View Poll Results: What Are Your Helmet Wearing Habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
52
10.40%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
24
4.80%
I've always worn a helmet
208
41.60%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
126
25.20%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
90
18.00%
Voters: 500. You may not vote on this poll
The Helmet Thread 2
#1876
Senior Member
Read 'em and weep, boys: Bicycle helmets "protective role for intra-cranial hemorrhage is questionable."
From Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries. - PubMed - NCBI
So, yeah, helmets are good for lacerations and bumps and bruises. So is a baseball cap.
From Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries. - PubMed - NCBI
So, yeah, helmets are good for lacerations and bumps and bruises. So is a baseball cap.
#1877
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,241
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4222 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times
in
916 Posts
Read 'em and weep, boys: Bicycle helmets "protective role for intra-cranial hemorrhage is questionable."
From Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries. - PubMed - NCBI
So, yeah, helmets are good for lacerations and bumps and bruises. So is a baseball cap.
From Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries. - PubMed - NCBI
So, yeah, helmets are good for lacerations and bumps and bruises. So is a baseball cap.
What medical school teaches that a fracture is a "laceration" or a "bump and bruise"?
You really have no idea what the stuff you link to says. Bizarre.
Non-helmeted riders were more likely to have a skull fracture (p = 0.01) and a scalp laceration (p = 0.01) compared to the helmeted riders.
#1878
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1662 Post(s)
Liked 226 Times
in
131 Posts
OTOH, just like lacerations, bumps and bruises, skull fractures are usually not clinically significant. The phrase "skull fracture" does sound serious, and while they can be serious and while they also can be indicative for more serious injuries, skull fractures themselves usually don't even require medical treatment.
#1879
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,241
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4222 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times
in
916 Posts
OTOH, just like lacerations, bumps and bruises, skull fractures are usually not clinically significant. The phrase "skull fracture" does sound serious, and while they can be serious and while they also can be indicative for more serious injuries, skull fractures themselves usually don't even require medical treatment.
Anyway, I doubt that people are advised to treat skull fractures as if nothing happened.
Last edited by njkayaker; 02-01-16 at 11:17 AM. Reason: Added "if".
#1880
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,529
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2111 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
Read 'em and weep, boys: Bicycle helmets "protective role for intra-cranial hemorrhage is questionable."
From Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries. - PubMed - NCBI
So, yeah, helmets are good for lacerations and bumps and bruises. So is a baseball cap.
From Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries. - PubMed - NCBI
So, yeah, helmets are good for lacerations and bumps and bruises. So is a baseball cap.
The fair summary is correctly quoting "Further studies accessing the protective role of helmets for intra-cranial hemorrhage are warranted."
The authors were careful to express the statistically significant results of the study comparing helmeted and non-helmeted patients.
In their entirety, the statistically significant results showed differences in:
Age - non-helmeted younger
Sex - non-helmeted more male
Intoxication - non-helmeted more likely to be intoxicated
Scalp lacerations- non-helmeted more likely to have scalp lacerations
Skull fracture - non-helmeted more likely to have skull fractures
Facial fractures - non-helmeted more likely to have facial fractures
Hospital admission - non-helmeted more likely to be hospitalized
ICU admission - non-helmeted more likely to be admitted to the ICU
The reason that further studies are warranted is that they were not able to answer the question the study asked. (FWIW, in their study, helmeted patients were *LESS* *LIKELY* to have intra-cranial hemorrhage than non-helmeted patients (13.9% versus 17.6%), but the results were not statistically significant. Also FWIW, *helmeted* had a higher mortality rate (1.3% versus 0.2%), but again, only a dishonest, ignorant, or both person would conclude that this means anything since the result was not statistically significant.)
And that's before we get to the fundamental limitation of a study that only studied patients who directly presented to a single level 1 trauma center (the only such center in the study city) and excluded transfer patients from other centers.
Finally, there are many studies that show the complete lack of efficacy of baseball caps with skull and facial fractures - which is why baseball HELMETS are required for batters and base runners.
You've been caught - again. Will you ever learn not to do this?
-mr. bill
Last edited by mr_bill; 01-29-16 at 05:48 PM.
#1881
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1662 Post(s)
Liked 226 Times
in
131 Posts
The point you were making is that a skull fracture is a serious injury. It is not in most cases. Which brings us back to the fact that bicycle helmets are especially good at preventing minor injuries.
The point you're making here is called a Strawman Argument.
A sprained ankle is also typically clinically insignificant and also doesn't require medical treatment in most cases. This doesn't mean you should ignore a sprained ankle.
