Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:

Despite the hype and handwringing, head impacts are vanishingly rare
riding uprights. My bet is that they're much more rare on a
recumbent.

Depending on what "vanishingly rare" means, something doesn't add up in
those two sentences.

Vanishingly = "to pass out of existence"; so how can something be MUCH more
rare than that?

Let's give an example.

Vanishingly rare might be: One serious bicycling head injury per half
million miles of riding.

Much more rare than that would be: One serious recumbent head injury
per two million miles of recumbent riding.


I think you're right about the second part (head injuries good deal less
likely on 'bents); wrong about the first (unfortuately).

Well, for the club cyclists interviewed in Moritz's national survey of
1998 (Moritz, W. Adult Bicyclists in the United States -
Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996, presented at the
Transportation Research Board 77th Annual Meeting, 1998) they had a
"serious" crash every 30,000 miles or so. But unfortunately, "serious"
was poorly defined. $50 equipment damage was called serious - like, a
bent derailleur; or any injury requiring any medical treatment was
called serious - like, a cut that needed two stitches.

Other data shows that "moderate to serious" head injuries are present
in less than 6% of cyclists coming to emergency rooms.

To be conservative, let's ignore the equipment-based "serious" crashes
and pretend all those surveyed were in the ER; and let's ignore the
"moderate" (i.e. inconsequential) head injuries and pretend all he 6%
were "serious." That works out to one serious head injury per half
million miles, on average.

IOW, vanishingly rare.

(You may wish to use your annual miles to work out how soon you'll hit
half a million miles. Let us know how many years that comes out to,
for you.)


Incidentally, I'll remind you that the link between cycling and serious
head injuries is relatively new. I don't know your age, but trust me,
people were not warned about head injuries and cycling until _after_
the Bell Biker appeared on the market. If such injuries were _not_
vanishingly rare, don't you think people would have noticed in the
1960s? Or the 1950s, during the cold war, when the leader of the free
world began to bicycle for exercise? Or the 1940s, or 1930s...

- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:05:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:28:18 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote:


I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
It's quite literally not my problem.

What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced?
Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet?

Not an issue. Hasn't happened, and if it did, I'd make up my mind
based on the situation at hand. I can't predict the answer, and it's
irrelevant anyway. What *I* do is my choice; what *you* do is
*yours*. Every choice has consequences, possible and actual. Not all
consequences obtain in every instance. That does not change the fact
that they could.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Rich wrote:
wrote:

How about the ads showing four-year-old kids on
plastic recumbent sidewalk trikes, riding three miles per hour with
their heads about two feet above the ground, "safely" ensconced in
helmets? How is that logical?

It's getting them in the habit of wearing a helmet, so when they're
older and riding bigger and faster bikes they're accustomed to riding
with a helmet.

Well, if that's the objective, people aren't going far enough, are
they? The poor little dears are spending most of their lives without
helmets!

There are, of course, infant helmets on the market, apparently to
protect from the terrible dangers of learning to walk.
http://www.thudguard.com/

Why do they not show kids _always_ wearing helmets, starting from day
one? Certainly, that would do a better job of getting them accustomed!

- Frank Krygowski

Werehatrack wrote:
On 16 Jul 2005 07:39:04 -0700, wrote:

.. Helmet manufacturers are
constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while
still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification
tests.

Not that I care if the anti-helmer zealots ride without one or not,
but...

First, the term "anti-helmet zealot" makes little sense. People who
argue as helmet skeptics are actually arguing for no change in the
norm. IOW, it's the people who promote helmets that want to change
others' habits - by rule or by law, if necessary. A person who says
"Wait, we can leave it as it is" can hardly be called a zealot!


I fail to see how a helmet that barely passes a weak test could afford
less protection in the event of an impact than none at all, yet this
is the (to me, absurd) position that I have often seen espoused.

I'm not positive the helmet is mechanically responsible for providing
_less_ protection in many crashes. I'm quite confident that helmets
prevent many inconsequential injuries, just as cycling gloves probably
do. But there is the possibility of suffering a grazing blow to a
helmet that would be a complete miss without one - and such a grazing
blow may cause rotational acceleration of the head and brain tissue.

I think what's much more likely is this: People hear "85% reduction in
head injuries." They put on a helmet and feel nearly 100% protected
(since nobody seems aware that head injuries are actually a tiny
portion of cycling injuries, as uncommon as they are). They go out and
ride in a location, or manner, that they otherwise wouldn't. And their
increase in risk outstrips what's actually the very, very modest
protective capacity of the foam hat.

Keep in mind, _something_ must be going on. Again, the large
population data shows an increase in cycling head injuries as helmet
use goes up. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html for one mention
of that fact. Data from Australia, under universal mandatory helmet
laws, shows the same trend.


I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen;
I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet
would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all
risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't
bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the
difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine.
It's quite literally not my problem.

And you're welcome to wear one. In fact, I invite you to extend your
logic beyond cycling! After all, when _do_ you "know what's going to
happen"? Surely you realize that cycling is not even on the map for
causing serious head injuries, right? Why not wear a helmet for all
activities that cause head injuries?

The answer is, of course, that you've been convinced by helmet
promoters that cycling IS a tremendous head injury risk. And of
course, they've never given you correct numbers in proper context to
prove that. Nor have you looked for them. You've believed the hype,
so you treat cycling as if it's a special danger.

If you didn't think cycling caused a special danger, you wouldn't think
a special hat was necessary.

- Frank Krygowski

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced?
Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet?


Good question. I know of one instance where a guy's helmet was stolen
in the middle of a bike tour.

He rode on. Are there people here who would actually stop riding?

- Frank Krygowski

Werehatrack wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:16:54 GMT, Michael Press wrote:

Why is it that clubs require that riders wear a helmet on club
rides?
How is it that they can reasonably expect to enforce this
requirement?

