Helmets work.*

[slvoid]

*Helmets work the majority of the time, not 100%, just so some of you blood sucking lawyer types don't get too anal about it.

Anyway, I thought I'd post this here for everyone since there are a few people who try to convince others that helmets aren't that helpful or sometimes even cause more harm than good.

From the bicycle helmet safety institute and various studies listed on their site.

"A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent."

"Wearing a bike helmet can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent. "

"Helmets are needed because head injuries in bicyclists are noted in:
65,000 emergency room cases and 7,700 hospital admissions annually
about 40 per cent of bicyclists admitted to hospitals
an estimated 70 to 80 per cent of fatally injured bicyclists
Bicyclists hospitalized with head injuries are 20 times as likely to die as those without."

"Riding without a bicycle helmet significantly increases the risk of sustaining a head injury in the event of a crash. Nonhelmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than helmeted riders. "

"Correct fit and proper positioning are essential to the effectiveness of bike helmets at reducing injury. One study found that children whose helmets fit poorly are at twice the risk of head injury in a crash compared with children whose helmet fit is excellentIn addition, children who wear their helmets tipped back on their heads have a 52 percent greater risk of head injury than those who wear their helmets centered on their heads. "

"
Bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury by as much as 85 percent and the risk of brain injury by as much as 88 percent.Bicycle helmets have also been shown to offer substantial protection to the forehead and midface.

It is estimated that 75 percent of bicycle-related fatalities among children could be prevented with a bicycle helmet.

Universal use of bicycle helmets by children ages 4 to 15 could prevent between 135 and 155 deaths, between 39,000 and 45,000 head injuries, and between 18,000 and 55,000 scalp and face injuries annually.

Child helmet ownership and use increases with the parent’s income and education level, yet decreases with the child’s age. Children are more likely to wear a bicycle helmet if riding with others (peers or adults) who are also wearing one.In a national survey of children ages 8 to 12, 53 percent reported that a parental rule for helmet use would persuade them to wear a helmet, and 49 percent would wear a helmet if a state or community law required it. "

"Every dollar spent on a bike helmet saves society $30 in direct medical costs and other costs to society.

If 85 percent of all child cyclists wore bicycle helmets in one year, the lifetime medical cost savings could total between $109 million and $142 million. "

From the New England Journal of Medicine

Volume 320:1361-1367 May 25, 1989 Number 21

A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets

RS Thompson, FP Rivara, and DC Thompson

Abstract

Bicycling accidents cause many serious injuries and, in the United States, about 1300 deaths per year, mainly from head injuries. Safety helmets are widely recommended for cyclists, but convincing evidence of their effectiveness is lacking. Over one year we conducted a case-control study in which the case patients were 235 persons with head injuries received while bicycling, who sought emergency care at one of five hospitals. One control group consisted of 433 persons who received emergency care at the same hospitals for bicycling injuries not involving the head. A second control group consisted of 558 members of a large health maintenance organization who had had bicycling accidents during the previous year. Seven percent of the case patients were wearing helmets at the time of their head injuries, as compared with 24 percent of the emergency room controls and 23 percent of the second control group. Of the 99 cyclists with serious brain injury only 4 percent wore helmets. In regression analyses to control for age, sex, income, education, cycling experience, and the severity of the accident, we found that riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in their risk of head injury (odds ratio, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.29) and an 88 percent reduction in their risk of brain injury (odds ratio, 0.12; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.40). We conclude that bicycle safety helmets are highly effective in preventing head injury. Helmets are particularly important for children, since they suffer the majority of serious head injuries from bicycling accidents.

And Finally: "Two-thirds of fatally injured bicyclists are tested for alcohol; 32 per cent of those tested have been drinking."

