Helmets cramp my style
06-12-08, 05:10 AM
#3326
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
- The evidence of McD's being wholly bad is clear; the evidence for helmet effectiveness isn't clear at all, and no sane or honest person would argue that helmets don't have strong negatives
- McD's has a cost for all society, not just its users - eg through child behavioral disorders
- It explicitly targets people unable to decide for themselves - eg children (who ARE allowed to order without an adult)
My argument with the Helmets isn't that they are willing to pass safety legislation at all, but that they are intellectually incompetent, lazy, and dishonest - or in the case of lobbyist for the helmet makers, self interested. Really, as someone who was trained a scientist and an engineer I feel quite physical nausea for some willing to claim evidence of a "45%-80%" reduction in severe head traumas based on evidence when he knows that the lower limit set by studies is vastly lower, and that the upper limit comes from a study that was complete junk. I despise liars - it's that simple.
Last edited by meanwhile; 06-12-08 at 05:14 AM.
06-12-08, 10:27 AM
#3327
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Actually, I would. It passes several tests bike helmets don't -
- The evidence of McD's being wholly bad is clear; the evidence for helmet effectiveness isn't clear at all, and no sane or honest person would argue that helmets don't have strong negatives
- McD's has a cost for all society, not just its users - eg through child behavioral disorders
- It explicitly targets people unable to decide for themselves - eg children (who ARE allowed to order without an adult)
My argument with the Helmets isn't that they are willing to pass safety legislation at all, but that they are intellectually incompetent, lazy, and dishonest - or in the case of lobbyist for the helmet makers, self interested. Really, as someone who was trained a scientist and an engineer I feel quite physical nausea for some willing to claim evidence of a "45%-80%" reduction in severe head traumas based on evidence when he knows that the lower limit set by studies is vastly lower, and that the upper limit comes from a study that was complete junk. I despise liars - it's that simple.
- The evidence of McD's being wholly bad is clear; the evidence for helmet effectiveness isn't clear at all, and no sane or honest person would argue that helmets don't have strong negatives
- McD's has a cost for all society, not just its users - eg through child behavioral disorders
- It explicitly targets people unable to decide for themselves - eg children (who ARE allowed to order without an adult)
My argument with the Helmets isn't that they are willing to pass safety legislation at all, but that they are intellectually incompetent, lazy, and dishonest - or in the case of lobbyist for the helmet makers, self interested. Really, as someone who was trained a scientist and an engineer I feel quite physical nausea for some willing to claim evidence of a "45%-80%" reduction in severe head traumas based on evidence when he knows that the lower limit set by studies is vastly lower, and that the upper limit comes from a study that was complete junk. I despise liars - it's that simple.
You need to go back about ten pages or so and read. Not to do so is showing some laziness on your part. Then come back and say that I have not presented studies, discussed the science, etc. Stop calling people names, as you are ignorant even of this discussion. Read...better yet, read this entire discussion that we've been having for about three years now.
By the way, so far as being intellectually honest, at least I'm using my own name on my posts.
John
06-12-08, 11:26 AM
#3328
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I didn't say that you had not presented studies but that you had presented studies that are demonstrably flawed and dismissed by experts. You did so in the last couple of pages. You're are appeal to "science" but that's the last thing you are doing if you cherry pick evidence to suit your position, ignore evidence on the basis of whether it fits your position or not, and continue to quote from sources that have been discredited.
Stop calling people names, as you are ignorant even of this discussion.
Read...better yet, read this entire discussion that we've been having for about three years now.
By the way, so far as being intellectually honest, at least I'm using my own name on my posts.
You're being defensive and evasive. What you've said is either, of its self, true and well informed or not. I have shown that much of what you have said is utterly untrue - according to both strict legal and scientific standards. In particular your repeated 40-80% claim is utter bunkum. There are reputable peer reviewed studies that put the lower limit VASTLY lower ( I quoted one, from the BMJ) and the study used to justify the utter limit is demonstrable junk. You've also made the claim that split helmets provided meaningful protection to their riders - again, according to expert witness testimony, junk.
Indeed, I'm not sure that you have made a single claim that is true during the period I've been involved in this thread. You may have done before I was involved of course, and if I wanted to comment on that I would have to read those previous hundred plus pages. But I'm really not that interested in you.
Edited to add: However, I will add that the "I despise liars" comment doesn't mean that I think that JR is one. I was thinking rather more of some of the people he was quoting and other, much bigger fish, such as politicians and bureaucrats who pretend to believe the ridiculous because it is convenient, and businessmen because it is profitable.
Last edited by meanwhile; 06-12-08 at 02:43 PM.
06-12-08, 11:34 AM
#3329
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Since trombone seems lost in a statistical thicket of contradictory data and inconclusive evidence in which it is impossible to prove beyond doubt that helmets are a benefit to everyone at all times, I'll simply refer him to Pascal's Wager.
