I guess I wasn’t clear: My entry wasn’t about the usefulness of motorcycle helmets. It was about inadequate or incorrect record keeping. It was about GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out).

Attempting to make conclusions based on inadequate, incomplete or compromised information will ruin one’s statistics every time.

I wanted to and did point out that cause-of-death documents involving TBIs are likely to be unreliable. They would be equally unreliable if the victims studied had been only those who died after falling out of tree houses, downstairs or off skateboards. The problem is that the nature of the reporting can a make set of data less than useful.

Joe

Hard to believe that any legitimate study of fatal accidents would find that only non helmeted people are involved in head only trauma, while those people that wore helmets always had other fatal injuries. Sounds totally bogus.

Really? How did you get that from the info given.? I believe a 3.1 ratio statistic was given for the "difference" not 100%... :rolleyes:

--- read my earlier entries where I gave Professor Hurt's projected difference between the number of riders who would die from a head injury only while wearing a helmet as opposed to those who would die from a head injury only while not wearing one. It's 250 to 1. He was a scientist, an accomplished scholar and knew his way around statistics. BTW: He was and I am against helmet laws but, like me, he was in favor of getting the facts out so people could make an informed decision.

My last entry was about bad statistics based on poorly reported cause-of-death certificates, not about helmets at all.

I'll have nothing more to say on the subject.

Sincerely,
Joe

Let's keep things respectful in here, please. No personal attacks, no name-calling, no insults.

So long for now:
Some of the statements I’ve made starting around page 80 can be helpful to folks who are interested in bicycle helmet performance. All are supportable and I have given a number of links that may further inform.

My motivation for again getting involved with this forum was to inform. I had been put off by the trolling, bickering, petty and ignorant nature of the ‘dialogue’. The helmet thread was junk and of little or no use to anybody looking to learn about bicycle helmet performance. Hopefully some of you will find reason to further explore the subject and find positive things to share with the rest of us. Follow the links I’ve given and Google is your friend!

I’m gone for now but shall return when I’ve caught up with the latest technological developments and have gathered information and links that y’all might find useful. -- JM

Some Important facts to consider:

• Brain injuries are rather rare but have terrible consequences when they occur. They often dramatically and permanently reduce the sufferer’s quality of life.
• Bicycle helmets do what they were designed and tested to do: prevent serious brain injury in a fall. Any CPSC or EU spec (1078) bicycle helmet will save your brain from a fall of two meters onto a hard flat surface. The upper “g” limit is 300 but most such test hits cluster around 200 which seldom causes brain damage. Such a fall without one of these helmets would almost surely result in death or terrible and permanent disability.
• Helmet cost has no effect on performance. A $30 helmet from a Walmart or Target will offer the same fundamental level of protection as a much more expensive one.
• Older riders are twice as likely to suffer a TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) from a head strike. They are also twice as likely to die if they get one.

Joe

My last entry was not in response the moderator’s removal of my immediately prior entry. I did not know it was gone until I went to publish the next. I had already decided to remove myself for awhile. I’d given enough information and some links that others might find useful and wanted a break from all the strife. I don’t handle that sort of strife very well!

I apologize for my outburst. It was wrong.

Respectfully,
Joe Minton

. . .

Okay guys.. let it go... it's done.

Oh nuts, just when the roasting on a spit was ramping up

Some other important facts in relation:
- As noted, such brain injuries are "rather rare." Many ride bikes their whole lives without suffering the kind of crash which might result in such an injury.
- Bicycle helmets may prevent or mitigate some injury in some falls. Or they may prevent all injury in some falls. Or the helmet-wearing cyclist could still suffer injury as severe as if they were not wearing a helmet.

Deep thought that. But I suppose helmets *could* also prevent or mitigate *some* knee injuries in *some* falls.

Got anything less trite to add?

-mr. bill

Maybe if you're wearing a helmet on your knee... but that would just be silly.

Clarifying definitive statements which have no basis being so is indeed mundane, but hardly trite. Errata is boring, but factually useful.

Mundane and trite and factually useless.

Speaking of mundane, trite and factually useless.

In related helmet news, a motorcycle helmet may or may not protect you from a hydraulic press, maybe. You may, or you may not, use your imagination, possibly, to conduct a "thought experiment" or "thoughtless experiment" of what may or may not happen to a bicycle helmet, maybe, sometimes, with some hydraulic presses, possibly, we can't be absolutely doubtless after all.

(Start at 2:07):


-mr. bill

In this case I agree with you. As I have stated many times on this forum and others the "researchers" that do these "studies" some how or other always find their studies confirm the preconceived beliefs.

Wow, a rare day when two extreme posters agree that Harry H. Hurt was illegitimate. They are both wrong of course.

(Have either of you even ever bothered to read anything that Harry H. Hurt wrote? Of course not.)

Anyhow, you two can quarrel all you want with Joe's summary. But your characterization of Hurt is just ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ignorant.

-mr. bill

Correction: my statements may be mundate, trite, and factually useless, but they could also clarify an unwarranted factual statement.

Cool vid!

I suppose my following point has been made but I'm bad at searching to see how it fares... So here it is...

Certainly helmets improve safety to some degree. It seems that the relevant item is that the improvement is such that it is relevant to cycling. Is there a determined threshold here? Did someone test or conclude that beyond a certain point that behavior should be modified?

For instance, helmet wearing for car drivers, walkers, bathroom users, or shower users, would certainly save thousands of lives, probably billions$. Certainly older people walking in possibly icy winter conditions would be much more likely to hit their heads. Same with older people driving -- or maybe first-year drivers: for some demographics crashes become more likely in cars or anywhere else. Why aren't people pushing for those demographics to also increase their safety? What is the threshold at which we encourage people to armor-up?