By denying access to the activity if the rules are not complied with.

:-) By telling the unhelmeted cyclist "You are not allowed to ride on
this public road, because we're riding on it, and we want you to wear a
helmet"??

Our club once supported a charity ride by working booths, helping with
lunch, etc. My best frined and I were driving sag. Helmets were
mandatory.

Sure enough, we came upon a guy out at about the 30 mile mark, riding
alone, ride number visible, helmet strapped to his rear rack. We
pulled up alongside and said "Um, you're supposed to have your helmet
on, you know."

He said something like "Yeah, I know."

We looked at each other and shrugged. What could we do? Tell him to
get off the public road? Tell him not to turn in the money he'd
collected for the charity? Tell his mommy? What I actually did was to
tell my friend "Well, it's a dumb rule anyway." And we drove on.

Oh, and BTW, that incident also proves that there must be _some_
detriment to wearing a helmet. If that guy experienced no detriment,
he wouldn't have bothered to take it off and strap it on his rear rack.


I ask this when the case for helmets is not proven.

What proof do you require? Will you pay for the testing if it
succeeds? If the answer is "yes" and you can demonstrate the ability
to fund the testing, I think I know an underwriter who will front the
cost to run the testing on the condition that you'll pay when the data
is in. Meanwhile, there's already sufficient data to persuade people
who are in a position to make decisions about liability costs and
regulations, and if you disagree with their analysis, I suggest that
you take it up with them.

Here is the release form requested by the underwriters of the League of
American Bicyclists' event insurance.
http://www.bikeleague.org/members/sample_waiver.pdf

You'll note it does not mention helmets at all, let alone require them.
Apparently, those professionals who made the decision on liability
costs disagreed with _your_ analysis - even though they didn't have to
bear the cost of the helmets!

- Frank Krygowski

Werehatrack wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:05:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced?
Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet?

Not an issue. Hasn't happened, and if it did, I'd make up my mind
based on the situation at hand. I can't predict the answer, and it's
irrelevant anyway.

I think it's relevant, even though you obviously don't want to answer.

It sounds to me like in at least some circumstances, you'd call for a
ride home. Am I wrong?

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
Rich wrote:

It's getting them in the habit of wearing a helmet, so when they're
older and riding bigger and faster bikes they're accustomed to riding
with a helmet.

Well, if that's the objective, people aren't going far enough, are
they? The poor little dears are spending most of their lives without
helmets!

There are, of course, infant helmets on the market, apparently to
protect from the terrible dangers of learning to wal k.
http://www.thudguard.com/

This is a link worth following. If you go through the entire site, you
will find that one of the claimed benefits is "Promotes early helmet
wearing habits". It was invented by a British mother whose toddler fell
and bumped her head. The product was a finalist for some "Female
Invention of the Year" award.

Predictions:
(1) Several infants will die from strangulation after snagging the chin
strap, despite the warning label.
(2) Several infants will die from heat exhaustion after wearing the
insulated covering in the summer, despite the warning label.
(3) Severla infants will suffer serious brain injury and mental
retardation from banging their helmeted heads against the wall, as an
experiment.
(4) Not one significant head injury will be prevented.
(5) It will though result in a (n all too temporary) decrease in
national valium consumption.

(6) The device will eventually be withdrawn and banned from the market,
perhaps only after many deaths. Will the helmet lobbies have enough
force to see that this happens quietly; or will we be able to hear the
facts of the disaster shouted out from the rooftops??

In rec.bicycles.racing gwhite wrote:
Good thing he was wearing a helmet.

Good work. It just doesn't feel like the Tour
without an out of control a helmet thread.

Bob Schwartz

In article ,
Werehatrack wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:16:54 GMT, Michael Press wrote:

tyranny: exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor
not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the
purposes of government.

Not present. There is no abuse of the public without justifiable
purpose or benefit; the imposition is neither cruel nor illegal. You
may not like it, but you *are not* harmed by it, so no claim of
tyranny obtains.

The case for helmets is not proven. Demanding that I buy and wear
one is tyranny according to the definition.

liberty: the power of choice; freedom from necessity; freedom from
compulsion or constraint in willing.

Your freedom to ride in general is only encumbered in Australia; your
freedom to ride in group events and restricted localities is only
encumbered insofar as the organizers must in order to have those
activities with a reasonable liability indemnification cost. If you
wish to organize helmetless rides, do so. I have no doubt that you
will have takers. Beware of accepting non-adult participants in many
parts of the US, and beware of allowing participants to ride after
dark without a headlight, because as the organizer, you may be held
jointly responsible for compliance with local regulations.

Mr. Werehatrack, it is your problem.

Sorry, no, it *isn't*. Even if I was on the other side, *your*
arguments would not persuade me. This isn't a "freedom" issue, it's a
liability issue. If you truly want non-helmet-required riding events,
you are perfectly free to organize them in any area in which they are
legal, which for adults is most of the US at this point. If you have
difficulty obtaining insurance for the ride at a bearable cost, that's
an *economic* issue, not a liberty issue. You are *also* free to
assume the risk yourself and not buy insurance.

The economic effect? How much?

You want others to assume the risk for your choices; waivers or not,
that's the effect of what you want. They are free to refuse. If you
can't accept that, it's *your* problem.

No my problem is a majority so insecure that they impose their
beliefs. I do not demand that a club change its charter so that
they may have the honor of my membership. Obviously they made
their choice and do not want me. I ask serious questions. The
benefit of helmets is not proven; the majority acts as if it is,
and apply pressure to those who demur.

One who does not wear a bicycle helmet does not infringe upon the
liberty of others. This is your problem because erosion of liberty
is everyone's problem.

--
Michael Press