Simplified, Pascal finds it rational to believe in God and salvation - even without evidence - rather than not believe, because it costs him nothing to do so, he risks little, and he may ensure his eternal rest in a blissful heaven. If it turns out there is no God and there is no heaven, Pascal has wasted nothing.
Simplified, Pascal finds it rational to believe in God and salvation - even without evidence - rather than not believe, because it costs him nothing to do so, he risks little, and he may ensure his eternal rest in a blissful heaven. If it turns out there is no God and there is no heaven, Pascal has wasted nothing.
In the search for salvation, belief in God is simply a safer bet than disbelief.
For "God", now substitute "wearing a helmet."
Let's go further: you could make the same argument for wearing a rabbits foot (etc ad infinitum) while riding. How many lucky charms do you carry?
06-12-08, 02:51 PM
#3330
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
From wikipedia - and this is an article with immaculate, copious, verifiable sources:
And
Note especially
Damningly:
So there you - low risk, weak evidence of any benefits at all, with the usually quoted figures being bunkum. And worst of all the helmet facists, there is very sound reason for believing that current designs don't work - recovered helmets show clear evidence of failure to operate. The helmets are supposed to absorb shock by compressing their liners: if recovered helmets are showing uncompressed liners they haven't worked - it's physically impossible for them to have done so.
I won't even go into the negative factors again...
But I will have a final foam at this:
So the helmet industry, its lackeys, useful idiots, and a great horde of the overly trusting, are lobbying to make it compulsory for YOU to buy a helmet off them (and think how the price will probably rise when you have no choice..) but accept no obligation to make a helmet with any independently verified safety benefit. They say it's safe, then you have to buy it!
Is cycling risky enough to require helmets?
There is no one agreed way of presenting risk. Proponents of helmet compulsion may tend to quote figures for the (large) total number of head injuries or injuries of any kind, opponents may be more likely to produce estimates for the (low) risk of serious injury per cyclist.
..A UK opponent of compulsion has pointed out that it "still takes at least 8000 years of average cycling to produce one clinically severe head injury and 22,000 years for one death."[24] Ordinary cycling is not demonstrably more dangerous than walking or driving, yet no country promotes helmets for either of these modes.[25] "The inherent risks of road cycling are trivial... Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled; a mile of walking must be more "dangerous" than a mile of cycling..." The proportion of cyclist injuries which are head injuries is essentially the same as the proportion for pedestrians at 30.0 % vs. 30.1 %.[26] Overall, cycling is beneficial to health – the benefits outweigh the risks by up to 20:1.[27].
There is no one agreed way of presenting risk. Proponents of helmet compulsion may tend to quote figures for the (large) total number of head injuries or injuries of any kind, opponents may be more likely to produce estimates for the (low) risk of serious injury per cyclist.
..A UK opponent of compulsion has pointed out that it "still takes at least 8000 years of average cycling to produce one clinically severe head injury and 22,000 years for one death."[24] Ordinary cycling is not demonstrably more dangerous than walking or driving, yet no country promotes helmets for either of these modes.[25] "The inherent risks of road cycling are trivial... Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled; a mile of walking must be more "dangerous" than a mile of cycling..." The proportion of cyclist injuries which are head injuries is essentially the same as the proportion for pedestrians at 30.0 % vs. 30.1 %.[26] Overall, cycling is beneficial to health – the benefits outweigh the risks by up to 20:1.[27].
Are helmets useful? Desirable effects of helmet use
Evidence for the efficacy of helmets in preventing serious injury is contradictory and inconclusive. There are no randomized controlled trials of the issue, which would be rated as top quality, grade 1, on a standard scale of medical evidence.[28] The evidence comes from two main types of observational study: time-trend analyses, rated as grade 2, and case-control studies with more potential ways of being wrong than either of the above, rated at grade 3. Most of the literature that mentions helmets refers back to a small number of these studies, rather than itself providing evidence. Overall, according to CTC, the UK's national cyclists organisation, "the evidence currently available is complex and full of contradictions, providing at least as much support for those who are sceptical as for those who swear by them."[29]
[edit] Time-trend analyses
Time-trend analyses compare changes in helmet use and injury rates in populations over time, most validly where helmet laws have resulted in large changes in a short time. Such studies are rated grade 2 on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine's standard scale, more likely to be wrong than grade 1.[28] Potential weaknesses of this type of study include: simultaneous changes in the road environment (e. g. drink-drive campaigns); inaccuracy of exposure estimates (numbers cycling, distance cycled etc.), changes in the definitions of the data collected, failure to analyse control groups, failure to analyse long-term trends, and the ecological fallacy.
