head injuries pose low risk of brain injuries

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote in message . ..

And the effect of reduced participation caused by the perception that
an activity is extremely dangerous or (in extreme cases) laws
requiring helmets?

Do you really think that there is a significant group
of people who would participate but who would be scared
off by a (greater) perception of (greater) risk if everyone
were to use a helmet (by law or social pressure if the
helmet-refuseniks were ostracized)?

Or, for that matter, a group of people who are participating
but who would rather quite than wear a helmet?


OK, I can think of some worried mothers who wouldn´t
allow their children to go anywhere near such a sport,
but apart from that, I don´t think that a perception
of *a certain degree of danger* would be in any way
negative for participation. On the contrary perhaps.

And as for the "fashion conscious" groups, they are
already involved in other (not undangerous) sports
and hardly contemplating joining our crowd:-)


BTW the issue you raised was discussed before the rather
amusing bicyle helmet law passed in the Parliament he
if a large group of people (for whom their everyday, non-
sporting cycling constitutes an important factor in their
health) left their bicycles at home (rather than wore a
helmet), would the net effect on national health (and
health care budget) be negative?

Since the law as a "compromise", we don´t really know
what would´ve happened, but, FWIW, there has been no drop
in bicycling hours, but a slight decrease of head injuries
in bicycle accidents.



Anders (who thinks he´s doing his bit to make it a century)

On 26 Aug 2004 22:56:34 -0700, (Anders Lustig)
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote in message . ..

And the effect of reduced participation caused by the perception that
an activity is extremely dangerous or (in extreme cases) laws
requiring helmets?

Do you really think that there is a significant group
of people who would participate but who would be scared
off by a (greater) perception of (greater) risk if everyone
were to use a helmet (by law or social pressure if the
helmet-refuseniks were ostracized)?

Yes. Children, with their parents being the ones who keep them rom
doing it.

OK, I can think of some worried mothers who wouldn´t
allow their children to go anywhere near such a sport,

This is a problem for the future.

BTW the issue you raised was discussed before the rather
amusing bicyle helmet law passed in the Parliament he
if a large group of people (for whom their everyday, non-
sporting cycling constitutes an important factor in their
health) left their bicycles at home (rather than wore a
helmet), would the net effect on national health (and
health care budget) be negative?

Ridership has usually gone down where helmet laws have been passed.
From a statistical standpoint, the effect in public health is negative
when that happens. For people like us, who probably would stay sporty
anyway, the effect is not so bad -- we can stay healthy. Overall
though, it's a public health negative.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
And the effect of reduced participation caused by the perception that
an activity is extremely dangerous or (in extreme cases) laws
requiring helmets?

Ok Jay, one more post.

Let's say that statistics collected from a large group shows that:
A B C D

(A has more accidents involving head injury than B, which has more
accidents than C, etc.)

In addition, let's suppose that people argue that helmets should be
worn while doing A & C, and that you're an idiot if you don't wear
your helmet. For example, say A is motorcycling, C is rollerskiing,
and D is taking a bath by the elderly.

There are some interesting points here, and usually this ends up in an
all out war on groups like rec.bicycle.racing. Anyway:

-If people think you should wear a helmet while doing C, should you
also wear a helmet while doing B? Simple logic says yes, but if B is
driving while talking on a cell phone, then virtually every driver
(except a few on race tracks) doesn't do that. I think this is wear
JFT's "perception" of danger keeps coming up. Am I going to wear a
helmet in the bathtub if I'm over 70 years old. I doubt it.

-If you live in Mitchell, SD (home of the corn palace) and have been
riding motorcycle for 25 years without an accident, you may figure
that the statistics cited for motorcycles doesn't really apply to you.
I.e. the perception of risk is low and the decision to go without a
helmet has some justification. Now if you head off the that urban
sprawl Rapid City, yeah certainly, put on the helmet.

