Law

On 17 Oct 2006 13:01:28 -0700, "gds" wrote:

Motorcar drivers and passengers would be a good place. There are a
large number of head injuries and deaths resulting from head injury
amongst occupants of motocars; they can wear heavy helmets that are
truly designed (unlike cycle helmets) to significantly reduce these
injuries, and they can afford to purchase them.

That we have pro-helmet and pro-MHL posters in this newgroup who are
not (as far as we know) advocating for such more sensible laws might
seem odd, except that they are the same ones that can't count, can't
do sums, brag about ignoring the data, ceaselessly insult people who
point out their errors, and in general show that pro-helmet zealots
and pro-helmet-law zealots do their "cause" no good by their mere
existance.

And a Good Thing too.

Just wondering what meds you are on.
I can't remember a single person posting here who is in favor of MHL's.


Google "I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and truly
enforced" and check the posters in this htread.

On 17 Oct 2006 21:03:47 GMT, Helmut Springer
wrote:

SMS wrote:
Does it? I mean besides "ER people belive it would have made a
significant difference"?

The ER evidence is overwhelming in terms of how much better helmet
wearers fare versus non-helmet wearers, in head-impact crashes.

Care to provide a pointer to a scientific quantification?


That debate is long over.

Ah, I understand you are a strong believer...


No one (at least no one that has a clue) disputes the fact that
helmet wearers do better in head-impact crashes than non-helmet
wearers.

The question is "significant difference".


"...the idea behind the helmet law being to preserve a brain whose
judgment is so poor, it does not even try to avoid the cracking of
the head it's in." Jerry Seinfeld.

I wonder what he fed his brain to come up with the conclusion, if it
was scientific evidence he should publish.


"Jerry Seinfeld" is what passes in the United Sates of America for a
comedian. Draw the obvious conclusion when a pro-helmet zealot uses
such a satement as support for their position.

Q: What's worse than a rabid Anti-helmet Psycho?

A: An Anti-helmet Psycho totally devoid of a sense of humor or the
absurd. IOW, a Psychotic Anti-helmet Robot.

Presenting "jtaylor":


wrote:
On 17 Oct 2006 21:03:47 GMT, Helmut Springer
wrote:

SMS wrote:
Does it? I mean besides "ER people belive it would have made a
significant difference"?

The ER evidence is overwhelming in terms of how much better helmet
wearers fare versus non-helmet wearers, in head-impact crashes.

Care to provide a pointer to a scientific quantification?


That debate is long over.

Ah, I understand you are a strong believer...


No one (at least no one that has a clue) disputes the fact that
helmet wearers do better in head-impact crashes than non-helmet
wearers.

The question is "significant difference".


"...the idea behind the helmet law being to preserve a brain whose
judgment is so poor, it does not even try to avoid the cracking of
the head it's in." Jerry Seinfeld.

I wonder what he fed his brain to come up with the conclusion, if it
was scientific evidence he should publish.


"Jerry Seinfeld" is what passes in the United Sates of America for a
comedian. Draw the obvious conclusion when a pro-helmet zealot uses
such a satement as support for their position.

wrote:
On 17 Oct 2006 13:01:28 -0700, "gds" wrote:

Motorcar drivers and passengers would be a good place. There are a
large number of head injuries and deaths resulting from head injury
amongst occupants of motocars; they can wear heavy helmets that are
truly designed (unlike cycle helmets) to significantly reduce these
injuries, and they can afford to purchase them.

That we have pro-helmet and pro-MHL posters in this newgroup who are
not (as far as we know) advocating for such more sensible laws might
seem odd, except that they are the same ones that can't count, can't
do sums, brag about ignoring the data, ceaselessly insult people who
point out their errors, and in general show that pro-helmet zealots
and pro-helmet-law zealots do their "cause" no good by their mere
existance.

And a Good Thing too.

Just wondering what meds you are on.
I can't remember a single person posting here who is in favor of MHL's.


Google "I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and truly
enforced" and check the posters in this htread.

http://tinyurl.com/y2lk4g

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:58:19 GMT, wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:35:32 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote:


Even more rational would be to look at the real number of incidents
and then consider that in the light of the number of riders and miles
travelled. Unless they're getting an awfully large number of ER
visits involving head injuries, a helmet law seems like a poor place
to start improving bike safety; the place to spend the money is where
you can achieve a reduction in the number of incidents overall, not in
trying to mitigate one type of injury in a group that's probably not
very large to start with.