Robinson's review of cyclists and control groups in jurisdictions where helmet use increased by 40 % or more following compulsion concluded that "enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries".[30] Some of the data for this publication is available at [34]. This study has been the subject of vigorous debate.[31] [32][33] Authors do not agree on how studies should be selected for analysis, nor on what summary statistics are most relevant. A more recent review, by Macpherson and Spinks, includes two original papers (neither of which meet the criteria for inclusion in Robinson's review) and concludes that "Bicycle helmet legislation appears to be effective in increasing helmet use and decreasing head injury rates in the populations for which it is implemented. However, there are very few high quality evaluative studies that measure these outcomes, and none that reported data on an (sic) possible declines in bicycle use."[34]
There are many other studies. The largest, covering eight million cyclist injuries over 15 years, showed no effect on serious injuries and a small but significant increase in risk of fatality.[35] Although the head injury rate in the US rose in this study by 40 % as helmet use rose from 18 % to 50 %,[35] this is a time-trend analysis with the potential weaknesses mentioned above; the correlation may not be causal. Association with increased risk has been reported in other studies.[36] Different analyses of the same data can produce different results. For example, Scuffham analysed data on the increase of voluntary wearing in New Zealand to 1995; he concluded that, after taking into account long-term trends, helmets had no measurable effect.[37] His subsequent re-analysis without accounting for the long-term trends suggested a small benefit.[38] Scuffham's later cost-benefit analysis of the New Zealand helmet law showed that the cost of helmets outweighed the savings in injuries, even taking the most optimistic estimate of injuries prevented.[39]
[edit] Case-control studies
Case-control studies compare cyclists who have injured their heads ("cases") and cyclists who have not ("controls"). Such studies are rated grade 3 on a standard scale, with more potential ways of providing the wrong answer than either randomized trials or time-trend studies.[40] Known potential problems with this type of study design include confounding (attributing benefits from unmeasured differences in behavior to differences in helmet choice), and recall bias (people incorrectly reporting helmet use).[41]
Such studies consistently find that cases of head injury report a lower rate of helmet-wearing than controls who have injured other parts of the body.[42] This has been taken as strong evidence that cycle helmets are beneficial in a crash. The most widely-quoted case-control study, by Thompson, Rivara, and Thompson, reported an 85 % reduction in the risk of head injury by using a helmet. There are many criticisms of this study,[43] including use of a control group with very different risks. Re-analysis of the Thompson, Rivara and Thompson data, substituting helmet wearing rates from co-author Rivara's contemporaneous street counts[44], reduces the calculated benefit to below the level of statistical significance.[original research?] This has been taken as evidence of confounding. In another study, helmet users also seemed to be protected against severe injuries to the lower body; "helmet non-use is strongly associated with severe injuries in this study population. This is true even when the patients without major head injuries are analyzed as a group".[36] It is possible that at least some of the 'protection' afforded helmet wearers in previous studies may be explained by safer riding habits rather than solely a direct effect of the helmets themselves.[45]
Other case-control studies exist, all showing similar results. In Victoria, Australia, during 1977-1980, bicyclist casualties, then unhelmeted, sustained head injuries including severe head injuries, more than twice as frequently as the helmeted motorcyclist casualties[46].
Evidence for the efficacy of helmets in preventing serious injury is contradictory and inconclusive. There are no randomized controlled trials of the issue, which would be rated as top quality, grade 1, on a standard scale of medical evidence.[28] The evidence comes from two main types of observational study: time-trend analyses, rated as grade 2, and case-control studies with more potential ways of being wrong than either of the above, rated at grade 3. Most of the literature that mentions helmets refers back to a small number of these studies, rather than itself providing evidence. Overall, according to CTC, the UK's national cyclists organisation, "the evidence currently available is complex and full of contradictions, providing at least as much support for those who are sceptical as for those who swear by them."[29]
[edit] Time-trend analyses
Time-trend analyses compare changes in helmet use and injury rates in populations over time, most validly where helmet laws have resulted in large changes in a short time. Such studies are rated grade 2 on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine's standard scale, more likely to be wrong than grade 1.[28] Potential weaknesses of this type of study include: simultaneous changes in the road environment (e. g. drink-drive campaigns); inaccuracy of exposure estimates (numbers cycling, distance cycled etc.), changes in the definitions of the data collected, failure to analyse control groups, failure to analyse long-term trends, and the ecological fallacy.
