• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 2/8/18)
See more
See less

Scared For Riders Who Dont Wear Helmets

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I witnessed a grown man fall from his horse and hit his head on a rock. I can still hear the CRACK as his helmet smashed. That would have been his head, and he would have died in front of 60 spectators at the Horse Trials. Because of his helmet, he was shaken but alive.
    When I was younger, I often rode without a helmet, but I learned my lesson that day. To riders who refuse to wear a helmet: It's a free country, but for the selfish act of refusing to wear a helmet, think of how many people you will hurt if you die...your parents, friends, trainer/students...all of them will be shattered because you refused to pop a helmet on your head.
    Last year there was a post on another Board from a Mom whose daughter died of a head injury when she hopped on her horse for just a quick ride without her helmet. Despite her pain and loss, the Mom took the time to urge riders to wear helmets so they would not wind up like her daughter. It was the most heartbreaking thing I have ever read and I hope it made an impact.

    Comment


    • [QUOTE]Originally posted by gabz:
      Horse_poor
      When you purchase an approved helmet, it will have a brochure and warranty included. Read the instructions. In general, you have to pay a fee, send the broken helmet back, and then you will receive a new helmet. Each manufacturer has different requirements. I think 1 key element is that you HAVE to have mailed your warranty card in when you purchased the helmet.

      At one time, International Helmets only charged $10 for their Pro-lite line. I think now it's up to $20.
      Troxel's fees depend on the model of the helmet. For the Sport ($30 helmet) I paid $20 replacement fee, plus shipping - so I didn't save very much, but I think it might help with their data if users would return helmets.



      My daughter has an International Pro and a Troxel (Legacy). As you said, I'm CERTAIN that the paperwork of one or both said they could be sent back after an accident. I don't remember all the details, I just kept the tags in the original box and put them up on a shelf...hoping to NEVER have to use them. I imagine it's also a liability issue. Rider falls and damages helmet. Continues to ride in it and next fall damages themself instead of helmet. Sues the helmet company because it didn't protect their head. When, in reality might have just been because the helmet had been previously compromised. So it's a cheap way for them to gain information as well as hopefully avoid lawsuits at the same time.

      Thanks!JTM

      Comment


      • Wow, who wudda thunk that helmets would cause such a ruckus.

        I haven't even read through all the pages, but reading the first few and last one gives a good sense of what's happening on this subject.

        I had a concussion while riding with a helmet. But that hardly makes me think that helmets are not mandatory. I imagine that my head injury might have been such that I wouldn't even be able to write this had I not been wearing it.

        I wear a helmet, always. Period. For those who find it hard to get used to, on the rare occassions that I've forgotten my helmet, my reaction has been: what's wrong with this picture?

        I'm not great with the quote function but on some page page back, silver wrote: When helmets can be proven to prevent stupidity maybe you can mandate them for all.

        Well, Silver, if brain injury adds incrementally to the total stupidity in the world, then I'd say helmets help to prevent stupidity.

        As for everyone who says that adults decide for themselves and thus we must all shut up about them riding with helmets or not...Well, any adult who is lucky enough to have health insurance in the US these days will increase all of our premiums incrementally when we have to pay to support their rehab. As for those adults who don't have insurance, we pay for that too, in local taxes for emergency health care. So, please, don't pretend to be independent islands unto yourselves.

        I don't even live in the US, but I am taxed there, my health insurance company is there, and I am paying for all this vanity (oh dear, no helmet hair) and foolishness (oh, I like my hair blowing in the breeze).

        So, the issue of choice is an illusion. Yes, it's your choice to wear a helmet or not. But don't think that you will be the only person paying the price. We all will, in one way or another.

        As for helmets not protecting the entire body...well, duh. We're talking about our brains here. A broken arm isn't a broken brain and if you don't see the difference, you may be suffering from the latter.

        But back to the original, original topic. Despite this lecturing posting, I don't believe that lecturing people in person works very well. On the net it makes little difference, because we're all anonymous and who knows who's a troll or goblin or that wierd gnome thing going on here. The rule at my barn is that all clients ride in a helmet or the trainers get taxed. Doesn't matter if they're jumping or what.

        I think it's a good rule. HOrses are wonderful but not worth losing our brains over.