Anyway, I doubt that people are advised to treat skull fractures as nothing happened.
A sprained ankle is also typically clinically insignificant and also doesn't require medical treatment in most cases. This doesn't mean you should ignore a sprained ankle.
Last edited by CarinusMalmari; 01-30-16 at 08:09 AM.
#1882
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,241
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4222 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times
in
916 Posts
Read what I wrote carefully. I am clearly saying that people would not get advice to treat fractures as nothing happened.
There is really no excuse to omit "head fractures" over mentioning "lacerations" and "bumps and bruises".
Unless one thinks that fractures are more trivial than "lacerations" and "bumps and bruises" (which doesn't seem likely).
Why did Skye omit fractures?
Read 'em and weep, boys: Bicycle helmets "protective role for intra-cranial hemorrhage is questionable."
From Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries. - PubMed - NCBI
So, yeah, helmets are good for lacerations and bumps and bruises. So is a baseball cap.
From Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries. - PubMed - NCBI
So, yeah, helmets are good for lacerations and bumps and bruises. So is a baseball cap.
Last edited by njkayaker; 01-30-16 at 10:15 AM.
#1883
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
I was tempted to ask you to clarify what exactly you meant, but didn't because I don't see why it is relevant to evaluating skye's conclusion or the study he linked. Another study that fails to show that helmets are very effective in treating TBI, but does demonstrate the obvious effectiveness with minor head injuries. They need more data samples to say anything about the inconclusive part. What is so controversial about it? What IS your point ultimately?
#1884
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,054 Times
in
634 Posts
OTOH, just like lacerations, bumps and bruises, skull fractures are usually not clinically significant. The phrase "skull fracture" does sound serious, and while they can be serious and while they also can be indicative for more serious injuries, skull fractures themselves usually don't even require medical treatment.
#1885
Senior Member
#1886
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1662 Post(s)
Liked 226 Times
in
131 Posts
But when a helmet prevents the skull from cracking, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will also prevent brain damage. Especially since TBIs are usually the result of different forces than skull fractures
#1887
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,529
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2111 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
And for what it's worth, wonder why somebody didn't link to something more than an abstract?
Such as this link to the first two pages of the four page article (click "look inside").
To be clear, this is a "misleading and false characterization" of the ENTIRE SHORT RESEARCH PAPER. The more of the paper one reads the clearer that this is a matter of a lack of characterization.
-mr. bill
Last edited by mr_bill; 02-01-16 at 10:40 AM.
#1888
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,241
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4222 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times
in
916 Posts
It's not really clear what you were saying, because of the awkward phrasing. You doubt that "people are advised to treat fractures as nothing" is something that happened? Or you you doubt that people are "advised to treat fractures" as (meaning because) "nothing happened"? Or as made the most sense to me, are you omitting "if": you doubt that people are "advised to treat fractures as if nothing happened"?
And, the alternative meaning you arrived at really isn't saying any thing different.
Whether or not they are allowed to heal on its own, I doubt that "people are advised to treat skull fractures as nothing" happened as well. (You might also question the use of "treat" here.)
To be clear, I don't doubt that, often, skull fractures are allowed to heal on their own (it's easy enough to find out about that). This being true doesn't excuse not mentioning it (and making-up "bumps and bruises"). As I said, this being true is beside the point I was making.
I was tempted to ask you to clarify what exactly you meant, but didn't because I don't see why it is relevant to evaluating skye's conclusion or the study he linked. Another study that fails to show that helmets are very effective in treating TBI, but does demonstrate the obvious effectiveness with minor head injuries. They need more data samples to say anything about the inconclusive part. What is so controversial about it? What IS your point ultimately?
My point is in the my first comment about this abstract. But I'll repeat it here.
Skye omitted "skull fractures" and mentioned "lacerations" and he invented "bumps and bruises". That's a problem.
Skye's characterization of the abstract is incorrect. It's not like it should be hard to summarize the abstract accurately.
Skye too-often mischaracterizes stuff he links to. People should be sure to look at the link over trusting whatever Skye says about it.
Last edited by njkayaker; 02-25-16 at 03:14 AM.
#1889
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,529
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2111 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
Bicycle helmets are highly protective against traumatic brain injury within a dense urban setting.
Going from past experience I have no doubt that *every* anti-helmet nut will focus on only three letters from this study, so I'll quote the final paragraph of the Discussion in its entirety.
(And thirdly, Vision Zero is more what what you'd call "wishful" than actual goals. In the year twenty fifty-(fifty?)-five....)