Robinson's review of cyclists and control groups in jurisdictions where helmet use increased by 40 % or more following compulsion concluded that "enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries".[30] Some of the data for this publication is available at [34]. This study has been the subject of vigorous debate.[31] [32][33] Authors do not agree on how studies should be selected for analysis, nor on what summary statistics are most relevant. A more recent review, by Macpherson and Spinks, includes two original papers (neither of which meet the criteria for inclusion in Robinson's review) and concludes that "Bicycle helmet legislation appears to be effective in increasing helmet use and decreasing head injury rates in the populations for which it is implemented. However, there are very few high quality evaluative studies that measure these outcomes, and none that reported data on an (sic) possible declines in bicycle use."[34]
There are many other studies. The largest, covering eight million cyclist injuries over 15 years, showed no effect on serious injuries and a small but significant increase in risk of fatality.[35] Although the head injury rate in the US rose in this study by 40 % as helmet use rose from 18 % to 50 %,[35] this is a time-trend analysis with the potential weaknesses mentioned above; the correlation may not be causal. Association with increased risk has been reported in other studies.[36] Different analyses of the same data can produce different results. For example, Scuffham analysed data on the increase of voluntary wearing in New Zealand to 1995; he concluded that, after taking into account long-term trends, helmets had no measurable effect.[37] His subsequent re-analysis without accounting for the long-term trends suggested a small benefit.[38] Scuffham's later cost-benefit analysis of the New Zealand helmet law showed that the cost of helmets outweighed the savings in injuries, even taking the most optimistic estimate of injuries prevented.[39]
[edit] Case-control studies
Case-control studies compare cyclists who have injured their heads ("cases") and cyclists who have not ("controls"). Such studies are rated grade 3 on a standard scale, with more potential ways of providing the wrong answer than either randomized trials or time-trend studies.[40] Known potential problems with this type of study design include confounding (attributing benefits from unmeasured differences in behavior to differences in helmet choice), and recall bias (people incorrectly reporting helmet use).[41]
Such studies consistently find that cases of head injury report a lower rate of helmet-wearing than controls who have injured other parts of the body.[42] This has been taken as strong evidence that cycle helmets are beneficial in a crash. The most widely-quoted case-control study, by Thompson, Rivara, and Thompson, reported an 85 % reduction in the risk of head injury by using a helmet. There are many criticisms of this study,[43] including use of a control group with very different risks. Re-analysis of the Thompson, Rivara and Thompson data, substituting helmet wearing rates from co-author Rivara's contemporaneous street counts[44], reduces the calculated benefit to below the level of statistical significance.[original research?] This has been taken as evidence of confounding. In another study, helmet users also seemed to be protected against severe injuries to the lower body; "helmet non-use is strongly associated with severe injuries in this study population. This is true even when the patients without major head injuries are analyzed as a group".[36] It is possible that at least some of the 'protection' afforded helmet wearers in previous studies may be explained by safer riding habits rather than solely a direct effect of the helmets themselves.[45]
Other case-control studies exist, all showing similar results. In Victoria, Australia, during 1977-1980, bicyclist casualties, then unhelmeted, sustained head injuries including severe head injuries, more than twice as frequently as the helmeted motorcyclist casualties[46].
Anecdotal evidence
A common misunderstanding is to assume that a broken helmet has prevented some serious injury. "the main impact was to my head. So much so, that my helmet broke in two (as it is designed to do). Without the helmet, it would have been my head that was broken and I wouldn’t be writing this blog entry! I’d be dead..."[47] Helmets are designed to crush without breaking; expanded polystyrene absorbs little energy in brittle failure and once it fails no further energy is absorbed. To prevent overt fragmentation, the foam in most helmets is reinforced inside with plastic netting to keep the foam together.
A common misunderstanding is to assume that a broken helmet has prevented some serious injury. "the main impact was to my head. So much so, that my helmet broke in two (as it is designed to do). Without the helmet, it would have been my head that was broken and I wouldn’t be writing this blog entry! I’d be dead..."[47] Helmets are designed to crush without breaking; expanded polystyrene absorbs little energy in brittle failure and once it fails no further energy is absorbed. To prevent overt fragmentation, the foam in most helmets is reinforced inside with plastic netting to keep the foam together.
In real accidents, while broken helmets are common, it is extremely unusual to see any helmet that has compressed foam and thus may have performed as intended. “Another source of field experience is our experience with damaged helmets returned to customer service... I collected damaged infant/toddler helmets for several months in 1995. Not only did I not see bottomed out helmets, I didn’t see any helmet showing signs of crushing on the inside.” [13]
I won't even go into the negative factors again...
But I will have a final foam at this:
The CPSC and EN1078 standards are lower than the Snell B95 (and B90) standard; Snell helmet standards are externally verified, with each helmet traceable by unique serial number. EN 1078 is also externally validated, but lacks Snell's traceability. The most common standard in the US, CPSC, is self-certified by the manufacturers. It is generally true to say that Snell standards are more exacting than other standards, and most helmets on sale these days will not meet them (no current Bell brand helmet is Snell certified, some Specialized ones are – the Snell Memorial Foundation website includes a list of certified helmets).
Last edited by meanwhile; 06-12-08 at 03:08 PM.
06-12-08, 02:59 PM
#3331
Chi-Chi Monger
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, California
Posts: 368
Bikes: 08 Cannondale Synapse, 09 Marin Alpine Trail 29er
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I know I would have a hole in my head instead of my helmet if I hadn't been wearing it one day...didn't help my collarbone any 
__________________
When it's good it's really good...And when it's bad I go to pieces - David Bowie
When it's good it's really good...And when it's bad I go to pieces - David Bowie
06-12-08, 03:15 PM
#3332
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
But I'm glad you don't have a hole in your head!
