Cycling head injuries article

[JonR]

Read it quick--the link probably won't be good for more than a day or two. It's a NY Times article called "A Bicycle Mystery: Head Injuries Piling Up."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/national/29BIKE.html?pagewanted=1

[Chris L]

I couldn't get the link to work. Can you paste the text here or something?

Chris

[mike]

Same here. I couldn't get the link to work either.

[JonR]

I don't know why the link didn't work--it works for me...

I can't put the text here because it's copyrighted (it's also a two-page article).

In brief, it seems head injuries are UP despite helmet usage also being WAY UP and cycling allegedly being DOWN 21% since 1990 or so (which I find hard to believe, and so do cycling advocates, according to the article).

Further study is underway to try to solve this apparent mystery.

One theory is that increased helmet usage has made wearers over-confident in some cases. Insurance analysts say this is a common phenomenon: perceived protection causes increased risk-taking.

That's about all there was to the article.

[RonH]

Jon,
The link worked for me, but I didn't read the article cause the NYTimes wanted me to register, etc. I didn't want to do that.
If you can cut and paste that would be great.

On a related subject, did anyone see the feature story about bicycle helmets on Headline News this morning. It was right after the quicky story about Lance's victory.
It said that recent studies regarding head injuries among cyclists is on the rise even though helmet use has also increased. They made it sound like wearing a helmet was a waste of time because the helmet may not reduce your chances of receiving a serious head injury. Idiots!! :rolleyes:
But they did say that wearing a helmet will reduce the chances by 88% compared with non-helmet cyclists. They also said that many injuries are due to poor cycling habits and not following or understanding the rules of the road.
Why can't these jerks present a positive cycling story???

Ron

[JonR]

That must have been based on the same news release(s) the Times story was based on. The figures and ideas are the same. The newspaper story didn't convey the idea that you might as well not wear a helmet, though.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by RonH
It said that recent studies regarding head injuries among cyclists is on the rise even though helmet use has also increased. They made it sound like wearing a helmet was a waste of time because the helmet may not reduce your chances of receiving a serious head injury. Idiots!! :rolleyes:


Personally, I think that anyone who rides in a more dangerous manner just because they are wearing a helmet has other (non cycling) issues. Granted, a helmet is no substitute for sensible cycling, but it will offer additional protection if you are involved in an accident. I actually don't pay much attention to the so-called "mainstream media", and this story is a perfect example of why.

Originally posted by RonH
They also said that many injuries are due to poor cycling habits and not following or understanding the rules of the road.
Why can't these jerks present a positive cycling story???


Two reasons: firstly, they are trying to look after their sponsors. Two of their major sponsors would be oil companies and car companies. Two groups who definitely do not want to see a heap of bikes on the road.

Secondly, because the best way to increase the number of readers of a newspaper is to basically print what people want to read. If Americans are at all like Australians, that will be "everything that goes wrong in your life is someone else's fault." Just think, now Joe Sixpack can feel happy about almost killing that cyclist that he couldn't be bothered slowing down for three seconds to pass because "the cyclist doesn't know the road rules" anyway.

In truth, a lot of cycling injuries are caused by poor cycling habits. However, what annoys me is that the next time there is a motor vehicle accident, nobody in the media will dare suggest that it was poor driving that caused it. Instead it will be the surface of the road, or the conditions, or maybe this guy was "held up" by a cyclist for three seconds and had to hurry because he was late to work and to f**king stupid to understand the concept of getting out of bed five minutes earlier!

rant over.

Chris

[LittleBigMan]

Originally posted by Chris L
In truth, a lot of cycling injuries are caused by poor cycling habits.
In the "oil crisis" of the '70's, cycling became very popular. At the same time, cycling deaths and injuries rose sharply. Most analysts agree this was due to a large number of untrained cyclists appearing on the roadways.