-mr. bill
Going from past experience I have no doubt that *every* anti-helmet nut will focus on only three letters from this study, so I'll quote the final paragraph of the Discussion in its entirety.
Originally Posted by Sethi, Heidenberg, Wall et al
Bicycle-related head injuries will likely increase as bicycling grows in popularity. This study demonstrates the efficacy of helmets in protecting against TBI. Despite all of the safety improvements in NYC’s road infrastructure over the last decade, the protective impact of simple bicycle helmets in the event of a crash remains significant and undeniable. It may be necessary to re-examine current bicycle helmet laws and helmet accessibility for urban cyclists so as to most effectively translate Vision Zero from a political action plan to public safety reality. Likely, a zero goal will require urban bicyclists to wear helmets.
-mr. bill
Last edited by mr_bill; 02-01-16 at 11:16 AM.
#1890
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 told you a while back that I would check in from time to time. Here's a helmet study you should actually read, front to back.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...9d47c2428b.pdf
Mr. bill, you should check out the Vision Zero concept from the originators.
Vision Zero Initiative
John
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...9d47c2428b.pdf
Mr. bill, you should check out the Vision Zero concept from the originators.
Vision Zero Initiative
John
#1891
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,054 Times
in
634 Posts
See the thread that says Australia just passed a law that fines a cyclist $319 for riding without a helmet. Apparently Aussies think that wearing a helmet is a good thing.
#1892
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Skye omitted "skull fractures" and mentioned "lacerations" and he invented "bumps and bruises". That's a problem.
Skye's characterization of the abstract is incorrect. It's not like it should be hard to summarize the abstract accurately.
Skye too-often mischaracterizes stuff he links to. People should be sure to look at the link over trusting whatever Skye says about it.
Skye's characterization of the abstract is incorrect. It's not like it should be hard to summarize the abstract accurately.
Skye too-often mischaracterizes stuff he links to. People should be sure to look at the link over trusting whatever Skye says about it.
#1893
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
I've been following the reports of opinions and consequences of their helmet law for years, and it seems to me that most Australian cyclists don't, but their government does. They believe that it has seriously curtailed the amount of cycling in Australia, a net negative in health consequences.
#1894
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,241
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4222 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times
in
916 Posts
There's the problem then. You don't understand the ambiguity of what you wrote, nor even why it was ambiguous, and then you write condescendingly to the guy that was apparently responding to one of the possible meanings. It was your misunderstanding, not his, and you should rein that in a bit.
I wrote exactly what I wanted to write (including the "if" might have been better but the meaning doesn't really change). It was deliberate.
People should have done what I said they should have done (read the article). They should have noticed the "odd" replacement of "skull fracture" with "bumps and bruises" and realized that they are not equivalent. "The guy" failed to do that.
If he thought what I wrote was "ambiguous", the proper response would have been to ask me to clarify it. (Not putting word in my mouth.)
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/02...of-ideologies/
Last edited by njkayaker; 02-25-16 at 04:48 AM.
#1895
Senior Member
So much for the "YOU MUST REPLACE YOUR HELMET EVERY TWO YEARS OR YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!!!" BS.
Age does not affect the material properties of bicycle helmet foam liners. - PubMed - NCBI
"Based on these data, the impact attenuation properties of bicycle helmet foam do not degrade with the age."
Not that bicycle helmets do anything useful in the first place.
Also, quit claiming I misrepresent studies. If all you have read is the abstract, shut your pie hole until you read the entire article, as I have. Just because a study doesn't meet your preconceived notions doesn't mean I misquoted it.
You guys have a hella problem with facts.
Age does not affect the material properties of bicycle helmet foam liners. - PubMed - NCBI
"Based on these data, the impact attenuation properties of bicycle helmet foam do not degrade with the age."
Not that bicycle helmets do anything useful in the first place.
Also, quit claiming I misrepresent studies. If all you have read is the abstract, shut your pie hole until you read the entire article, as I have. Just because a study doesn't meet your preconceived notions doesn't mean I misquoted it.
You guys have a hella problem with facts.
#1896
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,241
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4222 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times
in
916 Posts
So much for the "YOU MUST REPLACE YOUR HELMET EVERY TWO YEARS OR YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!!!" BS.
Age does not affect the material properties of bicycle helmet foam liners. - PubMed - NCBI
Age does not affect the material properties of bicycle helmet foam liners. - PubMed - NCBI
Ironic.
Last edited by njkayaker; 02-25-16 at 05:09 PM.
#1897
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,529
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2111 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
So much for the "YOU MUST REPLACE YOUR HELMET EVERY TWO YEARS OR YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!!!" BS.