06-12-08, 03:30 PM
#3333
Chi-Chi Monger
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, California
Posts: 368
Bikes: 08 Cannondale Synapse, 09 Marin Alpine Trail 29er
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
06-12-08, 04:02 PM
#3334
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Neither Pascal nor I take a position on helmet law.
Upon reading this citation above, however,
Evidence for the efficacy of helmets in preventing serious injury is contradictory and inconclusive.
Pascal makes his wager, straps on his lid, and makes for the door.
Upon reading this citation above, however,
Evidence for the efficacy of helmets in preventing serious injury is contradictory and inconclusive.
Pascal makes his wager, straps on his lid, and makes for the door.
06-12-08, 04:43 PM
#3335
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
Concerning wearing helmets, I've been watching on my daily commutes to and from work, and more than 50% of the cyclists here are wearing helmets. So we are getting there. It's kinda like me working with the contractor groups at work, and seeing everyone on a job site wearing reflective vests, hard hats, and safety glasses. I'm trying to convince them to wear hearing protection too because of all the noise and alarms being generated by the equipment in the building. These are now taken for granted in the construction industry by nearly all people (we still have one guy who won't wear a hard hat, but he's a difficult person). If these rather basic measures are used in the workplace, why not on the roadways too where they would do bicyclists some good?
John
John
This, to me, is the ideal. Individuals making individual choices based upon experience level, comfort level, and objective hazards -- and the climbing community seems fine with it. I very much wish the cycling community could be to, as it once was.
06-12-08, 09:15 PM
#3336
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I gather that we're both climbers as well, John. I think that makes for an interesting comparison. You've probably noticed that some climbers wear helmets for just about everything but the approach, while others essentially never wear one. Most of us probably fall into a middle group, where we each asses the various objectives such as exposure, ice and rock fall, etc., and make our choice about when and where to put on the helmet. I've rarely seen any sort of pressure applied to an individual climber to wear or not wear one. Certainly I have not seen anything approaching the kind of pressure routinely applied to cyclists. When was the last time you saw someone one yell out "Put on a helmet, moron!" to a fellow climber on a face?
This, to me, is the ideal. Individuals making individual choices based upon experience level, comfort level, and objective hazards -- and the climbing community seems fine with it. I very much wish the cycling community could be to, as it once was.
This, to me, is the ideal. Individuals making individual choices based upon experience level, comfort level, and objective hazards -- and the climbing community seems fine with it. I very much wish the cycling community could be to, as it once was.
I have not been formally climbing for many, many years now. When I got married, and left USAF rescue work, I had to choose my sports. I chose to continue swimming, scuba diving, and bicycling. I essentially gave up mountaineering, rock climbing, and parachuting. In fairness, my rescue work was not "sport" either, but military rescue. But we did use our rock climbing helmets when doing that kind of rescue work, and jumped with helmets when over land (parachute jumps). We also used helmets when going down a helicopter hoist. While I enjoyed those activities a lot, some thing simply cannot continue when a person's priorities are with the family. We never used the wordage between ourselves or others when we were going through these activities, but we had helmets on our checklists for climbing gear and making parachute jumps.
By the way, I agree about the ideal you mention here. This is why I never say to people for them to get their helmets on when I'm out riding. I simply enjoy the ride, and let others enjoy theirs.
I write here because we can have a discussion of the topic, and give our reasons for the way we want to ride and equip ourselves. MHLs are also a discussion topic, and while I have previously been against MHLs, I'm leaning toward them at least for children because of their potential for reducing kid's injuries.
John
Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 06-12-08 at 09:18 PM. Reason: Add the last paragraph.
06-12-08, 09:43 PM
#3337
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
meanwhile,
First, Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed article. Anyone can say anything there, and what happens is someone else will come and change it if he or she feels like it. Wikipedia also has its own standards, and here is what is said on the discussion page for the article you quote:
Two entries on this discussion page show why this article was rated in this way:
Now, here's the problem with all of these quotes on both sides--we cannot go to the source and ask questions of him or her, as we do not know who he or she is. Here, I can PM you, but don't know who you are either ("meanwhile" is not a referenced name anywhere). I don't know the background of these posters, and therefore cannot make a determination as to whether they have the expertise necessary to have an informed POV. This is why I said above that not having a name to go by limits the intellectual honesty of the person's view. That person can walk away from it at any time, and not have it attributed to him or her. Here is a quote that can be attributed:
John
First, Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed article. Anyone can say anything there, and what happens is someone else will come and change it if he or she feels like it. Wikipedia also has its own standards, and here is what is said on the discussion page for the article you quote:
Bicycle helmet was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Reviewed version: August 10, 2006
Reviewed version: August 10, 2006
I added the NPOV tag to this article. If there is a 'helmet debate' section then that section has to capture both sides of the debate in a neutral way. Currently the article advocates strongly which violates WP:NPOV To become more neutral the article should present some referenced arguments for both sides. Prospect77 04:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Currently the article reads like a blog. It gives undue weight to a minority anti-helmet point of view. In fact that is the only POV represented in this article. The purpose of the helmet debate section is to capture accurately both sides of the debate, not evaluate the question of 'who is right'Prospect77 15:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...nfr383249.html
Benjamin Franklin
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...nfr383249.html
06-13-08, 05:20 AM
#3338
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
..With everyone cooperating to provide the most accurate information possible to individuals to support their independent decision making, rather than deliberately selecting or obscuring, and putting pressure on the makers of helmets, sellers and regulators so that when people do buy helmets they get effective ones.