Why would we even need a threshold? If helmets reduced injury in even one person in one unpopular activity that hardly anyone does, shouldn't that activity still encourage helmets?

Certainly for very popular activities a tiny amount of safety improvement could still equal huge injury reduction. So what if a miniscule number of people hit their heads while walking? If everyone wore a helmet when walking then perhaps thousands of head injuries would be avoided -- yielding huge improvement in quality of life and money savings. The helmet industry and insurance and healthcare industries all alike would naturally want everyone at all times to wear a helmet.

Next, helmet effectiveness must be vastly greater the SLOWER the activity's potential impact. Sometimes biking and motorcycling has too much energy in crashes for helmets to be relevant. Walkers would almost always benefit from a helmet in a head-strike.

Next, is all ice-skating pushing just as much for helmets? Headstrikes are probably very common there. Like in ice rinks with rental skates. But really even among trained skaters the 'feet out, head strikes' scenario is common given the slippery physics of ice. Again, speeds are generally low: the typical ice concussion happens at zero speed with the "just standing there and feet went out." Helmets would give near total protection.

The Demographic Appeal of Armor -- or not
 

Outdoor sport in general is in decline.

Many aspects of outdoor sport seem to suffer from "bro -ism." A macho attitude and expectation of extremeness. Common among young white rich men. This reduces the potential attractiveness to other demographics. Which causes a downward feedback spiral. For instance, if women don't do something then some men are less likely to since socializing is often a component. Male-bonding is a powerful factor but it might not always be enough.

Then there's the Type A style that much modern outdoor sports marketing seems to have. This only appeals to that one demographic.

Then there's the Gear Fetish syndrome that marketers encourage in outdoor activity.

Next, there might even be a sort of socially-inept embarrassment of a nerd-ish character verging on conspiracy-theory where there are demographic appeals to HUGELY changing the appearance of an activity (via helmet, lycra, terribly garish graphic design, aero-sunglasses, clicky shoes) to achieve a tiny theoretical benefit. What kind of person does this appeal to? ("I wear a tinfoil hat because someone MIGHT be trying to steal my brainwaves. I don't want to take that small risk over such an important thing to me.")

In many places the decline in outdoor activity is not just marginal but it is TOTAL. I've seen quite a few big bike, ski and paddling scenes where there is near ZERO replacement of the demographic. That is, in ten years the activity and organization will disappear. So we're not talking just fine-tuning here. But a total age-out.

It seems useful to encourage outdoor sport to be popular among ALL possible demographics.

Where is outdoor sport showing potential? What kind of people can it reach out to that it is not right now?

Yes, I see some types of big, extreme events becoming popular. But I also notice casual urban Bike Parties catching on everywhere.

Offhand, I'd suggest that we never overlook: youth, women, minorities, lower income, casual dabblers.

What does a culture of ARMORING do to an activity?

Armoring usually relates to safety but it has components of power, mastery, gear-fetish, aggressiveness, plus an appeal to geekish theoretical risk avoidance. These also relate to the resulting appeal to various demographics.

For instance, one area that many cyclists automatically give over to helmets is mt-biking. They might say "I don't always wear a helmet when I ride around the block to the grocery store, but I *always* wear one when mt-biking." The implication is "because when mt-biking I'm then going fast around rocks and trees and could more easily fall and hit my head."

I also note that mt-biking is suffering from a decline, at least in some places. Why? Is it perhaps due to too much emphasis on limited demographics? What could be done to increase its appeal?

It might be that all types of biking, and maybe especially mt-biking, could benefit in popularity and openness and accessibility if GOING SLOW AND CASUAL AND SIMPLE were encouraged. What if all kinds of biking had market components pitched as having more in common with PICNICKING than with "performance."

It might be that to save our sports that we should give up on gaining tiny fractions of life-saving in trade for large gains in appeal and re-connection with the bulk of REALITY.

If someone is a bumbler or knows they tend to be awkward, let them buy all the armor they like. Don't stare at them, though. And don't try to push it on others.

Generalize much?

Perhaps if bicycling was promoted as being more like this there'd be more interest in it?

Notice none of the people enjoying those tours are wearing a helmet (or bicycling specific clothing for that matter) but are out having a great time. I think part of the problem with many sports is that the extra equipment many say you MUST HAVE discourages many from starting the sport due to the expense ofthat equipment.


Cheers

+1000

I rode my second 100k of the past two weeks in a pair of cargo shorts, a t-shirt and no helmet. Ridden about 1,400 miles so far this year, kind of a slow start for me. Had a great time. Didn't die. All you need to do to be safe is to get some education (Cycling Savvy is my favorite) and ride intelligently.

MUPs are for bicycles too.

Oddly, the fictional TARDIS is not real. Bicycle helmets were not yet invented.

And as far as the costumes, do you *really* believe British folk of the day dressed like that if out for a stroll to the pub?

They are wearing bicycle clothes - ranging from stylish in the late 19th early 20th centuries, to a few dashing gents rocking 50s-era bicycle clothes.

(Also note the accessories, such as what we would now call a "bicycle messenger bag.")

Oddly, the fictional TARDIS is not real. There are no "Lycra louts" because Lycra had not yet been invented.

-mr. bill

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h1...pskmjx8fbj.png

BikesnobNYC - A schvitzing schmuck schlepping on a new beitzikl. NSFW? warning? If you are offended to see any of George Carlin's seven words in ASCII text, there are two of them in the review and many many many of them in comments.

-mr. bill