Motorcar drivers and passengers would be a good place. There are a
large number of head injuries and deaths resulting from head injury
amongst occupants of motocars; they can wear heavy helmets that are
truly designed (unlike cycle helmets) to significantly reduce these
injuries, and they can afford to purchase them.

Sorry, but no; although racing drivers have been using helmets for
years (with good reason and overall good results), their efficacy in
that application has been shown to be less universally beneficial than
originally expected. The experience gained during those years has
demonstrated that the use of such helmets by ordinary drivers would be
a hazard in itself. They restrict peripheral vision, they promote
reliance on mirrors due to restriction of head motion, they add mass
to the head and increase the incidence of neck injury (which is what
killed a certain popular diver not too long ago), they increase the
risk of spine compression in a rollover of a vehicle that does not
have a full rull cage, and they reduce hearing acuity even more than
the already overeffective driver compartment insulation. No, they do
not make sense for ordinary car drivers.

That we have pro-helmet and pro-MHL posters in this newgroup who are
not (as far as we know) advocating for such more sensible laws might
seem odd, except that they are the same ones that can't count, can't
do sums, brag about ignoring the data, ceaselessly insult people who
point out their errors, and in general show that pro-helmet zealots
and pro-helmet-law zealots do their "cause" no good by their mere
existance.

Or perhaps they have a different agenda, or perhaps they understand
the lack of reason behind *that* stance (but perhaps, in some cases,
not their own), or perhaps they have decided to just pick one cause
and stick with it instead of trying to run off in every direction
saving the whole world...or perhaps they have some other reason or
lack of it. Characterizing the actions of individuals as though they
were all uniform members of some cohesive group is the most egregious
conceit I've seen...and by far the most popular.

And a Good Thing too.

Maybe, and then again, maybe not.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

gds who? wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:35:32 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote:


Even more rational would be to look at the real number of incidents
and then consider that in the light of the number of riders and miles
travelled. Unless they're getting an awfully large number of ER
visits involving head injuries, a helmet law seems like a poor place
to start improving bike safety; the place to spend the money is where
you can achieve a reduction in the number of incidents overall, not in
trying to mitigate one type of injury in a group that's probably not
very large to start with.

Motorcar drivers and passengers would be a good place. There are a
large number of head injuries and deaths resulting from head injury
amongst occupants of motocars; they can wear heavy helmets that are
truly designed (unlike cycle helmets) to significantly reduce these
injuries, and they can afford to purchase them.

That we have pro-helmet and pro-MHL posters in this newgroup who are
not (as far as we know) advocating for such more sensible laws might
seem odd, except that they are the same ones that can't count, can't
do sums, brag about ignoring the data, ceaselessly insult people who
point out their errors, and in general show that pro-helmet zealots
and pro-helmet-law zealots do their "cause" no good by their mere
existance.

And a Good Thing too.

Just wondering what meds you are on.
I can't remember a single person posting here who is in favor of MHL's.
Beyond that those who actively promote helmet use for others is also
pretty small.
If you read the threads you have a fair number of folks saying
something like "using a helmet, especially in certain circumstances
makes sense to me, so I'll choose to do so"
That is hardly a zealot postion being staked out.

It is also interesting, at least to me, that you can manage to sound so
angry over this. Why is it so important?

Why the hell should we let a bunch or know-nothing's force us to wear
ineffective foam hats? Unless you believe in corporate welfare for
helmet manufacturers, distributors and retailers, that is.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:


Why the hell should we let a bunch or know-nothing's force us to wear
ineffective foam hats?

If you don't want to wear a helmet, don't. Do you really think you will
be jailed for flouting a bicycle helmet law?


Unless you believe in corporate welfare for
helmet manufacturers, distributors and retailers, that is.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

gds wrote:

Why are you so quick to give such a big discount to the opinions of ER
doctors? While I understand the problems of any group using anecdotal
experience to "prove" a point; it is certainly the case that these
"opinions" if widely held by a large number of ER docs have some
importance in pointing us to the "truth."

The last statement is vague enough to be true. That is, the opinions
of a large number of ER docs might point us to the truth - which is
that ER docs are competent at repairing damage, but not at evaluating
the efficacy of preventive measures.

FWIW, I know one ER doc very well. I won't destroy his privacy by
giving his name, but he lives in a state that fairly recently
instituted a MHL for kids. His judgement, based on ER presentations
he's seen? The MHL made no noticeable difference. He dismisses it as
worthless.

