Pete_Hickey
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,976
- Reaction score
- 222
Yeah, And I'll wear a bullet-proof vest and ask someone to shoot me. Someone else can volunteer to be shot without wearing one.
What does that show?
Musings on Head Injuries
- Thread starter wardsgirl
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
What does that show?
Discussions of helmets are as "forbidden" on cycling forums ("Helmet Wars") as hunting and dogs are on this forum.
Tim
Tim
Little Rickie
New member
Chip
Well-known member
Yikes ! Maybe we should do the same here !
Pete Hickey said:
That you're generally in better shape after being shot or having had a 2x4 dropped on your head if you were wearing a bullet-proof vest or helmet ?
This data seems pretty straight forward;
"Improving the Odds
Cyclists not wearing helmets are killed more frequently than cyclists who do wear helmets, according to data collected for 2007 in California, public safety officials say.
124 bicyclists killed
25 were wearing helmets
99 were not wearing helmets
10,590 bicyclists were injured
2,324 were reported as wearing helmets
8,266 were reported as not wearing helmets
Source: California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System "
Last edited:
Wow, I'm kind of shocked (and saddened) that 124 cyclists were killed in one year.
Tim
Tim
Stash
Active member
To look at it objectively (which I really try to do) I've noticed that those who are very seriously into bicycling, and likely more experienced/skilled, tend to wear helmets. Higher skill/experence often leads to fewer accidents per person.
Those who ride less frequently tend to invest less including helmet. Less experience tends to lead to less skill and more accidents per person.
This might skew the reported numbers some.
TCD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,087
- Reaction score
- 161
Unfortunately the California data as presented do not mean anything, without the baseline of what proportion of riders wear helmets when riding. If 10% of the riders wear helmets, then the data indict helmets as increasing risk of death or injury. If 20% of the riders wear helmets, then the data are approximately neutral. If 50% of the riders wear helmets, then the data support helmets as reducing risk.
woodsxc
New member
The reason more people wearing helmets get injured is because more people wear helmets. I bet that if you polled the people of California, 79% would respond that they do not wear a helmet while biking. Why? because that's the proportion of people who got injured who were not wearing helmets. Helmets don't cause injuries.
If all people are equally likely to get hurt (just go with it) while riding bikes, and 80% of people don't wear helmets, then you would expect that 80% of the people who got injured were not wearing helmets. I don't that one particular group of cyclists (other than elementary school kids) that is significantly more likely to get injured. Therefore, we can consider cycling injuries random occurrences. And if you randomly select individuals from a population, you should end up with a small(ish) group that accurately reflects the trends of the population. If more men bike than women, you would end up with more men getting injured than women. If the median income of bike riders is $35,000/year, you should expect the median income of the injured bikers to be right around $35,000/year. And if 80% of bikers don't wear helmets, you should expect that 80% of injured bikers were not wearing helmets.
Edit: Sorry, had some numbers backwards. I was thinking of a helmet thread from SP.
If all people are equally likely to get hurt (just go with it) while riding bikes, and 80% of people don't wear helmets, then you would expect that 80% of the people who got injured were not wearing helmets. I don't that one particular group of cyclists (other than elementary school kids) that is significantly more likely to get injured. Therefore, we can consider cycling injuries random occurrences. And if you randomly select individuals from a population, you should end up with a small(ish) group that accurately reflects the trends of the population. If more men bike than women, you would end up with more men getting injured than women. If the median income of bike riders is $35,000/year, you should expect the median income of the injured bikers to be right around $35,000/year. And if 80% of bikers don't wear helmets, you should expect that 80% of injured bikers were not wearing helmets.
Edit: Sorry, had some numbers backwards. I was thinking of a helmet thread from SP.
Last edited:
Stash
Active member
...and you have to factor in the injuries caused by the accident. Did some one land on their head (where helment/no helmet is even in the discussion) or on the opposite end? In the latter case I'd prefer kevlar over spandex but have yet to find that fabric in a good bike short...
I really do need to get a job doing studies for the govenment. There's no end to the possibilities and likely the funding...