06-13-08, 05:24 AM
#3339
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No, it's not. That's why I made a point of using passages that had peer reviewed or other highly credible sources and pointing out that those sources were there to check. I count 28 high quality sources in total in those excerpts.
And, again, you're diminishing your own credibility by being selective - you quote the AWFUL and definitely non-peer reviewed BSHI page yourself. Throughout your arguments you apply a double standard, using trash sources that say what you want and ignoring high quality ones that disagree with you, berating your opponents for using profile names but not your allies, and now this.
Why you continue to dig this gaping hole under yourself is beyond me, but you're currently standing in mid-air, like the Coyote when he's chased the Road Runner over a cliff. My advice is to look out for falling anvils.
Ahh. The generic "They called Columbus a nut too, so I must be a genius" argument beloved of perpetual motion machine designers and UFOnauts.
I suggest that you attempt to debate the issues:
- We have no way of knowing if the vast majority of helmets sold in the US are safe
- Most helmets sold are, according to expert testimony, mis-used in a way that makes even the better models ineffective
- Forensic evidence from recovered helmets confirms the above - helmets are simply failing to operate to protect - we know this because we are mostly finding split helmets and helmets with uncompressed foam
- It seems likely that helmet wearing carries risks, which the helmet lobby has made no attempt to investigate
- Consumers are not educated about any of the above (would any of the people here who have bought a Bell helmet have done so if it had been clearly marked as NOT independently certified?)
- The helmet lobby is pushing for the compulsory wearing of ineffective helmets
And, again, you're diminishing your own credibility by being selective - you quote the AWFUL and definitely non-peer reviewed BSHI page yourself. Throughout your arguments you apply a double standard, using trash sources that say what you want and ignoring high quality ones that disagree with you, berating your opponents for using profile names but not your allies, and now this.
Why you continue to dig this gaping hole under yourself is beyond me, but you're currently standing in mid-air, like the Coyote when he's chased the Road Runner over a cliff. My advice is to look out for falling anvils.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...nfr383249.html
Benjamin Franklin
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...nfr383249.html
I suggest that you attempt to debate the issues:
- We have no way of knowing if the vast majority of helmets sold in the US are safe
- Most helmets sold are, according to expert testimony, mis-used in a way that makes even the better models ineffective
- Forensic evidence from recovered helmets confirms the above - helmets are simply failing to operate to protect - we know this because we are mostly finding split helmets and helmets with uncompressed foam
- It seems likely that helmet wearing carries risks, which the helmet lobby has made no attempt to investigate
- Consumers are not educated about any of the above (would any of the people here who have bought a Bell helmet have done so if it had been clearly marked as NOT independently certified?)
- The helmet lobby is pushing for the compulsory wearing of ineffective helmets
Last edited by meanwhile; 06-13-08 at 05:40 AM.
06-13-08, 10:00 AM
#3341
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
06-13-08, 12:50 PM
#3343
e-Biker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 951
Bikes: Gary Fisher, Strong GT-S eBike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
meanwhile,
First, Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed article. Anyone can say anything there, and what happens is someone else will come and change it if he or she feels like it. Wikipedia also has its own standards, and here is what is said on the discussion page for the article you quote:
First, Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed article. Anyone can say anything there, and what happens is someone else will come and change it if he or she feels like it. Wikipedia also has its own standards, and here is what is said on the discussion page for the article you quote:
Then this whole peer review BS started kicking in. Some "editor" started disputing the details I wrote about the mod. Then he goes on and says the details can't be verified for authenticity. Hello? I'M THE FOUNDER AND PRINCIPLE CODER!. Just look around the community and search for it.
The very fact that Wikipedia's "editors" are completley misinformed about the truth makes most of Wikipedia questionable. In my situation the "Editor" was completly wrong. And let me tell you why: Who's the only person left alive with the full DCX source? ME!, just ask and I can prove everything about the mod. "Editor" is too stupid to figure out that the best source of an DCX info is the guy who wrote it.