        As for those who compare helmets with seat belts... Been there and done that. Aside from my riding concussion, I also had a bad car accident in my younger years. No seat belt. Broke the windshield with my face. It wasn't pretty but taught me a lot. Luckily the driver was insured and it paid for my reconstructive surgery.

        Comment


        • The thing about driving up everyone's insurance premiums is just an excuse to keep lecturing after you've been told to MYOB.

          I have no idea how much of the price of health insurance is attributed to horse-related injuries, but I'm sure it's much too tiny to be measured (it couldn't possibly be as costly as an approved helmet, even over a lifetime of health insurance premiums).

          If for some reason you wanted to make the cost even smaller, a much better approach than promoting helmet use would be to prevent incompetents from riding. That's what they do in skydiving, auto racing, scuba diving, flying etc. It's also how passenger car insurance premiums are kept sort of in control. I wouldnt actually advocate that solution, but from a safety perspective, it would do a lot more than bablling about helmets all day.

          Riding isnt dangerous because people use the wrong equipment. Riding is dangerous because there are so many terrible riders.

          I hear my friend susy coming...

          Comment


          • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by El Grande Stimpendo:
            The thing about driving up everyone's insurance premiums is just an excuse to keep lecturing after you've been told to MYOB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

            Believe it or not, I actually agree with you on that.

            If we were to carry that argument over to other areas of life, you'd better be eating the world's healthiest diet, not smoking, exercise regularly, never drive without a seatbelt, and, frankly, never sit on a horse, because otherwise you're taking health risks that might cost us all in our insurance premiums.

            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Riding isnt dangerous because people use the wrong equipment. Riding is dangerous because there are so many terrible riders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

            Ah, I guess more than one moment of sensibility in a post from our friend El Grande was too much to ask for.

            That argument just doesn't hold water. Top riders fall just like the rest of us... Margie Engle, Kim Severson and Bruce Davidson all had serious, serious falls in the last year or two.

            Comment


            • Sure it holds water. The big names' contribution to Joe Blow's insurance rates are an impossibly tiny fraction of all the horse-related expenses, which are an impossibly small fraction of healthcare expenses to begin with. It's another my friend susy situation.

              In any case, saying those guys need helmets so everyone else does too is like saying a Sunday driver should wear a helmet in his car because there are crashes in NASCAR. It's a different (more dangerous) situation. I've never heard anyone say people in passenger cars should wear helmets because Famous Race Driver got killed in last week's race.

              Comment


              • I probably should stay out of this, but there is recent and clear evidence helmet use is associated with a significantly lower hospital admission rate.

                A 2003 study in the ANZ Journal of Surgery results: "Two hundred and twenty-one injured equestrians presented. Overall, 81% of riders were wearing a helmet at the time of their injury. Helmet use was associated with a significantly lower admission rate (27% vs 55%; P &lt; 0.0001, from combined data). Recreational equestrians had a higher admission rate than professional equestrians, and had a significantly higher head and spine injury rate than the professional group. Rate of helmet use increased from 72% in the retrospective group to 91% in the more recent prospective group, and total admissions decreased from 43% to 14%. CONCLUSION: Significant and serious injuries are associated with equestrian activities, with the higher risk group being recreational equestrians, and riders not using a helmet. The pattern of injury favours head and spine in recreational and non-helmeted riders, and extremities for professional and helmeted riders. Helmet use is still not universal among riders, although an increase in its use may be contributing to an overall reduction in admission rate. Facial and spinal injuries still occurred in helmeted patients."

                Injury Prevention: "AIM: To determine the demographics of hospital admissions and mortality associated with equestrian activities in the 33,000 riders in British Columbia (BC). METHOD: Analysis of admission data from the Ministry of Health for the years 1991-96, review of information obtained from the Office of the Chief Coroner, and comparison of data from Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program. RESULTS: The mean number of admissions per year was 390. Head injury was the most common cause of admission to hospital in BC. Teenagers and children have a higher incidence of head injuries than the general population. The injury rate was 0.49/1000 hours of riding. There were three deaths per year, 1/10,000 riders; 60% were caused by head injury."