Jay (91 posts) Wenner

Post 92 ... clip and paste of some statistics. Dunno what year. - John Wilke


http://www.caregiver.org/caregiver/j...e.jsp?nodeid=4

Magnitude
About two million head injuries of all types (including skull and facial
fractures) occur each year in the U. S. (175 to 200 per 100,000 population).1
Over 1.5 million Americans suffer nonfatal traumatic brain injuries each year
which do not require hospitalization. About the same number are reported to
sustain a brain injury resulting in a loss of consciousness but not severe
enough to result in long-term institutionalization (an annual rate of 618 per
100,000 person-years).1, 2
Another 300,000 individuals suffer brain injuries severe enough to require
hospitalization, with 99,000 resulting in a lasting disability. A total of
56,000 people die each year as a result of trau-matic brain injury.1
Traumatic brain injuries account for an estimated 34% of all injury deaths in
the United States.3
An estimated 62.3 per 100,000 adults age 15 and over are living in the
community with enduring functional impairments due to TBI (excludes most
survivors of mild TBI).4
Who Is Injured?
TBI affects males at twice the rate of females. Higher mortality rates among
males indicate that males are more likely than females to suffer severe
injuries.1
Individuals age 15 to 24 have the highest risk of TBI. The risk also increases
after age 60.1
Research suggests that residents in rural areas have higher age-adjusted rates
of both fatal traumatic brain injuries and those requiring hospitalization (an
average of 97.8 per 100,000 for urban residents and 172.1 per 100,000 for rural
residents).5
Causes of TBI
Motor vehicle accidents account for an estimated 28% of traumatic brain
injuries; sports/physical activity account for 20%; assaults are responsible
for 9%; 43% are due to "other" reasons. However, when considering those brain
injuries severe enough to require hospitalization, virtually half (49%) are
caused by motor vehicle accidents.2
Alcohol was involved in 41% of all fatal crashes and 7% of all crashes in 1996.
More than 321,000 persons were injured in accidents where alcohol was
present—an average of one person injured every 2 minutes.28
While brain injuries due to car accidents have declined an impressive 25%
between 1984 to 1992, brain injuries resulting from firearms have risen 13%
during the same period.6
About 5% to 10% of skiing accidents result in head injuries.29
Cost of Care
The direct and indirect costs of traumatic brain injury in the U. S. have been
estimated to be $48.3 billion annually. Survivor costs account for $31.7
billion and fatal brain injuries cost another $16.6 billion (1991 dollars).7
The lifetime costs for one person surviving a severe TBI can reach $4
million.27
An estimate of medical and non-medical (e.g., home modifications, vocational
rehabilitation, health insurance) per TBI survivor averages $151,587.7
Average costs rise dramatically for those individuals who undergo
rehabilitation. In one study, after a 4-year follow-up, average costs for
medical and long-term care services averaged $196,460 for survivors receiving
rehabilitation services compared to $17,893 for those receiving no
rehabilitation.8
Acute rehabilitation costs for survivors of a severe TBI have been shown to
average $110,891 per person, or about $1,000 per day. The average length of
stay for these severely injured persons in acute rehab is about 55 days.9
Medical costs are the highest for those who do not survive—(an average of
$454,717 per brain injury fatality).7
One study showed that supported employment for helping TBI survivors return to
work costs an average of $10,198 for the first year of service.10
Effects of Traumatic Brain Injury
Although the largest group of TBI survivors are young adults in their prime
working years, many survivors, particularly those with a severe TBI, do not
return to work. Estimates vary widely, ranging from a low of 12.5% to as high
as 80% who do not return to work. The ability to return to work is highly
correlated to the post-acute functional limitations of the survivor.12, 13
In a national survey in Canada, 66% of TBI survivors living in the community
reported an ongoing need for assistance with some activities of daily
living,75% were not working, and 90% reported limitations or dissatisfaction
with social integration.11
Most injuries are mild. The ratio of mild to moderate to severe brain injuries
is 8:1:1.1
Survivors of a severe brain injury are likely to experience prolonged anxiety
and depression, and are at a high risk for loss of friendships and social
support.14
Approximately 20% of survivors of severe TBI remain unresponsive for at least
one month.15
The majority of individuals who survive a period of coma eventually regain
consciousness. Data from the Traumatic Coma Data Bank indicate that of 650
patients who experienced a vegetative state after a brain injury, only 14% were
released from the hospital in a coma. And of those, about half had regained
consciousness after one year's time.16
Researchers have found that persons who suffer a severe TBI continue to make
gradual improvements in functioning for at least 10 years post-injury.17
Prevention
Motorcycle helmets provide protection for motorcycle drivers for all types and
locations of head injuries, and, contrary to a popular misconception, are not
associated with increased neck injuries.21
Studies indicate that the risk of brain injury in hospitalized motorcyclists is
nearly twice that for unhelmeted motorcyclists and that unhelmeted drivers had
acute care costs three times ($30,365) that of helmeted drivers 22, 23
In California, the first year's implementation of the 1992 helmet law resulted
in a 37.5% decrease in statewide motorcycle crash fatalities over the previous
year; those likely to sustain TBI-related impairments decreased 34%. California
has demonstrated a more than 99% compliance rate in helmet use. This suggests
that, with adequate enforcement, unrestricted helmet laws can achieve nearly
100% compliance.24, 25, 26
As many as 74% to 85% of bicycle-related head injuries could be prevented if
bike riders were to wear protective helmets. An average of 140,000 head
injuries per year are attributed to children and adolescents in bicycle
accidents.18, 19
Air bags have been associated with a substantial reduction of fatalities in
motor vehicle accidents involving adults (a 14% decrease in fatality for front
passengers wearing seat belts and a 23% decrease for those not wearing seat
belts). However, children younger than 10 (seated in the front seat) had a 34%
increased risk of dying in frontal crashes in cars equipped with dual
airbags.20

