And how many angels got boo-boos vice "non-issue" boo-boos when they fell off of the pin head? Another equally vexing question for the deep thinkers of this thread to ponder.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The same number as can dance on the point of a pin, I suspect... Would they be wearing helmets? No, of course not, they are immortal, aren't they...? ;) :p

A statistical study that recorded, measured and provides clues on the type of equipment worn/not worn when cyclists were NOT injured "seriously" enough in bicycle accidents/falls/crashes to require a hospital visit.
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


Actually, 25% of those who sought medical attention were admitted to the hospital for an average of one day. 4% of those who sought medical attention required an operation.

To summarize:

• Too many people here insist on someone else providing a pointer to a scientific study containing specific data (hypothetical example, accident data on Thursdays between 14:21-14:27 when it's partly cloudy) that they believe doesn't exist.
• When shown a scientific study containing that very data, the study is of course rejected for any number of reasons - but really its rejected for one reason only.
• Too many here think helmets do nothing.
• Too many people here think helmets do next to nothing.
• A few think helmets are far less effective than they actually are, and they use "math" to estimate how far less effective helmets are.
• There is lots of science that shows the actual effectiveness of helmets - and the modern helmet is remarkably effective - but these studies are nearly universally ignored.
• A few think helmets do far more than they actually do.
• And then there's an outlier who thinks helmets can do *ANYTHING*.

And heaven help anyone who replaces a helmet after a crash, for they shall be decended upon by a mob.

-mr. bill

Apropos nothing at all, the helmet use percentage in Portland is way high. Therefore, focusing on getting the last few percent of riders to wear helmets is no longer the place to focus efforts, in part thanks to corners of the internut who have indoctrinated the last few percent that helmets don't do much if anything at all.

If anyone bothered to read the report, they might know that....

-mr. bill

I suspect just about everyone here has read the report. Most of us understand that it doesn't say what you think it says, regardless of how many made-up graphics you post.

Angels dont have to wear a helmet. If they start to fall they have wings. However------------the worlds greatest cyclist that post against helmets here do not.

Wow, the gang is all here.
To summarize:
* The science is garbage! Garbage I say! Utter rubbish!
* The data does not say what the data says! It can't say that, for it is well know that helmets are magic hats!

But instead of the usual gang here, let's hear what the authors of the study have to say:

-mr. bill

No matter how many times you cite this one silly report it gains no more credibility and your bent misinterpretations of it add no credibility to your own.

Were the alleged 25% admissions and alleged 4% "operations" all associated with head injuries? Yes? No?
If Yes, what was the the helmet wear breakdown for these cases, if No, what the heck do you think bringing up these percentages indicates about helmet wear, or your infatuation with this one so-called "study"?

I tried searching for this study in pdf form and came up with nothing. I can find the abstract, but not what you are quoting here. Do you have a link for the full PDF of the study?

In case you are wondering why I haven't simply put a link? Until now all of the versions I've found on the web have a copyright notice with no providence that the reproduction is authorized.

I finally found one with the copyright notice but it's clear that the reproduction was authorized.

Here is a link to the Portland Mercury interview of Hoffman. From there you can get to the full study.

-mr. bill

There's nothing wrong with linking to the source. Non-reproducible means just that, you can't reproduce it. Meaning you can't copy-and-paste it's contents here. You can certainly link back to it though. Why would you think you couldn't post a LINK to a source?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42230497/O...e-Trauma-Study

This is the most relevant part, but it's not too informative:

"Except for helmet use, there were no statistical differences between those commuters who experienced a serious traumatic event and those who did not. Thirteen percent of commuters who did not wear a helmet experienced a serious traumatic event, compared with 5% (43) of those who did (p 0.023). In an additional analysis comparing commuters who reported a traumatic event with those who reported a serious traumatic event, lack of helmet use was the only statistical difference between the two groups (p 0.013)."

Of the 962 commuters, about 30 experienced traumatic or serious traumatic events with head injury, 35 indicated face injury, over 12 months.

It is an interesting study for other reasons, though: most traumatic events and serious traumatic events by far occurred while riding on the shoulder or in a bike lane, and on residential streets. I.e. take the lane and ride in traffic.

