[PLUG-TALK] Bike helmets, science, and anger

[Michael Rasmussen]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:50:48PM -0800, Russell Senior wrote:
> >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Heinlein <heinlein at madboa.com> writes:
> 
> Paul> Risk of head injury per million hours travelled: Motorcyclist -
> Paul> 7.66 Pedestrian - 0.80 Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46 Cyclist -
> Paul> 0.41
> 
> Paul> The science here says that, on a per-hour-travelled basis, helmets
> Paul> would actually be more effective at preventing injuries on
> Paul> pedestrians and motorists than bicyclists.
> 
> I'm not sure it says that.  Those are the rates of head injuries per
> unit time, but don't indicate anything about relative risk between
> wearing and not wearing a helmet.  It might be that riding a motorcycle
> you'll die anyway just because of the speeds/energies involved.  It
> might be that head injuries as a pedestrian come from getting creamed by
> a car, and the outcome doesn't change significantly.
> 
> It seems there is an opportunity for some better study design in there
> somewhere.  The metric should really be something more like
> mortality+morbidity vs treatment (helmet-vs-no-helmet) times exposure.
 
Both of those objections apply to bicycling injuries also. That is indeed
a major criticism of helmet reliance - riders, like pedestrians, die from 
the blunt force trauma of being hit by an object with 20x to 30x greater mass.


-- 
      Michael Rasmussen, Portland Oregon  
    Be Appropriate && Follow Your Curiosity
Actually _everything_ about fixed-gears sounds nuts to those who have
not been inducted into the cult. ;-)
    ~ Sheldon Brown