This phenomenon underscores the urgent need to educate all road users of the proper place and behavoir of cyclists on the roadways. To neglect to include cyclists as valid road users, and to forego training motorists and cyclists alike in the proper methods cyclists must use, only invites tragedy.

This includes, and goes far beyond, helmet usage.

[Chris L]

Just a thought on these statistics courtesy of some insight from a poster on another forum. Does this mean that more head injuries are happening or that more are just being reported more effectively?

Chris

[MichaelW]

These newspaper reports are taken from science and medical journals, and reported by jopurnalists who wouldnt know a controlled experiment if it bit their foot off.
One experiment in Austria compared injuries in extreme off-road cyclists, to a control group of cycle-commuting medical students. According to the press reports, the research showed that cycling was harmful, rather than the real conclusion, that using a bike for extreme sports can be harmful, compared to using a bike for travelling on the road.

[JonR]

I think MichaelW makes a good point.

One thing that bothered me in the article was the seemingly indiscriminate lumping together of all kinds of bicycle use: off-trail, childrens', commuting, and other. It seems to me that it rapidly becomes meaningless to talk about "injuries" when the circumstances vary so widely. It's like the apples and oranges analogy....

[mike]

There may be flaws in the article, but the fact remains that bicycling is a dangerous activity.

We also have to recognize that automobile tranport is also a dangerous activity.

The worst bike crash I have had wasn't nearly as bad or as expensive or as painful, or as damaging as any of the serious automobile accidents I've been in.

We hear the frightening stories about bicyclists being hit by automobiles and being crippled. More horrible, in many cases, is the slaughter of two automobiles crashing at high speed.

[John E]

The NY Times article indirectly raises several significant issues:
1) Too many bicyclists are ignorant of the principles of lawful vehicular cycling.
2) Too many cyclists do ride more aggressively or carelessly when they don a helmet.
3) Too many motorists are distracted, careless, incompetent, or overly aggressive.
4) Too many motorists are not truly cognizant of cyclists' rights and safety issues.

Solutions include improved education for all road users and stricter accountability and licensing standards for motorists. Juries and judges cannot simply keep accepting the "aw shucks, accidents happen" or the "cycling is inherently dangerous" argument or the "I didn't see him/her" [in that blindingly bright "Screaming Yellow" cycling jersey] defense.

I have raised my sons to regard automobile seatbelts and bicycle helmets as automatic habits, rather than as special safety shields, and make sure they notice that I drive my wife's car (6 airbags and ABS) as conservatively as my own (no airbags or ABS).

[Chris L]

Once again, John E makes a lot of sense. Education and proper law enforcement are the key to reducing injuries for road users in any capacity. Now if we could just get the FRCs who make the laws to listen.

Chris

[JonR]

Originally posted by Chris L
Now if we could just get the FRCs who make the laws to listen.


And that's the big problem. At least in this country, legislators are so fearful of, if not beholden to, the oil and automotive interests, that they don't have the guts, even if they have the sense, to go for stricter licensing standards. It might hurt the industry sales. And that would hurt votes and campaign contributions.

[John E]

To support JonR's contention, I read a direct quote from the chairman of the California Department of Motor Vehicles (the agency responsible for the licensing of motorists), to the effect that we could make our roads safer by instituting stricter standards for obtaining and retaining a driver's license, but "at what cost to the southern California lifestyle?" What about the lifestyles of those killed or disabled by distracted, aggressive, inebriated, or incompetent drivers? In California (and probably in the rest of the U.S. and most other developed nations), driving is supposed to be a revocable privilege, not an unalienable right.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by John E
To support JonR's contention, I read a direct quote from the chairman of the California Department of Motor Vehicles (the agency responsible for the licensing of motorists), to the effect that we could make our roads safer by instituting stricter standards for obtaining and retaining a driver's license, but "at what cost to the southern California lifestyle?" What about the lifestyles of those killed or disabled by distracted, aggressive, inebriated, or incompetent drivers? In California (and probably in the rest of the U.S. and most other developed nations), driving is supposed to be a revocable privilege, not an unalienable right.