So the moral of the story is, helmets sometimes cause more harm than good, like seat belts and air bags and medicine. Helmets sometimes don't work at all, like seat belts and air bags and medicine. But helmets also often work at reducing injury should an accident happen, like seat belts and air bags and medicine.
If you don't believe in the whole seat belt or medicine thing, then it's your choice should you choose not to wear a helmet. Otherwise, use your own judgement and wear a helmet. And don't drink and bike.

[LordOpie]

frankly, attempting to convince people to NOT wear a helmet is tantamount to the church telling people in Africa that condoms don't prevent AIDS.


Don't let your agenda hurt other people.

[slvoid]

frankly, attempting to convince people to NOT wear a helmet is tantamount to the church telling people in Africa that condoms don't prevent AIDS.

Technically, condoms prevent the spread of aids through one specific medium (vaginal sexual intercourse). But they don't prevent AIDS. *DUCKS* :p

[Raiyn]

Technically, condoms prevent the spread of aids through one specific medium (vaginal sexual intercourse). But they don't prevent AIDS. *DUCKS* :p
No need to duck. You're correct

[Brian]

Is this a real thread, or just an attempt to lure a certain "Closetbiker" into another
p!ssing contest?

[Raiyn]

Is this a real thread, or just an attempt to lure a certain "Closetbiker" into another
p!ssing contest?
Why? Think he'll take the bait?

[Brian]

Why? Think he'll take the bait?
Do rats ever learn? If you subscribe to Darwin's theory, then we should hear from him early tomorrow.

[slvoid]

Is this a real thread, or just an attempt to lure a certain "Closetbiker" into another
p!ssing contest?

It's an attempt to post some "real" studies that a "certain someone" has always asked to be shown so that "other people" who "might not know better" won't be mistakenly "convinced" by a "certain someone" to not use a helmet since it "saves lives."

[Mars]

I have been following the vigorous debate re helmet use for quite a while now. Not once, NOT ONCE, have I seen closetbiker tell anyone not to use a helmet. I defy any of you to produce a statement where he, or anyone who dares oppose your dogma, says not to where a helmet.

You know, Galileo was threatened with burning at the stake when he produced information that people didn't like to hear. I wonder why he did prompted such strong feelings when all he is doing is produce facts and opinions (Galileo, I mean.... or is it closetbiker?). I urge everyone to accept informed differences of opinion without resorting to personal attacks or rushing for the matches. I find that closetbiker will not insult you if you do not insult him.

Are the pro helmet users here so intolerant of opposing views that no one can present them without personal attacks?

[Brian]

The problem is that he's a dumb*****. A guy posts a thread stating he crashed and cracked his helmet open, not his head, and here's this moron quoting crap out of context and generally being a pain. I don't care if he's never told anyone not to wear a helmet, his comments had no place in that thread. Galileo lived long before mass media. No one on the other side (underside? :D ) of the world knew what he was up to, nor did they have the means to readily prove or disprove his theories. You're comparing apples and crankshafts in defense of this guy. Do you wear a helmet?

[Raiyn]

"Apples and Crankshafts" I'll have to remember that.:D

[glowingrod]

He doesn't tell people not to wear a helmet, he tries instead to make them feel stupid for doing so, or for saying it helped them without backing up the statement with reams of the "empirical data" you so revere. He talks down to people when they don't feel like googling or searching medical texts to refute the data he culls out of of context to make himself feel superior. Google and other search engines, online university studies and medical journals make him pointless he just doesn't realize it. He's way to impressed with himself and doesn't understand when people don't want to discuss his weird fixations in threads that aren't about his crusade at all. He's a whacko. If he could learn the when and where I'm sure he could get the validation he craves without making a nuisance of himself.

[slvoid]

Are the pro helmet users here so intolerant of opposing views that no one can present them without personal attacks?