                Pediatrics: "OBJECTIVE. To assess the impact of helmet use on the pattern, and severity of pediatric equestrian injuries. DESIGN. A prospective observational study of all children less than 15 years of age who were brought to the University of Virginia children's Emergency Department with horse-related injuries. RESULTS. During the two-year period of the study, 32 children were evaluated. Two children were injured when a horse stepped on them. Thirty children fell from or were thrown from a horse. Of these, 20 were wearing a helmet. Head injuries were more frequent in those patients not wearing helmets. The mean Modified Injury Severity Scale (MISS) score for riders without a helmet (12.9) was significantly higher (more severe) than that for helmeted riders (2.8). All three patients with a Glascow Coma Score &lt; 15 on arrival were not wearing a helmet at the time of injury. The frequency of hospitalization was significantly higher for those not wearing a helmet. Compared with other common mechanisms of childhood injury the mean Modified Injury Severity Scale score of injured riders was exceeded only by that of pedestrians struck by a car (!!!). CONCLUSION. Equestrian injuries are more severe than those suffered from other common pediatric mechanisms. Helmet use is associated with decreased frequency and severity of central nervous system injury."

                American Journal of Diseases in Children, 1994 (this is a literature review): "...head injuries were associated with the vast majority of deaths (72% to 78%) and hospitalizations (55% to 100%)"

                British Journal of Sports Medicine: "A one year prospective study of equestrian injuries was carried out in an area where horse riding is a popular pursuit. 115 persons suffered injury--eighty females and thirty-five males of whom sixty were under fifteen years of age. No fatalities were recorded and there were 0.2 injuries per 100 rides. Most injuries were minor and to the musculo-skeletal system. Visceral and cerebral injuries were not common but the former were life threatening in all cases."

                JAMA: "In a prospective study involving 110 injured equestrians, there were no noteworthy correlations between age, sex, or experience of the amateur riders and injury occurrence. Tack failure caused several injuries. Among fox hunters the incidence was related only to frequency of hunts. The most common severe injury was to the head, associated with lack of headgear. Fewer than 20% of the 110 riders used a protective helmet. There were four renal contusions and one bladder laceration. The most frequent injuries were fractures of the upper extremities. Wearing a good-quality protective helmet and checking tack are important for injury prevention."

                There are many more studies in congruence, but I posted these as synopses to avoid redundancy.

                Being a defender of the free world, I am with DMK in my personal stance of helmet use, and I do not always wear one, but am getting better about it (I'm a PC rating tester and being busted by PC parents bareback in a ballcap did not help, lol). However, I could not find one study that showed head injuries are not the most common serious injury to riders; and there is a significant difference in hospital admissions between helmet users and non-users. And, yes, studies that yield no significant differences are published all the time, so the consistency of these results is pretty convincing.

                Note also that from these studies, almost everyone that has posted here is right. Helmets do not prevent facial and spinal injuries. And, although not as likely as without a helmet, you can still sustain serious head injury with a helmet. Even El Taco Grande has a point in that recreational riders are more likely to be seriously injured than professionals.

                I think the thing to recognize is that your chances of head injury are low; but if it happens, it will likely be serious.

                Comment


                • Garbage science at its un-finest. They only counted the people who got hurt.

                  Also there's an automatic bias when you tell the Emergency room physician you were wearing a helmet. Go to the emergency room and say 'I hit my head but I was wearing a helmet' and they'll send you home (doesnt matter if you really hit your head or not). Go back the next day and say 'I hit my head without a helmet' and they're more inclined to play it safe and keep you at the hospital.

                  Comment


                  • Actually it looks like they tried to count the uninjured in a crude way in the BC study, but since they dont know how many of the uninjured wore helmets, there's no conclusion to be drawn there.

                    At one hospital admission per day, riding is pretty safe in BC.

                    Comment


                    • El Grande, your moment of lucidity almost scared me. But yes, serious sports related injuries don't even make the actuaries' sit-up-and-take-notice list. Too small of a number. If you are depressed, overweight, smoke, have hypertension, diabetes or high cholesteral, you make the big numbers that contribute to the ever increasing cots of health care in the US (Canadians need not apply).

                      But if the sole purpose of a study is to determine IF an approved helmet reduced the seriousness of the injury when an accident occurred, can you tell me what value there would be in studying folks who didn't have a head injury? I mean you just finished telling us that riding is dangerous because there are so many bad riders. Personally I think riding didn't become inherently more dangerous because there are more bad riders, but I am willing to accept that the majority of riding accidents happen to inexperienced/poor riders. But maybe in your neck of the woods, bad riders actively seek out and hurt other riders thus making it a more dangerous sport. It could happen. I'd probably opt for an AK47 AND an approved helmet if that were the case.