Couldn't agree more.

Chris

[LittleBigMan]

Originally posted by John E
In California (and probably in the rest of the U.S. and most other developed nations), driving is supposed to be a revocable privilege, not an unalienable right.
At the root of this "privilege" is the old idea that, "posession is nine-tenths of the law." It is the predominance of petro-burning vehicles and the corresponding supporting infrastructure that is responsible for this confusion.

I will confess that a modern transportation system, as it exists in the USA, has many positive benefits. But nothing is perfect, and
this entrenched transportation system that now holds a monopoly on our roadways must undergo an "antitrust action."

We need provisions not only for alternative methods of transport (like bicycles), but also alternative fuels. Smog is damaging to health and the environment, and is not absolutely necessary. Someone must take responsibility for change, because those who are sleeping on a bed of profits will never lift a finger.

Chris, in Georgia where I live, a new law was passed which declares aggressive driving (road rage) a punishable offense.

[Chris L]

Just getting back to the original question, I see a lot of kids riding around with helmets attached to the handlebars rather than on their head where they belong. Does this happen much in the US (where they don't have a mandatory helmet law), it would explain a lot.

Pete, I'm glad they've made "road rage" a punishable offence over there. What is the penalty exactly?

Chris

[John E]

I hope I am wrong, but are average driving skills (ability and attitude) declining, while vehicle occupant protection technology keeps improving? The net effect would be rising pedestrian and cycling fatality rates, accompanied by steady or falling driver and passenger fatality rates. Once again, society goes for the quick technological fix (airbags) instead of grappling with the real issue (legal tolerance of careless motoring).

[Chris L]

Originally posted by John E
I hope I am wrong, but are average driving skills (ability and attitude) declining, while vehicle occupant protection technology keeps improving? The net effect would be rising pedestrian and cycling fatality rates, accompanied by steady or falling driver and passenger fatality rates.

But this is the whole point, they've been doing all that stuff with cars and roadways for 30 years or more, and driver fatality rates are not falling. To be honest I'm amazed how stupid people are with this. The media keep giving us all this stuff about unsafe roads or whatever, but it's a load of crap. The real reason for fatality rates on our roads is incompetence.

In fact, just on the media:

Originally written by The Screaming Jets
There’s no reason that I should believe you
You make a little on the side
I’ve been watchin you try to deceive me
I’m keepin up with your lies
I’m gonna get along get along and see you

You can’t get rid of them easily
The stain the world like blood on the sand
Clean em out but they reappear
They’re like maggots in a garbage can

Well you don’t give me a choice or a reason
Just all the tension inside
I’ll be just like a sick man spilling his guts
You’ve got no place left to hide
When I get along get along and see you

You can’t get rid of them easily
They stain our world just like blood on the sand
Clean it out buy they reappear
They’re like maggots in a garbage can

Maggots maggots maggots maggots ......
Just like the hot sun burnin your eye
I’ll track you down until the day that you die

You can’t get rid of them easily
The stain the world like blood on the sand
Clean em out but they reappear
They’re like maggots in a garbage can


Possibly the most accurate description of them I've heard yet.

Chris

[mwmw]

More evidence that wearing a helmet isn't a guarantee:
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html#A8

[LittleBigMan]

Wearing a helmet never guarantees safety.

But why argue against it? Isn't it easier just to put one on?

Thursday, August 30, at about 5:30 pm, about 2 miles from home,
I crashed. A pedestrian stuck his arm out deliberately in my path to knock me down and succeeded. I don't remember falling, I only remember getting up.

It is clear from the pattern of my injuries that the first part of me that hit the pavement was my forehead. But since I had my helmet on, my head and face were spared a worse fate. Though I was told by the plastic surgeon who stitched up my face that I might need to wear a mustache from now on, I am relieved that my head did not take the punishment my helmet did.