One more post. This may be old news to some, but as far as I am concerned,
it is the first time I hear about it:
SENATE BILL NO. 327
"An Act relating to pedestrians using rollerblades, roller skates, and
similar devices."
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
Section 1. AS 28.05.011(a) is amended by adding a new paragraph to read: (9)
regulations allowing pedestrians using wheeled adjuncts, such as
rollerblades, roller skates, and ROLLERSKIS, to use roadways and vehicular
ways or areas available for use by bicycles; these regulations must include
requirements that these pedestrians obey traffic laws, limit activity to
daylight hours, wear an appropriate helmet and bright clothing, proceed in
single file except when passing, complete all passing maneuvers
expeditiously, not use any electronic devices that can inhibit hearing, and
stay to the far right and restrict movements when being passed by a motor
vehicle.
In the past, you could get ticketed for rollerskiing in Alaska. Good news is
you can now legally do it. Bad news is you will get ticketed for all kind of
other reasons, many of them newly created. You must: obey all traffic laws
(stopsigns, etc.), skate back home before dark, not use mp3-CD players, stay
to the far right were all the road debris accumulate, wear bright clothing
(!) and a HELMET.
As far as I know, a helmet is not required by law for cycling in Alaska (
http://www.statehighwaysafety.org/ht...lmet_laws.html ).
Why then is it required for roller skiing?
JMC
(I do wear a helmet. This is my choice, you have the right to think
differently)

JMC wrote:

One more post. This may be old news to some, but as far as I am concerned,
it is the first time I hear about it:
SENATE BILL NO. 327
"An Act relating to pedestrians using rollerblades, roller skates, and
similar devices."
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
Section 1. AS 28.05.011(a) is amended by adding a new paragraph to read: (9)
regulations allowing pedestrians using wheeled adjuncts, such as
rollerblades, roller skates, and ROLLERSKIS, to use roadways and vehicular
ways or areas available for use by bicycles; these regulations must include
requirements that these pedestrians obey traffic laws, limit activity to
daylight hours, wear an appropriate helmet and bright clothing, proceed in
single file except when passing, complete all passing maneuvers
expeditiously, not use any electronic devices that can inhibit hearing, and
stay to the far right and restrict movements when being passed by a motor
vehicle.
In the past, you could get ticketed for rollerskiing in Alaska. Good news is
you can now legally do it. Bad news is you will get ticketed for all kind of
other reasons, many of them newly created.

What you list is the bill as originally introduced and passed in the
Senate. The House amended it because with all the conditions the
Troopers would find a reason to ticket if they wanted to, such as
clothing not bright enough. Here is the copy of the bill as signed into
law by the governor:

Enrolled SB 327

Relating to pedestrians using rollerblades, roller skates, and roller
skis.


