X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_60_70, HTML_FONT_INVISIBLE,HTML_FONT_TINY,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TINY_FONT autolearn=no version=3.2.0-r431796 Sender: -0.3 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k8MJVPnw027248 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:31:25 -0400 Received: from guys.mr.itd.umich.edu (guys.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.14.76]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8MJVMuM015234; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:31:22 -0400 Received: FROM wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.231]) BY guys.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 451439E8.15DDB.20266 ; 22 Sep 2006 15:30:48 -0400 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i12so615986wra for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:30:47 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=V+5RQACqXmE5WXfWpGllWm/xSEq3/VTMHAuAmrFXhFSB8c4pW2YMv57mxoiE/rygd73sUytcKgt33kWrZco0k8KojacRkK+m52h7H6YciowYMf/zRM+sx4MGn74D544zpCo7TAMkSNOO9xNsGwzlyGRkCFHjc3VcpS+OzhQo+Tc= Received: by 10.90.115.4 with SMTP id n4mr792525agc; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.63.2 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2b7f1e190609221230naa30892q9a5cc5fb16cc5423 Æ mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5ed707a10609221138r4495c3d1ydbf13de0b4a3a13b Æ mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_34418_22143278.1158953446490" References: <5ed707a10609221138r4495c3d1ydbf13de0b4a3a13b Æ mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r431796 (2006-08-16) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:30:46 -0400 To: "bethany soule" Cc: inlinenc , improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: "Mark A. Sibert" Subject: Re: [InlineNC] helmet usage Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 744 ------=_Part_34418_22143278.1158953446490 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Thanks for sending that link. I am definitely an advocate of helmets, depsite being the one that posted the link you're referring to... I think the point of the original article was that you *might* be a little less likely to get in an accident if you're not wearing a helmet, since the drivers seemed to give more room when passing. It certainly did not address the issue that if you got in an accident, you're more likely to be seriously injured or killed without a helmet. As a simplistic example, let's say that if you're wearing a helmet, you have a 25% chance of getting in an accident, as opposed to 10% without a helmet. (I'm making these numbers up.) And we'll say that, if in an accident, the chance of brain damage or death is 50% without a helmet, but 10% with. So, combining the probabilities, we have 2.5% chance of brain damage or death with a helmet, but 5% chance with -- twice as likely according to these probabilities that I pulled out of by backside! (If someone has real numbers to use here, that would be really interesting to see!) I skated for 10 years (recreationally) without a helmet before I had an epiphany and realized how stupid it was. Roadrash and broken bones can heal, but a broken brain is an entirely different problem! Of course, there is the website http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ that refutes the need for helmets when cycling. I wonder if there are any statistics on overall helmet usage to go with the report you linked to. For example, the statistic about 97% of fatalities involving someone not wearing a helmet could be a bit skewed if the vast majority of cyclists don't wear helmets. Anyway, this is all great info... It amazes me when I'm skating on the bikepath and I see other skaters wearing every piece of protective gear ever invented -- except a helmet! Not *that's* crazy no matter how you look at it! I'd like to post your email (and this one) as a follow-up to the original blog entry on rsn2, if that's okay with you... That way, the information is there, and search-able for anyone that might stumble onto it. And, hey, at least being a woman the article says you're less likely to get hit too -- so you'e got that going for you! (Although maybe it doesn't apply for skaters...) - Mark On 9/22/06, bethany soule wrote: > > I wanted to send out a counter argument to this article claiming that > cycling (and we can probably infer skating too, though I guess drivers > are often so surprised to see you on the road, they're likely to give > you a pretty wide berth) with a helmet is actually "more dangerous": > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm > > Check out this report from the NYC DOT on bicycle accidents in the > city over the past 10 years. Of 225 fatalities, 97% of the riders were > not wearing helmets, and 74% involved a head injury. Drivers may be > more reckless around you if you're wearing a helmet (because you look > more competent or something) -- but you're still at a much higher risk > of serious injury and death without the helmet. > www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf > > (One could also conclude from the nycdot's data that nyc is actually a > pretty safe place to bike comparatively. The accident rate per million > is the same as 'elsewhere' in the country, while there are twice as > many cyclists per million out there. (#2 under the 'key findings' > section)) > > Bethany > __._,_.___ Messages in this topic > ( > 1) Reply (via web post) > | Start > a new topic > > Messages > InlineNC.net * InlineNC-subscribe Æ yahoogroups.com > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > Change settings via the Web(Yahoo! ID required) > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest| Switch > format to Traditional > Visit Your Group > | Yahoo! > Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe > > Recent Activity > > - 1 > New Members > > Visit Your Group > > SPONSORED LINKS > > - High point > - Inline skating > - Aggressive inline skating > - Inline skating equipment > > Ads on Yahoo! > > Learn more now. > > Reach customers > > searching for you. > Y! Toolbar > > Get it Free! > > easy 1-click access > > to your groups. > Yahoo! Groups > > Start a group > > in 3 easy steps. > > Connect with others. > . > > __,_._,___ > ------=_Part_34418_22143278.1158953446490 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Thanks for sending that link.  I am definitely an advocate of helmets, depsite being the one that posted the link you're referring to...  I think the point of the original article was that you *might* be a little less likely to get in an accident if you're not wearing a helmet, since the drivers seemed to give more room when passing.  It certainly did not address the issue that if you got in an accident, you're more likely to be seriously injured or killed without a helmet.