I'll also remind readers that, a few years ago, we had one poster who
crashed, was taken to an ER, and was asked by the attending physician
"Were you wearing a helmet?" The cyclist said "Yes," and the physician
said "It's a good thing. It probably saved your life."

But the cyclist had lied. He just didn't want an obnoxious lecture.
The ER doc was so swayed by pro-helmet propaganda that it completely
distorted his judgement.

Doctors tend to be pretty intelligent, of course. But they are not
necessarily competent outside their specialty. If you want to
determine the efficacy of helmets, ask someone who understands numbers,
and has spent time actually studying the data.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank "Limp Willy" Krygowski, a notorious Anti-helmet Psycho, makes a
limp argument:


wrote:
gds wrote:

Why are you so quick to give such a big discount to the opinions of ER
doctors? While I understand the problems of any group using anecdotal
experience to "prove" a point; it is certainly the case that these
"opinions" if widely held by a large number of ER docs have some
importance in pointing us to the "truth."

The last statement is vague enough to be true. That is, the opinions
of a large number of ER docs might point us to the truth - which is
that ER docs are competent at repairing damage, but not at evaluating
the efficacy of preventive measures.

FWIW, I know one ER doc very well. I won't destroy his privacy by
giving his name, but he lives in a state that fairly recently
instituted a MHL for kids. His judgement, based on ER presentations
he's seen? The MHL made no noticeable difference. He dismisses it as
worthless.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unsubstantiated Bull****. What else would one expect from a notorious
Anti-helmet Psycho?

SMS wrote:
"http://keyetv.com/topstories/local_story_284175358.html"

For anyone new, here's what to expect from such a study. I'll
illustrate with several data points:

Cyclist #1 is a fairly well-off, middle-class person. He's bought the
propaganda (that cycling head injuries are common and severe) and
bought a helmet. He transported his bike to the bike trail, and rode
off the edge of the pavement. When he fell, he bumped his helmet
lightly on the ground. (If he hadn't worn it, his head would have
actually missed the ground.)

Because he's worried about head injury, he'll drive to the ER "just in
case." After all, his job provides insurance coverage, and his policy
pays for 100% ER visits. He'll show up, the staff will find no signs
of head injury, they'll scrub out his slight road rash on his knee and
send him home. And they'll check the boxes "Helmet" and "No head
injury."

Cyclist #2 is a low income person who works at two menial jobs. He
rides his bike to and from the jobs. He rode facing traffic, as usual,
and got surprised by a car pulling out from a driveway. To avoid
collision, he swerved, hit the curb with his tire, flipped, and caught
himself with his hands. His head lightly touched his head on the
pavement, about the same as #1's helmet touch.

He's got a little scrape on his head. But he hasn't had time or
inclination to read the scare stories about head injuries. And he's
got no insurance, so if he goes to the ER, he pays the full bill. He
says "Hell, I've had worse bumps on the basketball court." He washes
his scrape when he gets to work and works the full 8 hours. His little
scab falls off in ten days. And he's not recorded at all.

Cyclist #3 is another low income guy. He rode like #2, but he wasn't
so lucky. He got hit by that car. Fortunately, he was going slow and
so was the car, but he took a pretty good hit to the head. He walks
his bent bike back to the housing project and calls in sick, because
he's feeling kind of dazed, and his cut is still bleeding a bit.

His significant other says "I know you don't have insurance, but you
better get to the hospital. You're bleeding, and that cut needs
stitches. Don't be a fool." He doesn't want to go, because it will
cost a fortune. He'd ignore her, but she's scared, and he doesn't want
another fight, so he goes in.

They call it a mild concussion, they stitch his cut, and they charge
him hundreds of bucks that he can't afford. He thinks "Damn - if it
were just a little bit less messy, I'd have saved myself weeks of pay."


And they check "No helmet, head injury."



Do these three data points show that helmets prevent serious head
injury? No, sorry. They show that people who are prosperous enough to
buy helmets are likely prosperous enough to go to the ER "just to be
sure," even though they would have had no serious head injury without
the helmet. They show that people who can't afford helmets will present
to an ER only if they really do have some significant injury. They
show that helmets can be a marker of prosperity, and prosperous people
behave differently than poor people. And they show that voluntary
choice of helmets introduces sampling bias into case-control studies.

Of course, most people will not understand such factors. Helmet
promoters who do understand them will ignore such factors. They'll
pretend that everybody has the same inclination to rush to the ER, and
that all prosperous fraidy-cats would have been dead if they'd not had
3/4" styrofoam to save their lives.

They might even post here, saying "The ER evidence is overwhelming."

- Frank Krygowski