Don't forget, according to the authors of this article a "traumatic injury" can mean anything, and that means anything from the slightest boo-boo or less; a "serious traumatic injury" only requires any kind of medical attention. Hardly the definition of traumatic injury envisioned by anybody familiar with the English language but may be useful for a researcher with an agenda to prove.

So more like 10 head injuries and 15 face injuries which required medical attention. And who knows if a helmet helped with a face injury or not.

The other thing wrong with the quote I posted is that it doesn't specify that the bareheaders suffered serious traumatic injury to the head, where a helmet might have mitigated injury, only that helmet use was the only statistical difference between those who suffered either traumatic injury or serious traumatic injury.

If I may interject, if you're still discussing that commuter study, it found no statistical difference in the case of traumatic injury, between helmeted and non-helmeted. A slight difference in "serious" traumatic injury (ie, needing medical attention).

Links to sources don't violate copyright. You aren't "reproducing" the source at all.

You are also allowed to quote "small" parts of things too as part of critiquing/commenting about it (it's "fair use").

Not surprising at all.

Because, probably, that's where many more people spend much more of their time. And most people might be more careful when taking the lane and riding in traffic.

Without meaning to lend any real credence to a small survey of a narrow slice of cyclists, the most interesting "finding" to me was that Portland bicycle commuters seem to fall off their bikes a lot.

I assume this has been read: Stop forcing people to wear bike helmets - Vox

Not that blog specifically, but the Australia MHL and the other data that Stromberg brings up have been argued over. This thread goes in circles though so it's good to bring it up.

I agree with just about all of Stromberg's points, but I take issue with his leading claim "Walking and driving are just as dangerous as biking" and the big graphic to support it. Injuries and deaths per million hours traveled. It's useful information to know, but misleading because it doesn't fully support his claim. Comparing transportation choices (as opposed to recreation), we have a destination in mind - a certain distance. Since we ride slower than we drive, there are more hours and consequently more risk. 3-5 times the risk while cycling (depending on who you read), on a per-mile basis.

Another, a little thing, but the Walker study he cited while speculating that wearing a helmet might make accidents more likely. The Walker study has been criticized for several reasons and should probably not have been included, and frankly no study has shown that riskier behavior resulted from wearing a helmet.

I agree with Stromberg, but it bugs me when people use misleading reasoning or possibly flawed studies.

No one here is really saying that bicyclists should be "forced" to wear bike helmets.

[h=1]Risk compensation and bicycle helmets.[/h]Phillips RO1, Fyhri A, Sagberg F.

Routine helmet users reported higher experienced risk and cycled slower when they did not wear their helmet in the experiment than when they did wear their helmet, although there was no corresponding change in HRV. For cyclists not accustomed to helmets, there were no changes in speed, perceived risk, or any other measures when cycling with versus without a helmet. The findings are consistent with the notion that those who use helmets routinely perceive reduced risk when wearing a helmet, and compensate by cycling faster. They thus give some support to those urging caution in the use of helmet laws.

No one here is "anti-helmet." And there are actually a few who contribute here who think mandatory helmet laws would be a good thing.

???

People likely make transportation choices based more on how much time they have to spend to devote transportation.

That is, with a "destination in mind", you'd choose to drive if the distance was long and ride if the distance was close.

Comparing risk on a per-mile doesn't make sense. While it's not perfect, comparing risk per hour makes more sense since it roughly accounts for the selection of mode based distance/time issue.

2.5 miles/h walking
12 miles/h riding (probably high)
50 miles/h driving
600 miles/h flying

I suspect that most people who would have to spend 1+ hours riding would choose to drive instead.

The graph that compares cycling and pedestrian deaths as "Deaths per 100 million KL of travel" is problematic.

His conclusion that "but again shows that your odds of being killed on a bike or on foot are very similar." can't be right unless the speeds doing either was the same and the time spend doing both was the same.

The average distance was 3 inches closer for passes that averaged 1.5 meters. It isn't clear that 3 inches matters at all with respect to real risk.

I don't see where there is riskier behavior (as opposed to "perceived risk"), unless it was the helmet wearers cycling slower when they didn't wear one.

I've noticed it personally, that when I'm accustomed to wearing a helmet and ride without one, it feels riskier for at least a few minutes, so I don't doubt their results.