                      But assuming there are all these terrible riders making the sport dangerous - or just piss poor riders who fall off every time their horse drops a shoulder and spins - why the heck would we study the folks who didn't fall off???? I mean the helmet didn't make them a better rider unless it has some properties most of us are unaware of (and if it did, I promise you every rider on the planet would be flocking to get some of that mojo). But until that happens all it does is reduce the severity of a certain type of injury when the fools fell off.

                      If you want to study the folks who didnt' get hurt, throw half of them in a lesson program and teach 'em how to ride, then turn the other half loose on untrained OTTBs. Then you can have a right fun study on how learning how to ride is most likely to really save your ass. But what would that have to do with impact studies on helmets?

                      Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot. www.seeyageorge.com
                      Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

                      Comment


                      • Personally, I think the people who don't wear helmets should look at their family. And look at what their family members' and friends' lives would be like if they had to take care of them because they were in a coma from a debilitating head injury. Or how they would survive after that person's death. Something that was somehow preventable.

                        After that is said, I think that if one tells another that they wished they would wear a helmet and they don't I personally would take a long hard look at their relationship.

                        When I get in my car, I put my seatbelt on because I for one know it can (and has) save my life. And I can only think of how selfish a death it would be if I died because I just didn't feel like wearing it. It may not ALWAYS save my life, but it sure can help.

                        And if SOPink refused to fasten his seatbelt, I would take a long hard look at how much he cared about me. Because if he's willing to chance death and leave me because he doesn't feel like wearing said seatbelt... how much does he really care about me and my feelings? I would never want to break someone's heart like that.

                        But someone's personal choice is someone's personal choice. You can take an optimistic outlook on it and say hey, their having fun and I hope nothing happens to them, or you can be cynical about it.

                        Personally, I hope everyone, helmet or not, gets on and off their horses safely everyday. With a smile

                        “You may say I’m a dreamer,
                        but I’m not the only one,
                        I hope some day you'll join us,
                        And the world will live as one.“ -John Lennon

                        Jennie
                        Who is going to write a novel.
                        Yes, a novel
                        See my albulm Updated 11/11
                        Jennie
                        \"If you\'re a horse, and someone gets on you, and falls off, and then gets right back on you, I think you should buck him off right away.\"-Deep thoughts by Jack Handy

                        Comment


                        • Thats simple - they have no way of knowing how much safer a helmet makes you if they dont know how many helmet wearers didnt get hurt (of the falling off variety or otherwise - take your pick).

                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>can you tell me what value there would be in studying folks who didn't have a head injury? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          Well the idea is that there will be more of them if helmets do what they're supposed to. So the question is how many more of them are there? Nobody knows.

                          Comment


                          • My Shade - why not put on your helmet in the car?

                            Comment


                            • I will admit before I post this that I did not read all of the helmet weird study post, sorry.

                              I am not sure how they exactly would determine the number of people who fell off with or without a helmet who were not seriously injured, because it seems everyone brings up someone who falls off and injures themselves so you would conclude that is the only thing that happens when you fall off.

                              Also, I wonder if people who fall off and go to get checked out tell people that they were wearing a helmet to prevent getting preached at just like people who get into a wreck will say they were wearing a seatbelt when they weren't. Might this interfer with both treatment and statistics.

                              Not directed towards Moonkitty, but my thoughts on the studies:
                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The most common severe injury was to the head, associated with lack of headgear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The key word being severe, notice what the most common injury was... not head injury

                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Visceral and cerebral injuries were not common but the former were life threatening in all cases."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When is a neck or head injury not not life threatening? An aside: how many neck injuries are caused by diving into too shallow water??? For some reason, I think the number is fairly high and I don't think that a helmet (or lake scum on the bottom) would help.

                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Head injury was the most common cause of admission to hospital in BC. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would hope you would get admitted for a head injury and not breaking your arm.

                              With a little choice language, you can take the main point of a study and manipulate it to any point you want to make the best. For (a bad)example: if I did a study on why it is healthy to smoke cigarettes, I would make the strong points of smoking makes you looke cool, it vasoconstricts so you feel better and it makes you lose weight, then just casually throw in that it has shown to cause cancers in some smokers at the end. I was origanally going to make it condoms, but I thought it might be a call to the motherators.

