Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-27-09, 01:40 PM   #76
JusticeZero
Rider
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Orleans, LA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I would not support one. Bike helmets, unlike seat belts, are not attached to the bicycle and can be misplaced or forgotten. They also can be annoying to carry around.
Look at the foremost examples of places with a lot of people on bikes; they don't wear helmets there, and the injury rate is very very low.
JusticeZero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-09, 03:04 PM   #77
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 9,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrangeWill View Post
It's a cost regardless, if like saying I'm only going to take $20 out of your wallet instead of $40, would you smile and hand me $20? No, it's still a loss that can be avoided.

Basically it's horrible financial planning, the exact kind of financial planning that runs up budgets and gets people in debt of comparing "deals", it is still a cost, even if it's a "deal".
about the only undisputed data coming from areas that have instituted a helmet law is there are less people cycling after the law is passed. cycling lowers the costs of health care for many reasons so the net effect of helmet laws are higher health care costs.
closetbiker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-09, 05:06 PM   #78
EnigManiac
Senior Member
 
EnigManiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto
Bikes: BikeE AT, Firebike Bling Bling, Norco Trike (customized)
Posts: 1,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnoTurtle View Post
I kinda have mixed feelings on this one, i think everybody should wear a helmet, but i think if it was a law that you must wear a helmet, less people would ride bikes. whats your thoughts on this?
To answer the thread question: NO.

Feel free to wear a helmet if you prefer. You won't get any argument or criticism from me. But for average, every day commuters, they are unnecessary. For extreme or sport cycling, I would certainly support the use of helmets, but I have survived more than 30 years of dense, urban year-round cycling without one and would oppose any such proposal. Others and myself have stated our reasons over and over in various threads and those reasons are sound. The curious thing is that all the serious helmet threads are initiated by pro-helmet wearers and usually, like this one, want to force others to conform to their way of doing things. Looks alot like bible-thumpers trying to get me to believe in another silly myth. Leave it alone. Wear a helmet if you like, but stop forcing your way of life on everyone else.
EnigManiac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-09, 05:52 PM   #79
cudak888 
www.theheadbadge.com
 
cudak888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southern Florida
Bikes: http://www.theheadbadge.com
Posts: 22,744
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by invisiblehand View Post
True ... but everyone has been itching to argue the point all over again anyway.
Good - give the troll what he deserves, then start a new thread to blow out of proportion

-Kurt
__________________
cudak888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-09, 10:59 PM   #80
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Bikes:
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrangeWill View Post
Care to post the data?
For instance:

Scuffham and Taylor, "New Zealand bicycle helmet law -- do the costs outweigh the benefits?" Injury Prevention, 2002, 8: 317-320.

http://www.industrializedcyclist.com...etlawcosts.pdf

"Objectives: This paper examines the cost effectiveness of the compulsory bicycle helmet wearing law
(HWL) introduced in New Zealand on 1 January 1994. The societal perspective of costs is used for the
purchase of helmets and the value of injuries averted. This is augmented with healthcare costs averted
from reduced head injuries.
Methods: Three age groups were examined: cyclists aged 512 years, 1318 years, and >19 years.
The number of head and non-head injuries averted were obtained from epidemiological studies. Estimates
of the numbers of cyclists and the costs of helmets are used to derive the total spending on new
bicycle helmets. Healthcare costs were obtained from national hospitalisation database, and the value
of injuries averted was obtained directly from a willingness-to-pay survey undertaken by the Land
Transport Safety Authority. Cost effectiveness ratios, benefit:cost ratios, and the value of net benefits
were estimated.
Results: The net benefit (benefit:cost ratios) of the HWL for the 512, 1318, and >19 year age
groups was $0.3m (2.6), $0.2m (0.8), and $1.5m (0.7) (in NZ $, 2000 prices; NZ $1.00 = US
$0.47 = UK 0.31 approx). These results were most sensitive to the cost and life of helmets, helmet
wearing rates before the HWL, and the effectiveness of helmets in preventing head injuries.
Conclusions: The HWL was cost saving in the youngest age group but large costs from the law were
imposed on adult (>19 years) cyclists."

A good summation is DL Robinson, "No Clear Evidence From Countries that Have Enforced the Wearing of Helmets," BMJ, 2006; 332: 722-725.

I have a link to this on my site but it can no longer be viewed for free. Basically Robinson will take you through the very spotty numbers from parts of Australia and New Zealand that have enacted MHLs and have seen increasing head injuries and declining numbers of bicyclists. Head injury rates also rose in Sweden among adults (but not children) as helmet use went from basically zero percent to a substantial percentage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StrangeWill View Post
My agenda is saving money, so obviously I'm out for facts on which WILL save money,
Big money-saver are you. Then you should worry about things that actually have a significant effect on health care costs: dangerous eating habits, sedentary lifestyles and environmental pollution. Automobile crashes.