I only wish the rest of my body were as protected as my head was. My right wrist lost skin down to the flesh, in one place losing a chunk of meat.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by mwmw
More evidence that wearing a helmet isn't a guarantee:
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html#A8

Chris L again asks his usual questions.

Who says - Well, can someone tell Chris L...

So what - Chris L has found nothing in this article that he didn't already know. Chris L realises that helmets don't make one invincible on the road (as if anything does), but Chris L realises that they provide additional protection in certain situations. Chris L has way too much cool stuff inside his head to be able to justify not having that additional protection.

Chris L is wondering what it is about helmets that p*sses people off so much...

Chris

[John E]

The way to obtain stricter driver licensing standards is to remind legislators and responsible motorists that bad drivers can kill them, too. The U.S. highway death rate of 40K+ per year (that's almost three TWA Flight 800s per week) should speak for itself.

The California Highway Patrol has been cracking down on drunk drivers in my area, partly because drunks have recently killed two of their officers in the line of duty. I can only hope that the legal system will follow suit with severe penalties and license suspensions or revocations.

[LittleBigMan]

Originally posted by John E
The way to obtain stricter driver licensing standards is to remind legislators and responsible motorists that bad drivers can kill them, too. The U.S. highway death rate of 40K+ per year (that's almost three TWA Flight 800s per week) should speak for itself.
Yes.

When will numbers cease to make us numb?

40,000 can mean nothing, unless 1 is your son or daughter.

(Some towns are smaller than 40,000.)

[Chris L]

40,000 is approximately 20 of Chris L's old home town.

[Pat O'Malley]

Here's my 2 cents: I can't give you the exact ranking, but biking is very high on the list of children's injuries and fatalities. And nowadays, more kids are wearing helmets. This might explain the helmet/injuries statistics. Also, it pains me to admit it, but most bicyclists don't follow the traffic laws, ie running stop signs, no signals, inadequate or no lights at night, etc. I would wager that the members here are better behaved because we take bicycling seriously, but we are the minority. And the rude and dangerous motorists are a minority. Ironic isn't it?

[ViciousCycle]

I wish the article had talked about how road conditions have changed during the last decade. Some towns have been doing some really stupid things. Like turning roads going through residential districts or local business districts into mini-expressways. Trying to turn local roads into mini-expressways makes them more dangerous to use.

Whenever I go back to Iowa to visit, I am appalled at the mini-expressways that run through the towns. The towns are small enough that people don't need expressways to get around.

Within city limits, I have one battery acid test of whether or not traffic is going to fast: If jay-walking seems suicidal, then traffic is too ****ed fast.

(I'm not saying whether or not one should jay-walk. But I tend to agree with an urban planner I once read who said that although expressways may be approriate to provide access BETWEEN cities, expressways should never go THROUGH cities.)

[mwmw]

Also, it pains me to admit it, but most bicyclists don't follow the traffic laws, ie running stop signs, no signals, inadequate or no lights at night, etc.
What I get from the previous referenced articles is that there seems to be a tendency for people to be less carefull and take more chances because they feel protected by a helmet. That would explain head injuries increasing at the same time that helmet use increases

[RaelFacio]

Link to "Comments on an Article in the NY Times" on the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute website.
http://www.bhsi.org/time2001.htm

I received my new bike, Schwinn Moab 2, four weeks ago and brought it to the office to show someone. Lunchtime arrived and I decided to taek it out for a ride on familiar terrain. The first curb I encountered was the last for that ride. Over the bars, my head hit first, then my back slammed the ground. My helmet was at home. The helmet/bike are now synonymous even for a test ride in the yard. My children have never been allowed to ride a bike, skooter, skateboard or inline skates without a helmet. The rule now applies to me. Now I am wondering about helmets at a skating rink.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by mwmw

What I get from the previous referenced articles is that there seems to be a tendency for people to be less carefull and take more chances because they feel protected by a helmet

I may have said this before, but anyone who behaves in this manner has other issues that they need to work out before they worry about helmets. Safety equipment is good and something I will never ride without, but the most important safety equipment of all is your brain.