University and College professors are well aware of the unreliability of wikipedia and often fail students using Wikipedia materials in their essays.
06-13-08, 12:52 PM
#3344
e-Biker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 951
Bikes: Gary Fisher, Strong GT-S eBike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
That's my point all along: You can't possibly tell me that no protection at all is better!
Now, if this discussion was about improving Helmets because they're insufficient, I'd side with that argument. But I've seen too many idiots here that actually try to win an argument where no protection at all is better.
06-13-08, 01:01 PM
#3345
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Let me tell you why Wikipedia is unreliable. I made a computer game mod called DCX. Short for Desert Combat Extended. Wikipedia has an article on Desert Combat and I linked it to the page I wrote about DCX.
Then this whole peer review BS started kicking in. Some "editor" started disputing the details I wrote about the mod. Then he goes on and says the details can't be verified for authenticity. Hello? I'M THE FOUNDER AND PRINCIPLE CODER!.
Then this whole peer review BS started kicking in. Some "editor" started disputing the details I wrote about the mod. Then he goes on and says the details can't be verified for authenticity. Hello? I'M THE FOUNDER AND PRINCIPLE CODER!.
University and College professors are well aware of the unreliability of wikipedia and often fail students using Wikipedia materials in their essays.
06-13-08, 01:13 PM
#3346
Chi-Chi Monger
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, California
Posts: 368
Bikes: 08 Cannondale Synapse, 09 Marin Alpine Trail 29er
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
+1 to Zeuser...for the pic in your sig
__________________
When it's good it's really good...And when it's bad I go to pieces - David Bowie
When it's good it's really good...And when it's bad I go to pieces - David Bowie
06-13-08, 07:44 PM
#3347
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You know, from the picture you cannot tell if Coyote is still falling or on the ground. If still falling, I think he's trying to use the umbrella as a parachute. It's not as good as a parachute, but better than nothing (a little drag will at least mean he falls feet-first). Also, if he is falling with the anvil, the two are weightless, in which case the helmet will prevent a nasty collision with the falling anvil. Since the helmet increases his drag, and may influence his fall profile, he may land further away from the anvil and not have it hit him afterward; probably he would also hit the ground after the anvil. One further thought, maybe that would allow him to hit the Colorado River instead of the ground.
Enjoy,
John
(a little drag will at least mean he falls feet-first). Also, if he is falling with the anvil, the two are weightless, in which case the helmet will prevent a nasty collision with the falling anvil. Since the helmet increases his drag, and may influence his fall profile, he may land further away from the anvil and not have it hit him afterward; probably he would also hit the ground after the anvil. One further thought, maybe that would allow him to hit the Colorado River instead of the ground. Enjoy,
John
06-13-08, 08:10 PM
#3348
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No, it's not. That's why I made a point of using passages that had peer reviewed or other highly credible sources and pointing out that those sources were there to check. I count 28 high quality sources in total in those excerpts.
And, again, you're diminishing your own credibility by being selective - you quote the AWFUL and definitely non-peer reviewed BSHI page yourself. Throughout your arguments you apply a double standard, using trash sources that say what you want and ignoring high quality ones that disagree with you, berating your opponents for using profile names but not your allies, and now this.
Why you continue to dig this gaping hole under yourself is beyond me, but you're currently standing in mid-air, like the Coyote when he's chased the Road Runner over a cliff. My advice is to look out for falling anvils.
Ahh. The generic "They called Columbus a nut too, so I must be a genius" argument beloved of perpetual motion machine designers and UFOnauts.
I suggest that you attempt to debate the issues:
- 1. We have no way of knowing if the vast majority of helmets sold in the US are safe
- 2. Most helmets sold are, according to expert testimony, mis-used in a way that makes even the better models ineffective
- 3. Forensic evidence from recovered helmets confirms the above - helmets are simply failing to operate to protect - we know this because we are mostly finding split helmets and helmets with uncompressed foam
- 4. It seems likely that helmet wearing carries risks, which the helmet lobby has made no attempt to investigate
- 5. Consumers are not educated about any of the above (would any of the people here who have bought a Bell helmet have done so if it had been clearly marked as NOT independently certified?)
- 6. The helmet lobby is pushing for the compulsory wearing of ineffective helmets
And, again, you're diminishing your own credibility by being selective - you quote the AWFUL and definitely non-peer reviewed BSHI page yourself. Throughout your arguments you apply a double standard, using trash sources that say what you want and ignoring high quality ones that disagree with you, berating your opponents for using profile names but not your allies, and now this.
Why you continue to dig this gaping hole under yourself is beyond me, but you're currently standing in mid-air, like the Coyote when he's chased the Road Runner over a cliff. My advice is to look out for falling anvils.
Ahh. The generic "They called Columbus a nut too, so I must be a genius" argument beloved of perpetual motion machine designers and UFOnauts.