I really do need to get a job doing studies for the govenment. There's no end to the possibilities and likely the funding...
nartreb
Well-known member
Meaningless unless we know what percentage of cyclists (normalized for miles or hours or traffic exposure, whatever correlates best for risk of accident) in California wear helmets.
It looks almost safe to conclude that most (nearly 80% of) cyclists in California don't wear helmets. Presumably, many (probably most) reported injuries involved wrists, elbows, shins, knees, and faces. Helmet-wearers are not immune from those. (Complication: do helmet-wearers also wear wrist pads, kneepads, etc?) So if helmets had a major effect, you'd expect a much bigger effect in the death statistics than in the overall injury statistics. (Major head trauma = likely death; major wrist trauma = likely survival.) The numbers above show such a difference, but it doesn't seem like a very big one to me. (I am certainly no statistician.)
Edit: note that it only takes a small effect to save the state a fair chunk of money in things like local aid for hospitals (especially since the state doesn't have to pay for the helmets). I am not arguing for or against a helmet law or the use of bike helmets, just debunking the CHP's deliberately misleading presentation which was calculated to imply that helmets cut your injury risk by 3/4.
Last edited:
Chip
Well-known member
Right. Well, I thought the data was straight forward. I guess the most that can be said is that it MIGHT mean something, if we had all the other info.
California should have stated: Of the cyclists killed and injured approx 20% were wearing helmets and 80% were not.
Not: Cyclists not wearing helmets are killed more frequently than cyclists who do wear helmets, according to data collected for 2007 in California, public safety officials say.
California should have stated: Of the cyclists killed and injured approx 20% were wearing helmets and 80% were not.
Not: Cyclists not wearing helmets are killed more frequently than cyclists who do wear helmets, according to data collected for 2007 in California, public safety officials say.
Last edited:
J.Dub
Active member
woodsxc said:
^^^This is korrekt.
(There, happy now...?
)TCD said:
I hear what you're saying, but I'd bet good money that the baseline is that about 23% of Kalifornians wear helmets. A 10,000+ sample size is pretty representative, I think.
(NOTE: this doesn't address the issue of head injury vs. non-head injury that nartreb brings up. Obviously, if a cyclist is injured and breaks his wrist, the helmet/no helmet point is moot.)
WinterWarlock
Active member
Lies, damn lies and statistics - that's what this argument has devolved to, it seems to me.
One either decides that their own noggin is worth it, or not - to hell with the studies. For me, when biking, it is. When skiiing it, it really is - when I fell and broke my hip last year I banged my head pretty hard on the ice. I have no idea what would have happened without a helmet, but shudder to think. Hiking - haven't considered, but maybe...under the right conditions. But I'd never question anyone's decision to wear one themselves, anymore than I'd give them a hard time about using poles, or gatorade vs water, or hiking with their dang cat.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
One either decides that their own noggin is worth it, or not - to hell with the studies. For me, when biking, it is. When skiiing it, it really is - when I fell and broke my hip last year I banged my head pretty hard on the ice. I have no idea what would have happened without a helmet, but shudder to think. Hiking - haven't considered, but maybe...under the right conditions. But I'd never question anyone's decision to wear one themselves, anymore than I'd give them a hard time about using poles, or gatorade vs water, or hiking with their dang cat.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Chip
Well-known member
Not necessarily !
Okay, I'm out. Anyone want to call California and ask them what the missing info is ?
Do you think there is any relation to people who wear helmets or not to people who filter there water on the trail or not?
Last edited:
Stash
Active member
Of course! To deal with the mice at Guyot!
WinterWarlock
Active member
"Helmet Wars"
Tim
Tim
....and, cats need to be trained to accept snowfall.....but to stay on topic, I worry about their heads without hard hats when they go hard into the corners of the room chasing things, like hockey players going into the corners after loose pucks.....
http://www.maniacworld.com/cats-first-snowfall.html
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Hypothermic hiker rescued from Little Haystack by helicopter
- Latest: ImYourHuckleberry
-
-
-
-
-
-
How Hard Was The Snowpack Hit Yesterday
- Latest: Dr. Dasypodidae
