The only part that is just conjecture is how many superficial injuries, with or without helmets, did not go to ER.

Even that part isn't purely conjecture, because we have DOT injury data which while having some warts are not limited to ER visits.

We have a good idea of how many serious injuries were saved, and even better when it comes to fatalities. I think that people are just not following the math.

There isn't "plenty of hard data". There are lots of studies with lots of faults, on both sides of the debate. And on both sides of the debate you'll find people claiming that their studies are "hard data" and the other side's studies are all wrong. A rational person looks at it all and realizes that the helmet issue really isn't very clear at all.

Yes and no.

I'm with you. If you don't want to wear it, fine. But the stats are definitely there. When we compare accident victims that end up reported, you're far far better off wearing the lid.

What I'm referring to, is the situation where it isn't reported. On this forum there's a guy dressing weeping/bleeding wounds from a pretty rough crash who is treating it himself, and I'd probably do the same. But that's an unreported crash. It was by himself, and he hasn't gone to the doctor, much less the ER, with his wounds. I fell running the other day (slipped on a piece of trash I didn't see). Skinned up my knee really good. Bruised my hip. Messed up my wrist. I didn't go to the doctor either so that's another 'unreported running injury'. Even though it was pretty minor (didn't feel minor, ha!)

So let's say you're riding along, you lose it, you hit the ground. The back of your head slams against the pavement and the helmet prevents any injury, serious or minor. You lick your wounds, you get up. No stats there. There is no "1 more person a helmet saved". It's unreported and you couldn't say for certain (unless he was wearing a myriad of sensors in his lid) what sort of injuries he might've sustained. But that very well could've been a fatality without the helmet. A stat we just don't have.

And why that's important, is because even WITHOUT all of those un-reported non-issues, where nothing happened; the stats still are well in favor of wearing a helmet when it comes to safety.

So if you don't want to? Cool. But it does irk me a bit when folks claim it's the 'safest thing to do', or that helmets don't work. As you said, follow the math; you simply can't make that claim. Anecdotally? Sure. You can dig up an experience here or there. But the stats don't add up in the grand scheme.

Before I respond, what claim or argument do you believe I have been making?

Well, let me say something about this:

"So let's say you're riding along, you lose it, you hit the ground. The back of your head slams against the pavement and the helmet prevents any injury, serious or minor. You lick your wounds, you get up. No stats there. There is no "1 more person a helmet saved". It's unreported and you couldn't say for certain (unless he was wearing a myriad of sensors in his lid) what sort of injuries he might've sustained. But that very well could've been a fatality without the helmet. A stat we just don't have."

This isn't quite right, and it's what I meant by not following the math. There are certain things we can say about these events, mathematically speaking, if we know the proportion of helmet wearers. An injury saved by a helmet, if serious enough, would have been an ER visit by the non-helmeted rider. That's your thesis, right? So, say 81 people without helmets went to ER after an accident. Suppose a helmet would always prevent the injury. That means some people wearing helmets had the similar accident, were not injured, didn't go to ER so they were not reported. Even though we have no direct data on their accidents, we can say something about how many there are, and that's where that prior reasoning fails. We know that for every 81 people not wearing helmets there are 19 more wearing helmets. So those 19 had the same accident and were saved from injury by the helmet. 19/81 is 23.5%.

That is the maximum number, that 23.5%. The actual number will be lower, because helmets do not really prevent all injuries.

I dunno. I'm not really even making a claim myself (as to what people should do). Just trying to sort out the numbers. I was responding to this statement:

While we can't know for sure (After all, we're discussing UNKNOWNS after all); I'm just suggesting that we do not have a good idea how many minor injuries and non-injuries were unreported and unescalated thanks to a helmet. I'd suggest that minor incidents are fairly common, and the rider might not even know what part their helmet played.

We can't know for sure, of course. It's just me and my head thinking that; there's just no way we have complete data. And I know there are numbers on the other side; but I'm convinced the numbers suggest wearing a helmet is the safer option. But that's still an individual choice someone should make. And of course; there are situations where nothing could help. But we can't predict that sort of stuff.

I just explained why I think we do have that data - is there a flaw in my reasoning? The minor injuries escalated to ER by non-helmet riders tell us about the non-injuries by helmet users that weren't.

The one thing we cannot infer from the ER data is the number injuries too superficial for ER even without a helmet. It's actually for the sake of those injuries that I wear a helmet at all because they are much more common - more likely - and a helmet is almost certain to prevent them.

I wear a helmet for both reasons, ER & superficial injuries, but am mainly talking about the numbers for ER visit's because at least there are some numbers for that. Whereas there's none for superficial injuries, tho the number of those are waaayyy higher, I suspect.

I'd be more interested in knowing what tomorrow's Lotto numbers will be. Do you have any equally valid or credible guesses on that subject?

