On Feb 3, 6:43 am, "barry taylor" <taylo...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> you can put the so called scientific and statistical analyses of helmet
> usage where the sun don't shine
I hope you're not on a drugs approval group.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
> in the last six months I have had two helmet experiences that quite
> literally saved my life
> in the first I did a stationary drop off into the side of a car.
> in the second instance last week 120 km into the TDU Stage 4 Challenge
> ride I had my front wheel taken out from under me while doing 35 k/hr and
> landed head first in the gravel off the side of the road - without my helmet
> and safety goggles I very much doubt that I would be alive, mobile
> (generally) and with all of the left side of my face (with or without the
> fifteen stitches and micro surgery required)
>
> ---
>
> ~~~ ~ _@
> ~~ ~ _- \,
> ~~ (*)/ (*) . . . bjbear on his treadly
>
> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rcousine-9C7BCE.01015303022008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> : In article <47a4a013$0$4958$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> : "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> :
> : > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> : > > In article <47a4777c$0$17367$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> : > > "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> : > >
> : > >> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> : > >>news:fo1s57$tkq$2@registered.motzarella.org...
> : > >>> Gooserider wrote:
> : > >>>> "It's Chris" <dedendaddy4spamm...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> : > >>>>news:14883-47A455BA-1858@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
> : > >>>>> Don't you know you cannot mention protectective headwear of any
> : > >>>>> kind on these boards ? If God him/herself posted that they do or
> : > >>>>> do not work it would start a minor war.
> : > >
> : > >> Tell you what, Tom----let me hit you in your naked head with a bat.
> : > >> Please. Let's see what happens.
> : > >>
> : > >> I was wearing a helmet when I was hit by a truck mirror---in the
> : > >> back of the head. My helmet cracked, yet my skull was uninjured. If
> : > >> nothing else, the helmet prevented me from having my head laid open
> : > >> by the impact.
> : > >
> : > > Gooserider, let me hit your bike-helmeted head with a bat. If I
> can't
> : > > knock you unconscious (even going through the foam) I'll eat my bike
> : > > shorts. The old pair.
> : > >
> : > > I mean, I wear a helmet virtually every time I ride a bike, a
> : > > consequence of either not wanting to invite a ticket, racing rules,
> or
> : > > the general feeling that when I'm out riding in the woods where I
> : > > might well fall off my bike, it might be nice to reduce my chances
> of
> : > > going unconscious.
> : > >
> : > > That said, I can read the stats: they do seem to strongly indicate
> : > > that the actual injury-reduction ability of bike helmets is
> : > > chimerical; it can't be seen through the statistical fuzz.
> : > >
> : > > Moreover, we know about the actual harm (in reduced cycling) that
> : > > helmet laws universally do.
> : >
> : > Classic. (Hint: Goose never mentioned a law, nor did he say that a
> bat
> : > couldn't hurt someone wearing a helmet.)
> : >
> : > Classic.
> :
> : Well, I'm just pointing out that Goose's "test" needed a control in
> : order to have some significance, and I think I've come up with a good
> : one.
> :
> : Also, let me be the first to do the big climb-down here. I'd rather eat
> : a pair of my bike shorts (the old ones, but laundered, and expertly
> : prepared) than take a swing at anyone with a bat while they were wearing
> : a bicycle helmet.
> :
> : Why? Simply put, I'm pretty sure there's a non-zero chance I might kill
> : 'em. If not by hitting them really hard through the foam, then by the
> : more mundane feat of accidentally missing. It's a bad test from end to
> : end, though no worse than the one Gooserider proposed that Tom try.
> :
> : As I've pointed out, I almost always wear a helmet on the bike. But it's
> : rather odd that there haven't been any durable statistical studies
> : showing the benefits of helmets. It's rather odd that meta-analyses of
> : multiple helmet-effectiveness studies in real-world populations haven't
> : shown any statistically significant differences. It's rather odd that at
> : this point the only thing we can say about helmets is that they pass the
> : standard helmet tests.
> :
> : I have a few theories about why this is the case, but frankly it weirds
> : me out that helmets can't demonstrate their efficacy in the real world.
> :
> : Read pro-helmet surveys of the literature, and you get odd paragraphs
> : like this one:
> :
> : "Thompson et al (1989) conceded that they could not completely role out
> : the possibility that more cautious cyclists may have chosen to wear
> : helmets and also had less severe accidents. Spaite et al (1991) compared
> : injuries sustained by helmeted and unhelmeted riders in collisions with
> : motor vehicles, finding that the helmeted riders had less injury to
> : other parts of the body as well as to the head. They concluded that the
> : collisions for these riders had been less severe, because the riders had
> : been more cautious. However, Thompson et al (1989) made adjustments made
> : for age, experience, and accident severity should have largely accounted
> : for such potential differences between case patients and controls. In
> : the large Australian study by McDermott et al, helmeted casualties had
> : more frequent and severe body injuries than unhelmeted casualties, and
> : riders wearing helmets slightly more often hit their helmeted heads or
> : their faces on colliding vehicles. It may be reasonably concluded that
> : the wearing of helmets is not strongly associated, if at all, with more
> : cautious riding."
> :
> :http://www.helmets.org/henderso.htm
> :
> : You'll pardon me if I show some skepticism. The Spaite conclusion's odd
> : results were just sort of left to hang in the wind. The long discussions
> : of the Australian experience with a mandatory helmet law (the
> : before-after studies there seem to be the gold standard of pro-helmet
> : research) didn't mention any accounting for ridership rates as a
> : contributor to the reduced casualty rates, a correspondence which other
> : studies appear to have demonstrated.
> :
> : If you look at other widely-mandated or implemented safety equipment,
> : you can see conclusions about effectiveness emerge pretty definitively.
> : Cars are easy to assess because there's lots of 'em, and they've had
> : lots of safety equipment added:
> :
> : Seatbelts: work really well
> : ABS brakes: no measurable effect on accident rates or severity.
> : Traction control: surprisingly, this helps!
> :
> : It's not that bike helmets can't be mentioned in this (or any other)
> : newsgroup. It's just that doing so is likely to bring up a lot of people
> : on both sides, erm, politely reminding the other side of their position,
> : and probably with a few references in the bargain.
> :
> :http://www.cyclehelmets.org/index.html
> :
> : This is an interesting topic for discussion for the simple reason that
> : it (somewhat surprisingly) is an area rife with counterintuitive
> : results. It's surprising, for example, how much helmet laws affect
> : ridership rates. It's surprising, for another, how hard it is to extract
> : good data about the injury rates of the helmeted and non-helmeted
> : populations.
> :
> : This is a complicated field of study, and it is certainly a field
> : deserving of more research, if only because a large number of
> : jurisdictions have helmet laws or hopes of increasing cycling ridership
> : or a keen interest in the longevity of their population.
> :
> : --
> : Ryan Cousineau rcous...@gmail.comhttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> : "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> : "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------