Section 1. AS 28.05.011 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:

(c) The department shall, unless prohibited by an ordinance of a
governmental subdivision of the state, allow pedestrians to use wheeled
adjuncts, such as rollerblades, roller skates, and roller skis, on
roadways and vehicular ways in addition to areas available for use by
bicycles.

So essentially it says anywhere bicycles are allowed, rollerskis etc are
also allowed.

Carol

Thanks for the clarification! If they make it legal to rollerski on roads,
great! If they remove all the other restrictions, clauses, etc, it's even
better!

JMC

"Carol Haas" wrote in message
...
What you list is the bill as originally introduced and passed in the
Senate. The House amended it because with all the conditions the
Troopers would find a reason to ticket if they wanted to, such as
clothing not bright enough.
(c) The department shall, unless prohibited by an ordinance of a
governmental subdivision of the state, allow pedestrians to use wheeled
adjuncts, such as rollerblades, roller skates, and roller skis, on
roadways and vehicular ways in addition to areas available for use by
bicycles.

So essentially it says anywhere bicycles are allowed, rollerskis etc are
also allowed.

Carol

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote in message . ..

Do you really think that there is a significant group
of people who would participate but who would be scared
off by a (greater) perception of (greater) risk if everyone
were to use a helmet (by law or social pressure if the
helmet-refuseniks were ostracized)?

Yes. Children, with their parents being the ones who keep them rom
doing it.

Well, in this country mothers first make sure that the
helmet is well-strapped and then they let their children
out to ride their bicycles - and in Sweden mothers didn´t
suddenly lock away the toboggans when it became highly
advisable (and in daycare obligatory) to wear a helmet
in the hill.

The perception doesn´t have to be of great or increased
risk - it can be that of better safety!


OK, I can think of some worried mothers who wouldn´t
allow their children to go anywhere near such a sport,

This is a problem for the future.

Somehow I cannot see these mothers constituting a
significant group, and I´m inclined to think that the
children of these mothers would not have a future in
any sport where falls are to be expected.



Ridership has usually gone down where helmet laws have been passed.

IIRC bicycle helmet laws have been passed only in one
state in Australia and one province in Canada (Finland
doesn´t count for the reason mentioned.)

It´s true that ridership went down in both, but - if only
to point out the argument - there hasn´t been any study to
show a) that ridership didn´t go down elsewhere, too, or
b) that ridership didn´t go down for other, unrelated
reasons.

Besides, it can be questioned whether this is really a law
of nature, so to speak, or whether a well- (or better-)
planned public campaign could change public attitude and
behaviour.


(Please note that I´m not an advocate of helmet laws - or
of calling helmetless riders/skaters/skiers idiots.)



Anders

On 31 Aug 2004 01:07:57 -0700, (Anders Lustig)
wrote:


IIRC bicycle helmet laws have been passed only in one
state in Australia and one province in Canada (Finland
doesn´t count for the reason mentioned.)

At least one more place -- Rockland county near me. I think there are
mandatory helmet laws in other smaller, political jurisdictions that.
And there are certainly such rules in some parks and other places that
are relatively safe to ride bikes anyway.


Besides, it can be questioned whether this is really a law
of nature, so to speak, or whether a well- (or better-)
planned public campaign could change public attitude and
behaviour.

Ahhh, but if we are going to talk about public education, why not try
to actually make using roads safer for bikes through better education
of car drivers too, or better road design for cyclists. In my country
there is little attempt to do that. The idea of helmet laws (and the
big push for helmets in general) is that it's bacically understandable
that cyclists will get hit by cars because they are using their toys
on roads that belong to cars, and if they get hit and hurt it is
fundamentally their own fault for doing. So they should protect
themselves while they are on the car's roads.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Anders Lustig wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote in message . ..

Ridership has usually gone down where helmet laws have been passed.


IIRC bicycle helmet laws have been passed only in one
state in Australia and one province in Canada (Finland
doesn´t count for the reason mentioned.)


In Sweden starting from 2005 it is mandatory for youngsters up to
15years of age to use helmet on bikes, don't know if it also mean that
they also have a helmet on when doing inlines, etc.

Janne G