I don't care if his biases his views to convince us to all drink red wine over white wine. I don't care if he biases his views to convince us to drink coke over pepsi. But the fact that just as recently as the thread where the dude busted up his helmet and it saved him from serious injury, the fool cites ONE little quote from the helmet safety insititute to convince us that it doesn't save us from injury and ignores the other couple HUNDRED that says it does is just about irresponsible as going up to a bunch of impressionable teengers and warning them of the ONE specific danger of using condoms without telling them about the HUNDREDS of benefits.
He's not directly convincing anyone not to use a helmet. But he is biasing the discussion in a way that would steer an unsuspecting person away from using one.
Galileo never threatened anyone's life. You'll know what I mean if you can answer this with a simple yes or no question. You aren't aware of this but the teacher for your 6th grade child has been telling the class that a) helmets don't help in "x" situation, b) condoms don't work in "x" situation, c) seatbelts kill and do a lot of harm in "x" situation, d) "x" minorities commit crimes, would you be happy with this if the teacher didn't present the other side of the situation? Because they're all facts, why would anyone be angry over that?
You like to talk tolerance over "informed" opinions. That we have, in fact, EVERYONE this side of the discussion, and I mean literally EVERYONE, agrees that in some situations, helmets, seatbelts, etc, can do more harm than good. However, we recognize that in MOST situations, helmets help. See, BOTH points of view. However, this moron here, all he ever does when talking about helmets is present the negative side of it to people. This is called a "biased" opinion. And when someone biases their opinion towards an action that can do more harm than good, then yes, I'm against that. That's a personal attack if you choose to view it this way, or it's an "informed" opinion.

[glowingrod]

closetboys constant defense over his bias against helmets is that he doesn't discourage their use.(wrong! not saying it outloud and not saying it are two different things) Or that he thinks "they" should develop a helmet that "works".
He seems to take deep solace in the fact that he has lots of useless data at hand, and believe me it is useless. Every study,statistic or incident he can garner off the web can be contradicted or canceled out by the opposing view and vice versa, something he readily admits.
That's one of the reasons that the only thing his rhetoric amounts to is public masturbation.
The other is that if he truly cared THAT MUCH about it he'd get off his "oh so informed" ass and develop a helmet that people would use and that "works" to this unnamed standard he holds. Until he does something about it besides nothing his subtle discouragement of the best thing going, which is anything is better than nothing is utterly pointless.

[Mars]

Guys/gals, this is my last post on the subject. First, I would like to say that he is not a moron or a dumb*****. He doesn't agree with you and he has good reasons for not agreeing with you. As a researcher myself, I can tell you that closetbiker has posted important and compelling evidence to support his arguements. On the thread in question, a rider presented anecdotal evidence that a helmet saved his life. Well, that may or may not be true. Anecdotal evidence is considered the poorest form of evidence that there is. The reason is that people will interpret things in quirky ways... just recall the last heated argument between your wife/husband/partner and yourself. There are people who can present anecdotal evidence that Elvis cured them of illnesses.

When you look at the empirical evidence (considered much better than anecdotal) and are informed about stats (which, no offense intended most of you are not) the data is very weak to justify the claims many of you make regarding helmet use. Now, to answer expatriot's question: no I don't. I also don't wear one while driving a car. There is NO QUESTION that it makes more sense to wear a helmet in the car than on a bike, how many of you do that?

I have made a point to be as civil in this rejoinder as I can. I hope that all of you will do the same. Galileo did not "threaten lives" with his comments and findings. He did much worse, he threatened world, religious, and goverment views. He did it by presenting the data and letting them speak for themselves. They nearly burned him at the stake for doing so. It wasn't until the 20th century that the Catholic church formally admitted that the sun is not the center of the universe...

Be that as it may, I think that we understand each other's perspectives regarding helmet use. I won't be persuaded without a compelling evidence and many of you have found what you need to make your decisions. Best of luck to all of you and safe riding.

[Bekologist]

the data is very weak? hardly. Mars, you're a misguided putz, just like closet. Helmets kill, right. You sound idiotic.