I suggest that you attempt to debate the issues:
- 1. We have no way of knowing if the vast majority of helmets sold in the US are safe
- 2. Most helmets sold are, according to expert testimony, mis-used in a way that makes even the better models ineffective
- 3. Forensic evidence from recovered helmets confirms the above - helmets are simply failing to operate to protect - we know this because we are mostly finding split helmets and helmets with uncompressed foam
- 4. It seems likely that helmet wearing carries risks, which the helmet lobby has made no attempt to investigate
- 5. Consumers are not educated about any of the above (would any of the people here who have bought a Bell helmet have done so if it had been clearly marked as NOT independently certified?)
- 6. The helmet lobby is pushing for the compulsory wearing of ineffective helmets
1. The reverse is also true--you have not proved that they are unsafe either. Further, there are the helmet standards to go by. I know you'll disagree here, but if you do, then use a helmet with a better standard. But your statement in #1 above is simply not true. It is encouraging that we see recalls of defective helmets:
https://www.helmets.org/recalls.htm
2. Mis-use of a helmet does not make them totally ineffective. It lessens their effectiveness. There is an important distinction here. So your use of the word "ineffective" in not warranted. It would be better if people were shown how to use the personal protective equipment that they purchase, and a good LBS will do that. This is actually a good sales point for going to a LBS rather than Costco or Walmart. But again, your use of the word "ineffective" is in my opinion not appropriate. By the way, in the hierarchy of controls, this is why PPE is at the lowest rung of the ladder, while engineering controls are at the top.
3. Yes, there are helmets that split rather than compress. But not all do:
This was my helmet, which I've shown before. Note the compression of the foam, even though it did split apart. You are the one who is choosing what to look at here, and then making an overall statement which cannot be substanciated.
4. An increased risk from wearing a helmet. This comes into the realm of cultural effects, not the effectiveness of the helmet. As such, it is a strawman, as you and others have been pointing out to me about other things. First, on the excess risk taking--this seems built into our society right now, and we see it both with and without helmets. Second, on the passing distances of cars, this is something to take up with the psychology of drivers, and not the bicyclists. Concerning that, I did an informal study of my own, and found that cars passed me further away when I rode with a large American Flag on my recumbant bicycle. I would therefore suggest to you and to others that you put a large American Flag on your bike, and still wear a helmet. I was wearing a helmet for both sides of this study (going to and returning from work).
More later, as supper calls...
By the way, the study in England that you cite also shows that perceived females are passed at a greater distance than perceived males. The researcher used wigs to trick drivers into thinking he was a female. Maybe we should produce helmets with long hair coming out if them...or simply wear wigs instead of helmets. But then, someone will fall off without a car being involved, and probably sue you because the wigs had no protective effect. But according to you, the wigs are as good as helmets, so why not?
Here's a link to a letter from Randy Swart, Director, Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute about this situation:
https://www.helmets.org/postrisk.htm
5. About consumers, some are educated about the above and some are not. I have long favored actual training classes for bicyclists, and including bicycle-related training for drivers too. But there is a lot of information out there now, with the internet and all.
6. I keep hearing from you (in the plural sense of the word) about a helmet lobby, but I really have not seen much of it in reality. Yes, there is some funding by manufacturers of helmets, but there is also funding from other places, university grants, governments, institutions (Snell Memorial Foundation, for instance). You may tie all these together as a "lobby," but I have not seen it. Do you have more documentation about lobbying efforts? I'd like to see more about this.
____________
John
Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 06-13-08 at 09:52 PM. Reason: add a link
06-13-08, 08:13 PM
#3349
Senior Member
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
...You know, from the picture you cannot tell if Coyote is still falling or on the ground. If still falling, I think he's trying to use the umbrella as a parachute. It's not as good as a parachute, but better than nothing (a little drag will at least mean he falls feet-first). Also, if he is falling with the anvil, the two are weightless, in which case the helmet will prevent a nasty collision with the falling anvil. Since the helmet increases his drag, and may influence his fall profile, he may land further away from the anvil and not have it hit him afterward; probably he would also hit the ground after the anvil...
Wile E. Coyote would pull out that little umbrella as some form of protection just before an anvil (or a boulder) would come falling down on him from a great height. It was so pathetic, it was funny. Even little kids could see how inadequate this form of "protection" was.
06-13-08, 09:32 PM
#3350
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
you need to watch more cartoons John.
Wile E. Coyote would pull out that little umbrella as some form of protection just before an anvil (or a boulder) would come falling down on him from a great height. It was so pathetic, it was funny. Even little kids could see how inadequate this form of "protection" was.
Wile E. Coyote would pull out that little umbrella as some form of protection just before an anvil (or a boulder) would come falling down on him from a great height. It was so pathetic, it was funny. Even little kids could see how inadequate this form of "protection" was.
John