                              ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
                              "No, that's wrong, Cartman. But don't worry, there are no stupid answers, just stupid people."
                              - Mr. Garrison, South Park

                              Comment


                              • You could well argue that in spite of helmet use, head injuries are still the most common serious injury. Therefore helmets are ineffective.

                                Comment


                                • I'll try this again: If you want to determine if a certain type of helmet reduces the severity of a certain type of injury (and there are rules against having a study where one drops participants on their heads to evaluate this proposition), why exactly do you see a probem with evaluating all those people whose injuries send them to a place where reasonable study controls can be implemented?

                                  Let's just leave aside for a moment that LOTS of people fall off and don't get hurt every day - with helmet, without helmet, with their lucky rabbit foot, whatever. I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that isn't the point here. The point is that if you have certain type of injury, did having helmet X typcially and consistantly reduce the degree of severity over a statistically valid population (your friend Susy need not apply).

                                  But hey, Canada is damn near socialist last time I checked. Maybe they can institute a law requiring you to report to a hospital every time you fall off and then this study can be completed in the manner you so desperately seem to want it to be completed.

                                  Until then I am pretty content with the idea that your chance of a certain type of injury is reduced by wearing material that absorbs impact stress. Who knows? One day I might even own an approved helmet.

                                  Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot. www.seeyageorge.com
                                  Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

                                  Comment


                                  • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'll try this again: If you want to determine if a certain type of helmet reduces the severity of a certain type of injury (and there are rules against having a study where one drops participants on their heads to evaluate this proposition), why exactly do you see a probem with evaluating all those people whose injuries send them to a place where reasonable study controls can be implemented? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                    Well if its any good at reducing the severity of the injury, you'd hope a good number dont have any injury after they come off. How many is that? Nobody knows.

                                    If ALL the ones who didnt come to the hospital (who we know nothing about) ride helmetless, you'd have to conclude that helmets increase the danger of riding.

                                    Now if they could count the ones who fell off, that problem would go away. But counting people who show up with an injury is like estimating the probability of winning the lottery by counting the people who show up to collect a prize (and cleverly noting that most of them were lottery ticket-buyers).

                                    I dont give a rats ass if anyone does a study or not. Until someone does though, people need to stop pretending that safety and helmet use are the same thing.

                                    [This message was edited by El Grande Stimpendo on May. 05, 2004 at 10:56 PM.]

                                    Comment


                                    • Well, El Grande, until I'm an MD and/or sports injury specialist, I'm not about to second-guess who is admitted and who isn't. If you believe this is all a conspiracy, then we are at an impasse. There are less head injuries seen in hospitals now as opposed to 15 years ago. The only way your argument of not knowing how much of the general population wears helmets would hold water is if the number of riders has decreased over the last 15 years, which I highly doubt.

                                      Comment


                                      • No conspiracy, just a bias. If you show up at the hospital and describe X, what they do with you is different than if you describe Y. That's why they ask you what happened.

                                        Where's the study that says there's fewer head injuries showing up at hospitals now than 15 yrs ago? That would have been the most compelling one, yet you didnt post it.

                                        Still, it wouldnt have precisely answered the only question that matters: how much safer are you with a helmet than without?

                                        Comment


                                        • EG - for the vast majority of people engaging in logic, if you can a) determine that Item X reduces the force of impact through statistically controlled studies (done), and b) the severity of certain known head-impact injuries (and lets face it, people are very likely to zip off to the ER if they fall on their head as opposed to their butt) has been shown to be reduced if Item X is properly used (done), then I think we are pretty safe in saying that a certain type of helmet will reduce the severity of a certain type of injury.

                                          I mean all the science I have ever read indicates the core of the earth is a hot, liquid/gaseous severely unpleasant place to be, but last I checked nobody has been there (with or without their approved helmet). But I really haven't seen too many folks rebutting the science merely on the grounds it must not be valid because we haven't made the field trip yet. But that sort of sounds like your logic.

                                          And who knows, maybe unapproveds do increase danger, and the center of the earth is ice. But you have to make a far better case than the "no field trip" argument before it sounds like something less than a bad plot line by Carl Hiaasen. Meanwhile, best of luck in your endeavors.

                                          Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot. www.seeyageorge.com
                                          Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X