[glowingrod]

Until he does something about it besides nothing his subtle discouragement of the best thing going, which is anything is better than nothing is utterly pointless.

same for you Mars

[Brian]

Now, to answer expatriot's question: no I don't. I also don't wear one while driving a car. There is NO QUESTION that it makes more sense to wear a helmet in the car than on a bike, how many of you do that?


Geez, why does every crackpot have so much trouble with my name? But I digress, back to the subject at hand. Do you have children? Would you tell them (or a relative's children) not to wear a helmet? The contents of my skull are certainly worth protecting, apparently yours are not. You'll also have to enlighten us with your empirical data showing that it makes more sense to wear a helmet in a car than on a bike. I've never heard of such foolishness. I've worn a helmet while on a racetrack in excess of 140MPH, and in an off-road race car as well. Helmet use was mandated by the governing body of the races. But in a passenger car? What's next, window nets? Your name may be Mars, but you're talking out Uranus.

[Dchiefransom]

Geez, why does every crackpot have so much trouble with my name? But I digress, back to the subject at hand. Do you have children? Would you tell them (or a relative's children) not to wear a helmet? The contents of my skull are certainly worth protecting, apparently yours are not. You'll also have to enlighten us with your empirical data showing that it makes more sense to wear a helmet in a car than on a bike. I've never heard of such foolishness. I've worn a helmet while on a racetrack in excess of 140MPH, and in an off-road race car as well. Helmet use was mandated by the governing body of the races. But in a passenger car? What's next, window nets? Your name may be Mars, but you're talking out Uranus.

The links to the stats on head injuries in car accidents have been posted here and on other websites many times during arguments about wearing helmets on bikes. These stats are just as reliable as the ones supporting bicycling helmet use. The odds of a person's head being injured in a car crash are very good, and it's just as, if not more, compelling to wear a helmet while driving the family car. Why people don't is about "accepted risk". We accept the risk of sustaining head injuries in a car because we believe we are safe when surrounded by our cage, but it's that very cage that causes us the injuries. Like the average person, I wear a helmet while riding my bike, and not while driving my car. That doesn't mean the statistics don't support doing it.

[Brian]

The links to the stats on head injuries in car accidents have been posted here and on other websites many times during arguments about wearing helmets on bikes. These stats are just as reliable as the ones supporting bicycling helmet use. The odds of a person's head being injured in a car crash are very good, and it's just as, if not more, compelling to wear a helmet while driving the family car. Why people don't is about "accepted risk". We accept the risk of sustaining head injuries in a car because we believe we are safe when surrounded by our cage, but it's that very cage that causes us the injuries. Like the average person, I wear a helmet while riding my bike, and not while driving my car. That doesn't mean the statistics don't support doing it.

I'm not sure which side of the fence you're on, but I'll take issue with your statements not to start an argument, but to clarify. I worked in the auto insurance industry for 10 years, and saw thousands and thousands of claims. Our office generally had an inventory of 16 thousand open and closed files at any one time. Some huge percentage of auto accidents are rear-end accidents. Neck, not head injuries, are the most common in this case. Of course, with the proliferation of attorneys quick to jump on the soft tissue bandwagon, it's near impossible to compile stats on actual injuries vs "claimed injuries". Soft tissue injuries are very hard to prove, so any data related to them is suspect. Of course, if you get hit from the side, your chances of sustaining some kind of head injury are much greater. But, as stated, these impacts represent a much lower percentage of accidents. There is also not much that can be done to protect you in this kind of loss.

Bottom line: Your odds are very good that if you have an MVA, you'll be rearended (unless you're the fool that hits the guy in front of you) and unlikely to suffer head trauma, unless it's a huge impact, in which case you'll probably also have broken limbs. Wear your seatbelt properly, adjust your seat and headrest, and maintain a safe distance behind the car in front of you.