This scenario is based on your fantasy that "un-reported non-issues" only occur if a helmet is worn and that unhelmeted riders do not suffer/enjoy similar "un-reported non-issues."
Given that no stats exist at all (obviously) to validate any of your or 350htr's guesswork on "un-reported non-issues" for helmeted or non-helmeted riders, I suggest you provide your ideas on another similar topic like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Infographic - THERE ARE HARD NUMBERS

No helmet (left) versus helmet (right).

Green - no injury
Yellow = injury w/o seeking medical attention
Red = injury and seek medical attention

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h1...b.png~original

Based on:
J Trauma. 2010 Nov;69(5):1112-7
Bicycle Commuter Injury Prevention: It Is Time to Focus on the Environment
Melissa R. Hoffman, ND, MD, William E. Lambert, PhD, Ellen G. Peck, RN, CCRC, and John C. Mayberry, MD

-mr. bill

That's the point I've been trying - the same accidents happen with or without helmets. Going to ER for a particular injury would be the same with or without a helmet. We know the percentage of riders wearing helmets in general. So these scenarios aren't really that vague. We can determine many of the questioned numbers with simple ratios.

OR, you could determine many of the "questioned" numbers by trying - science.
Even reading science would be sufficient.

-mr. bill

Did you have any particular "science" in mind, or is this like the "math errors" that you declined to demonstrate?

Pick a medical science paper about bicycles - any medical science paper about bicycles?
Read it.
Is it a valid study?
Repeat.

This asymptotically approaches one of two states.

Did you find every medical science study invalid?
Then we've learned something about you.

Did you find some medical science studies valid?
Then you can indeed learn something.

-mr. bill

I have read and evaluated every study on bicycle accidents that I could find - given your advice, surely you have something specific in mind, that you believe I've missed. What is it?

For example, regarding your graphic in post 810. Since it is un-scaled and presents dubious proportions I am skeptical. What medical study, if any, did it come from?

Homework for you:

After you count the squares, you ought to figure out what they mean.
After you figure out what they mean, you can probably figure out the study. You won't have to search far.

-mr. bill

OK, so it was a made up graphic. No recommendations about "medical science papers". Got it. :thumb:

No, you don't got it.

20% trauma per year of cycling.
5% severe trauma per year if wearing a helmet.
13% severe trauma per year if not wearing a helmet.

(Anecdote - statistically insignificant. Several riders who were injured apparently by the top tube did not seek medical attention.)

-mr. bill

Un-scaled is meaningless. 20% of what?

If it's not a made-up graphic, and since you're telling me to "read science", then what is the source? Without an answer, I won't be responding to you.

It's quite clear that you have *not* "...read and evaluated every study on bicycle accidents that I could find...."

If you can't find the study, you simply aren't looking. (Hint - you are looking for a pdf.)

J Trauma. 2010 Nov;69(5):1112-7
Bicycle Commuter Injury Prevention: It Is Time to Focus on the Environment
Melissa R. Hoffman, ND, MD, William E. Lambert, PhD, Ellen G. Peck, RN, CCRC, and John C. Mayberry, MD

Let me know more about those riders who suffered serious traumatic events.
* What percentage were admitted to the hopsital?
* What was their average stay in the hospital?
* What percentage had an operation?

-mr. bill

There's a difference between "hard science" and "Throwing stuff against the wall to see if any of it sticks".

As for this particular study, several serious problems show up right off the bat. First is the fact that it's all self-reported. Second is the very small sample size. Third is the definition of "serious traumatic event" - in this study, it's any injury receiving medical attention. Fourth is the fact that 95% of the riders were helmeted. Fifth is that only nine head injuries receiving medical attention were noted. Sixth is that the study was only about commuters.

And all that is just for a start.

So what does the study really tell us? That most Portland bike commuters who enroll in online surveys about bike safety wear helmets. Other than that, it's just fodder for folks who are trying to justify their predetermined conclusions about bike helmets - just like every other study on the topic.

Your graphic does not arise from that study, nor does that study say what you appear to think it does. In fact, it explicitly contradicts your graphic.

The study is not inconsistent with anything I've written.

Apparently a randomly selected title from a Google result - the population examined is not even the same as is under discussion.

I'm sorry, but this isn't really what I expect from a discussion. Please do not address my posts and I'll afford you the same courtesy.

Apropos nothing at all.

Trauma. 2010 Nov;69(5):1112-7
Bicycle Commuter Injury Prevention: It Is Time to Focus on the Environment
Melissa R. Hoffman, ND, MD, William E. Lambert, PhD, Ellen G. Peck, RN, CCRC, and John C. Mayberry, MD

"It is therefore imperative that all bike commuters are encouraged to wear helmets."

-mr. bill

Are they wearing helmets, or not...?

The same study also notes that "Traumatic events were not related to rider demographics, safety practices, or experience levels. These results imply that injury prevention should focus on improving the safety of the bicycle commuting environment." (Bolding my own.)

Perhaps I should create a graphic to misrepresent the above and then try to pass it off as part of the study.