....
Also, quit claiming I misrepresent studies. If all you have read is the abstract, shut your pie hole until you read the entire article, as I have. Just because a study doesn't meet your preconceived notions doesn't mean I misquoted it.
....
....
Also, quit claiming I misrepresent studies. If all you have read is the abstract, shut your pie hole until you read the entire article, as I have. Just because a study doesn't meet your preconceived notions doesn't mean I misquoted it.
....
"This helmet has a limited life span in use and should be replaced when it shows obvious signs of wear."
"YOU SHOULD NEVER: 1. Wear a helmet that’s been in an accident, even if no damage is visible."
What Bell doesn't say about replacing helmets:
"YOU MUST REPLACE YOUR HELMET EVERY TWO YEARS OR YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!!!"
Not only do you misrepresent studies, you misrepresent lots of things. All the time. It's the voodoo that you do so well.
-mr. bill
Last edited by mr_bill; 02-25-16 at 02:03 PM.
#1898
Senior Member
Says Bell on replacing helmets:
"This helmet has a limited life span in use and should be replaced when it shows obvious signs of wear."
"YOU SHOULD NEVER: 1. Wear a helmet that’s been in an accident, even if no damage is visible."
What Bell doesn't say about replacing helmets:
"YOU MUST REPLACE YOUR HELMET EVERY TWO YEARS OR YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!!!"
Not only do you misrepresent studies, you misrepresent lots of things. All the time. It's the voodoo that you do so well.
-mr. bill
"This helmet has a limited life span in use and should be replaced when it shows obvious signs of wear."
"YOU SHOULD NEVER: 1. Wear a helmet that’s been in an accident, even if no damage is visible."
What Bell doesn't say about replacing helmets:
"YOU MUST REPLACE YOUR HELMET EVERY TWO YEARS OR YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!!!"
Not only do you misrepresent studies, you misrepresent lots of things. All the time. It's the voodoo that you do so well.
-mr. bill
Originally Posted by Bell FAQ
Q:How Often Should a Helmet Be Replaced?
A:Bell has a general recommendation of replacing your helmet every three (3) years. If you are unsure of the condition of your helmet, or whether it should be replaced, call us at 800-456-2355 or e-mail us at consumersupport@bellsports.com for information on a free inspection.
A:Bell has a general recommendation of replacing your helmet every three (3) years. If you are unsure of the condition of your helmet, or whether it should be replaced, call us at 800-456-2355 or e-mail us at consumersupport@bellsports.com for information on a free inspection.
This "YOU SHOULD NEVER: 1. Wear a helmet that’s been in an accident, even if no damage is visible" always cracks me up, though. How do you know that ANY helmet is damage free then? Pick it up right off the assembly line and never let it out of your sight?
#1899
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,241
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4222 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times
in
916 Posts
Would you drive across a bridge in the dark you know is out?
#1900
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
No, "the guy" imagined what what I said (it wasn't a "possible meaning" either). Then accused me of making a straw man argument. The condescendion was deserved.
I wrote exactly what I wanted to write (including the "if" might have been better but the meaning doesn't really change). It was deliberate.
People should have done what I said they should have done (read the article). They should have noticed the "odd" replacement of "skull fracture" with "bumps and bruises" and realized that they are not equivalent. "The guy" failed to do that.
If he thought what I wrote was "ambiguous", the proper response would have been to ask me to clarify it. (Not putting word in my mouth.)
He misrepresents stuff much too frequently. The "omission" is yet another example of that. And he added stuff he just made-up. There isn't really any way to reasonably excuse that. It appears you are trying to excuse it.
Ronald Collins: The Marketplace Of Ideologies | Simple Justice
I wrote exactly what I wanted to write (including the "if" might have been better but the meaning doesn't really change). It was deliberate.
People should have done what I said they should have done (read the article). They should have noticed the "odd" replacement of "skull fracture" with "bumps and bruises" and realized that they are not equivalent. "The guy" failed to do that.
If he thought what I wrote was "ambiguous", the proper response would have been to ask me to clarify it. (Not putting word in my mouth.)
He misrepresents stuff much too frequently. The "omission" is yet another example of that. And he added stuff he just made-up. There isn't really any way to reasonably excuse that. It appears you are trying to excuse it.
Ronald Collins: The Marketplace Of Ideologies | Simple Justice
A baseball cap doesn't really provide much protection against bumps and bruises, lacerations, or facial contusions in addition to doing little for skull fractures. If you have to attack someone's hyperbole, that would have been a logical point of attack.