Until someone produces more data on the specifics of bike vs car or fixed object accidents, we're back to apples and crankshafts, which should keep Raiyn amused. I want to know stats on helmets striking the ground (side impact) as in getting knocked off a bike, vs a head-on frontal impact where the helmet strikes a pole or windscreen. I concede that a helmet will not protect you in all cases, but I challenge anyone to provide data that you're inherently safer without one.

[Daily Commute]

This is perhaps the most heated non-argument on this forum.

These helmet debates are annoying. Both sides argue essentially the same thing, but with different spin--helmets makes you less likely to receive a head injury in certain kinds of accidents, but helmets aren't perfect.

Pro-helmet--Helmets make you safer in an accident.
Helmet-skeptic--But helmets aren't perfect, you can still get hurt.
Pro-helmet-Yes, but helmets make you safer in an accident.
Helmet-skeptic--Yes, but helmets aren't perfect, you can still get hurt.

Etc., etc., etc. Blah, blah, blah.

[allgoo19]

Technically, condoms prevent the spread of aids through one specific medium (vaginal sexual intercourse). But they don't prevent AIDS. *DUCKS* :p

Make it two. Another one is anal sexual intercourse.

[allgoo19]

*
Child helmet ownership and use increases with the parent’s income and education level, yet decreases with the child’s age. Children are more likely to wear a bicycle helmet if riding with others (peers or adults) who are also wearing one.In a national survey of children ages 8 to 12, 53 percent reported that a parental rule for helmet use would persuade them to wear a helmet, and 49 percent would wear a helmet if a state or community law required it. "

"Every dollar spent on a bike helmet saves society $30 in direct medical costs and other costs to society.

If 85 percent of all child cyclists wore bicycle helmets in one year, the lifetime medical cost savings could total between $109 million and $142 million. "


I used to think wearing helmet are personlal choice and I was against the idea of mandatory helmet law, until I read an article(it was about motorcycle helmets) somewhere that lower the income of the rider(which means more likely not have medical insurance), more likely to not wear helmet(think of hell's angels type). Even at the time a person is insured, brain injury can be life time burden and the policy may not cover all the expense, even causes loss of the job to the patient then loss of the policy.

If that happens who's going to pick up the medical bills? It happens to be other tax payers money.

I'm not going to push everybody to wear helmet. It's(mandatory) a very unpopular idea. Do you have a insurance policy that covers all the medical and care cost when you paralyzed, and keep covering you even when you can't pay the premium? Do you have a job that you can keep even you have to stay in the bed the rest of your life? Of course, helmet is not going to save you from spinal injury or other injury that dramtically reduce your ability for the every day life. By wearing helmet, you can show the society, at least you are doing a part to reduce your possible dependency, caused by the injury, on the other tax payer.

[Dchiefransom]

I'm not sure which side of the fence you're on, but I'll take issue with your statements not to start an argument, but to clarify. I worked in the auto insurance industry for 10 years, and saw thousands and thousands of claims. Our office generally had an inventory of 16 thousand open and closed files at any one time. Some huge percentage of auto accidents are rear-end accidents. Neck, not head injuries, are the most common in this case. Of course, with the proliferation of attorneys quick to jump on the soft tissue bandwagon, it's near impossible to compile stats on actual injuries vs "claimed injuries". Soft tissue injuries are very hard to prove, so any data related to them is suspect. Of course, if you get hit from the side, your chances of sustaining some kind of head injury are much greater. But, as stated, these impacts represent a much lower percentage of accidents. There is also not much that can be done to protect you in this kind of loss.

Bottom line: Your odds are very good that if you have an MVA, you'll be rearended (unless you're the fool that hits the guy in front of you) and unlikely to suffer head trauma, unless it's a huge impact, in which case you'll probably also have broken limbs. Wear your seatbelt properly, adjust your seat and headrest, and maintain a safe distance behind the car in front of you.