Perhaps there are people out there who leave that at home when they ride.

[john999]

Helmets are not effective in most injuries.

They provide protection in one type of accident : being hit from behind by a car.
When this happens, a person is thrown with a large force, with the crown of their head striking the ground.

This is the most common cause of _serious_ head injuries.
This occurs mostly with children (under 16), as they have tunnel vision and cannot see cars alongside them.

Helmet laws make virtually no difference to adult rates of injury.

The number of head injuries and fatalaties in Australia has _increased_ since helmet laws were introduced.

This is probably because the 'barrier costs' of cars, such as registration, insurance, and introducing compulsory inspections, has been rising faster than wages, so there are more adult riders.

[D*Alex]

I must differ with you.
My current existance is due do a helmet saving my life during a racing accident several years ago. The car which I was co-driving slid off the road, and rolled, at about 75 mph. Of course, the driver slid off passenger side first (very common), and a large rock smashed the roff inward, just at about head height.
By the time we stopped rolling (3 or 4 rolls that I remember), I was a bit shaken, but OK. When I removed my helmet, it was cracked on the side, and bits of window glass and rock made it obvious that the helmet did it's job.
John, I am challenging you to provide documented evidence to your claim. I want specific references, even if it's an article from a supermarket tabloid. Until you do, I will discount your claim as just another gust of hot air (we seem to get a lot of that here, lately).
There was an old racer saying:
"If your head isn't worth anything, don't spend the money for a good helmet".
Enough said.

[John E]

Sorry, john999, you have just triggered one of my sermons, which many of my forum friends have heard before. My personal bias: My wife and I always wear helmets while cycling and have trained our sons to do the same, but I oppose mandatory helmet legislation for adults.

1) One's personal riding style, alertness, and caution are far better protection than any helmet ever made.

2) Wearing a helmet costs a negligible amount of time, effort, money, or weight, and it can actually reduce one's aerodynamic drag.

3) A helmet will reduce the severity of head injury under many scenarios. Thirty years ago, I lost a valued friend, employer, and mentor (50 years old, great wife and kids, successful small business owner, Ph.D., genuinely caring individual) in a low-speed crash. His unprotected head struck a curb, and he died after three weeks in a coma. A helmet probably would have made a big difference in this [adult] case.

4) Anyone who thinks wearing a helmet will render him/her invincible should NOT wear one, because he/she will ride more cautiously without one. Conversely, those who are skeptical about a helmet's protection or objectively aware of its limitations are those who will benefit most from wearing one, because they will not exercise risk compensation.

5) Statistically, mandatory helmet legislation appears to have backfired in Australia, possibly because of risk compensation, and possibly because it reduced the number of cyclists on the road.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by john999
The number of head injuries and fatalaties in Australia has _increased_ since helmet laws were introduced.



I have heard that head injuries have, but I've heard nothing about fatalities. One does not logically follow the other. After all, if a helmet lets you live long enough to actually reach the hospital...

I am still wondering what it is about helmets that p!sses people off so much.

:confused:

[john999]

This is one site :

lash.une.edu.au/~drobinso/bhacc.html

The reason bicycle injury rates have gone up since is that car costs are rising so much (government charges on cars in the 90s rose at about 15% per year - about four times the rate of wage growth)

What is wrong with compulsory helmets ?

- They reduce the number of cyclists. The less cyclists on the road, the more dangerous it is.

- Head injuries are more likely to occur in cars or walking. 'Smart pedestrians and drivers' should wear helmets to protect themselves.
If you get hit by a car, and get head injury - well it was your fault wasn't it ? It obviously wasn't fitted properly !

- The Federal [Australian] department of transport has said :

'if motorcycles were invented today, they would be banned.'

The same is true of pushbikes. This law is designed to reduce bicycle use, just as the government charges higher registration rates for larger cars, and has introduced compulsory inspections to get rid of old cars.