As a simplistic example, let's say that if you're wearing a helmet, you have a 25% chance of getting in an accident, as opposed to 10% without a helmet.  (I'm making these numbers up.)  And we'll say that, if in an accident, the chance of brain damage or death is 50% without a helmet, but 10% with.  So, combining the probabilities, we have 2.5% chance of brain damage or death with a helmet, but 5% chance with -- twice as likely according to these probabilities that I pulled out of by backside!  (If someone has real numbers to use here, that would be really interesting to see!)

I skated for 10 years (recreationally) without a helmet before I had an epiphany and realized how stupid it was.  Roadrash and broken bones can heal, but a broken brain is an entirely different problem!

Of course, there is the website http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ that refutes the need for helmets when cycling.  I wonder if there are any statistics on overall helmet usage to go with the report you linked to.  For example, the statistic about 97% of fatalities involving someone not wearing a helmet could be a bit skewed if the vast majority of cyclists don't wear helmets. 

Anyway, this is all great info...  It amazes me when I'm skating on the bikepath and I see other skaters wearing every piece of protective gear ever invented -- except a helmet!  Not *that's* crazy no matter how you look at it!

I'd like to post your email (and this one) as a follow-up to the original blog entry on rsn2, if that's okay with you...  That way, the information is there, and search-able for anyone that might stumble onto it.

And, hey, at least being a woman the article says you're less likely to get hit too -- so you'e got that going for you!  (Although maybe it doesn't apply for skaters...) 

- Mark


On 9/22/06, bethany soule <bsoule Æ gmail.com> wrote:

I wanted to send out a counter argument to this article claiming that
cycling (and we can probably infer skating too, though I guess drivers
are often so surprised to see you on the road, they're likely to give
you a pretty wide berth) with a helmet is actually "more dangerous":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm

Check out this report from the NYC DOT on bicycle accidents in the
city over the past 10 years. Of 225 fatalities, 97% of the riders were
not wearing helmets, and 74% involved a head injury. Drivers may be
more reckless around you if you're wearing a helmet (because you look
more competent or something) -- but you're still at a much higher risk
of serious injury and death without the helmet.
www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf

(One could also conclude from the nycdot's data that nyc is actually a
pretty safe place to bike comparatively. The accident rate per million
is the same as 'elsewhere' in the country, while there are twice as
many cyclists per million out there. (#2 under the 'key findings'
section))

Bethany

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS
Ads on Yahoo!

Learn more now.

Reach customers

searching for you.

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___

------=_Part_34418_22143278.1158953446490--