Until someone produces more data on the specifics of bike vs car or fixed object accidents, we're back to apples and crankshafts, which should keep Raiyn amused. I want to know stats on helmets striking the ground (side impact) as in getting knocked off a bike, vs a head-on frontal impact where the helmet strikes a pole or windscreen. I concede that a helmet will not protect you in all cases, but I challenge anyone to provide data that you're inherently safer without one.

You asked, and, although I'm not the one that puts up the links, I tried to answer. The next time the links are posted, everyone can read them for themselves. I wear a helmet myself, but don't feel that it should be mandatory by law. We do many things every day that could cause the taxpayers to have to pay more to take care of us, if we're going to legislate one thing, it's only fair to legislate them all.
In an article in my newspaper about two years ago, our Insurance Institute had stats showing that the high mileaage smaller cars were unsafe in accidents, and that the biggest danger wasn't from accidents with other vehicles, but single vehicle accidents. Every insurance agent interviewed did not want their children in small cars, but rather older, very large "boats".

[slvoid]

Like the average person, I wear a helmet while riding my bike, and not while driving my car. That doesn't mean the statistics don't support doing it.

It's a personal choice. People don't normally drive around in firesuits and roll cages either.

[Brian]

In an article in my newspaper about two years ago, our Insurance Institute had stats showing that the high mileaage smaller cars were unsafe in accidents, and that the biggest danger wasn't from accidents with other vehicles, but single vehicle accidents. Every insurance agent interviewed did not want their children in small cars, but rather older, very large "boats".

Again, I'm not trying to argue, but point out the bigger picture. Who buys smaller cars with high mileage? Responsible adults, or teen drivers that just got their license? If every new driver got a VW Beetle with their license, 2 years from now someone would publish data stating VW Beetles are dangerous. But review your comments that I've quoted. Small cars are unsafe in single vehicle accidents? They don't cause them, they're just not as safe as bigger cars? Do you find that surprising? If you're going to hit a telephone pole, which is safer, a Corolla or a Town Car? That's not brain surgery to figure that one out.

Useless data in my opinion. Now consider this, and don't call me a conspiracy theorist. Compare a list of the least frequently stolen cars to the kinds of cars this study suggests is safe. You may also find that they're less expensive to repair too. And that's what the insurance Institure wants you to drive. How coincidental? We got an annual report showing what vehicles had the lowest average repair cost, and the lowest theft rate. Insurance companies have a vested interest in getting people into those cars. Just some food for thought.

[Guest]

All right, people. Settle down.

These personal attacks and putdowns need to stop soon, or else the moderators will have to step in and severely moniter threads, and no one wants that.

It's in the forum guidelines- NO NAME CALLING.

People are welcome to have their own viewpoints, and we all have to respect the differences in people's opinions. If you can't respect them and respond in an appropriate manner, say NOTHING.

Koffee Brown

Forum Moderator

[Brian]

It's in the forum guidelines- NO NAME CALLING.

Koffee Brown

Forum Moderator
Is "Crackpot" considered name calling? ;)

[closetbiker]

All right, people. Settle down.

These personal attacks and putdowns need to stop soon, or else the moderators will have to step in and severely moniter threads, and no one wants that.

It's in the forum guidelines- NO NAME CALLING.

People are welcome to have their own viewpoints, and we all have to respect the differences in people's opinions. If you can't respect them and respond in an appropriate manner, say NOTHING.

Koffee Brown

Forum Moderator

Is this a real thread, or just an attempt to lure a certain "Closetbiker" into another
p!ssing contest?

Why? Think he'll take the bait?

Do rats ever learn? If you subscribe to Darwin's theory, then we should hear from him early tomorrow.

I guess Darwins theory is off a couple of days.

Gee, I haven't even entered this thread and I still get targeted.

Doesn't bother me personally. I've been called worse things by better men, but I'll go along with koffee because it's better for our board.

[Raiyn]

Is "Crackpot" considered name calling? ;)
Not sure. I'm pretty sure "Crackhead" is