[John E]

Originally posted by john999

This law is designed to reduce bicycle use, just as the government charges higher registration rates for larger cars, and has introduced compulsory inspections to get rid of old cars.

Sorry, I don't buy your argument. Mandatory helmet legislation for bicyclists, analogous to mandatory seatbelt use legislation for motorists, is designed to reduce the severity of head trauma, admittedly under only some scenarios. I like California's current mandatory helmet law, which applies only to cyclists under the age of 18. Those legally old enough to make their own adult decisions are given a free choice.

One side benefit of wearing a helmet is that carrying it into a store, restaurant, business meeting, or office allows me to identify myself proudly and unambiguously as a bicyclist.

I strongly support emissions and safety inspections for older cars. (This does affect me, since I tend to buy my cars new and keep them at least 15-20 years.) Older cars which are properly maintained can easily pass inspection (none of my cars as ever failed or even needed a retest) and remain on the road, whereas those which are a detriment to public health and safety must be repaired or removed. Likewise, registration fees should be higher for heavier, larger vehicles than for lighter ones, due to the difference in road wear-and-tear.

[LittleBigMan]

John999,

I am not sure how I feel about mandatory helmet use. But I had a crash August 30, about 5:30 pm, two miles from home during my usual 15 mile commute.

A pedestrian deliberately stuck his fist in my path and suprised me, knocking me down. I went over the bars at about 10 mph., landing on my face. Fortunately, my helmet hit first, but my chin, lips and nose suffered nasty abrasions and such.

After looking at my helmet, I realize that would have been my forehead, left eye, and left side of my face. Ick.

Louis Garneau is sending me a free replacement. :) I'll wear it as a personal choice, not because it's a law (which it is not.)

[john999]

Think about this :

You are going along a main road and a car drives in front of you, turning off the road into a side street.

You hit the car.

With helmet laws, YOU must PROVE that you were wearing a properly affixed helmet.
Without helmet laws, THEY must show that they were not negligent.

That is the difference. The law protects car drivers, not cyclists.

This is the same as light regulations. When they had 'lights on' for motorcycles, judges determined that drivers were not guilty where motorcyclists failed to prove they were riding with lights on.

When cyclists that have been hit by cars at night, the excuse often is that they can't see the lights on bikes, and this is accepted by court - despite the fact that no light intensity level is specified in law !

BTW, I don't accept arguments about bicycle helmets being ineffective, or they give a false sense of security, I just don't think they should be compulsory.

[John E]

I don't think you and I are that far apart on this issue, John999. By the way, the California vehicle code does require a front light and a rear reflector, plus pedal and side reflectors, for nighttime cycling, and it does specify visibility distances. Although the legal system all too often sides wth motorists instead of cyclists and pedestrians, should a motorist be prosecuted and fined in a collision with a wrong-way, unlit, unhelmeted cyclist, such as the fool I see every morning at 05:30 on my way to work?

[Chris L]

Originally posted by john999
Think about this :

You are going along a main road and a car drives in front of you, turning off the road into a side street.

You hit the car.

With helmet laws, YOU must PROVE that you were wearing a properly affixed helmet.
Without helmet laws, THEY must show that they were not negligent.

That is the difference. The law protects car drivers, not cyclists.

This is the same as light regulations. When they had 'lights on' for motorcycles, judges determined that drivers were not guilty where motorcyclists failed to prove they were riding with lights on.

When cyclists that have been hit by cars at night, the excuse often is that they can't see the lights on bikes, and this is accepted by court - despite the fact that no light intensity level is specified in law !

BTW, I don't accept arguments about bicycle helmets being ineffective, or they give a false sense of security, I just don't think they should be compulsory.

The above is one of the rare occasions when I will have to concede the point. There is a lot of good sensible stuff in that post. However, I will continue to wear a helmet by choice. It's not really a law in this country, given the number of helmet-less riders I see who get away with it constantly.