Even if MHLs would save money rather than cost money -- which I think we can all see is a pretty dubious proposition -- it would be such a paltry amount in the face of all the other costs listed above that it would be stupid to worry over it. More importantly, supporting an MHL for the purpose of some hypothetical societal cost of bicyclist head injuries is massively hypocritical, unless you live like a monk on top of a mountain somewhere. I don't want to hear that argument from anyone but a righteous vegetarian monk. What do YOU do that will cost society money, StrangeWill? Ever eat Cheetos while sitting around on the couch? Drive a car around spewing pollution? Go skiing? Etc.

Now we have Cheeto-scarfing truck-driving fatsos telling everyday bicyclists what to wear for the good of society. It's absurd. Calls for MHLs deserve nothing but ridicule.
RobertHurst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-09, 10:00 PM   #81
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know that insurance cost is often thrown around in support of helmet laws, the idea being that not wearing a helmet is irresponsible because the costs of unnecessary injuries is born by everyone else. Ignoring all the obvious arguments about fatty foods, etc., does anyone have any data showing that insurance costs, taxes, or anything of the sort have decreased in areas mandating helmets?
Six jours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-09, 10:45 PM   #82
invisiblehand
Part-time epistemologist
 
invisiblehand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer, Bike Friday tikit
Posts: 5,569
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cudak888 View Post
Good - give the troll what he deserves, then start a new thread to blow out of proportion

-Kurt


Excellent.
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
invisiblehand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-09, 10:53 PM   #83
invisiblehand
Part-time epistemologist
 
invisiblehand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer, Bike Friday tikit
Posts: 5,569
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertHurst View Post
For instance:

Scuffham and Taylor, "New Zealand bicycle helmet law -- do the costs outweigh the benefits?" Injury Prevention, 2002, 8: 317-320.

http://www.industrializedcyclist.com...etlawcosts.pdf

"Objectives: This paper examines the cost effectiveness of the compulsory bicycle helmet wearing law
(HWL) introduced in New Zealand on 1 January 1994. The societal perspective of costs is used for the
purchase of helmets and the value of injuries averted. This is augmented with healthcare costs averted
from reduced head injuries.
Methods: Three age groups were examined: cyclists aged 512 years, 1318 years, and >19 years.
The number of head and non-head injuries averted were obtained from epidemiological studies. Estimates
of the numbers of cyclists and the costs of helmets are used to derive the total spending on new
bicycle helmets. Healthcare costs were obtained from national hospitalisation database, and the value
of injuries averted was obtained directly from a willingness-to-pay survey undertaken by the Land
Transport Safety Authority. Cost effectiveness ratios, benefit:cost ratios, and the value of net benefits
were estimated.
Results: The net benefit (benefit:cost ratios) of the HWL for the 512, 1318, and >19 year age
groups was $0.3m (2.6), $0.2m (0.8), and $1.5m (0.7) (in NZ $, 2000 prices; NZ $1.00 = US
$0.47 = UK 0.31 approx). These results were most sensitive to the cost and life of helmets, helmet
wearing rates before the HWL, and the effectiveness of helmets in preventing head injuries.
Conclusions: The HWL was cost saving in the youngest age group but large costs from the law were
imposed on adult (>19 years) cyclists."

A good summation is DL Robinson, "No Clear Evidence From Countries that Have Enforced the Wearing of Helmets," BMJ, 2006; 332: 722-725.

I have a link to this on my site but it can no longer be viewed for free. Basically Robinson will take you through the very spotty numbers from parts of Australia and New Zealand that have enacted MHLs and have seen increasing head injuries and declining numbers of bicyclists. Head injury rates also rose in Sweden among adults (but not children) as helmet use went from basically zero percent to a substantial percentage.
Thanks for the links.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertHurst View Post
Big money-saver are you. Then you should worry about things that actually have a significant effect on health care costs: dangerous eating habits, sedentary lifestyles and environmental pollution. Automobile crashes.

Even if MHLs would save money rather than cost money -- which I think we can all see is a pretty dubious proposition -- it would be such a paltry amount in the face of all the other costs listed above that it would be stupid to worry over it. More importantly, supporting an MHL for the purpose of some hypothetical societal cost of bicyclist head injuries is massively hypocritical, unless you live like a monk on top of a mountain somewhere. I don't want to hear that argument from anyone but a righteous vegetarian monk. What do YOU do that will cost society money, StrangeWill? Ever eat Cheetos while sitting around on the couch? Drive a car around spewing pollution? Go skiing? Etc.

Now we have Cheeto-scarfing truck-driving fatsos telling everyday bicyclists what to wear for the good of society. It's absurd. Calls for MHLs deserve nothing but ridicule.
People generally lose sight of what matters -- where the "meat and potatoes" lie -- and instead go after the politically palatable targets. Through in something with a lot of misinformation -- IMO, bicycle helmets fall under this umbrella -- then you can get all sorts of wacky stuff.
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
invisiblehand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-09, 11:23 PM   #84
carkmouch
Senior Member
 
carkmouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hell no to helmet laws.

Hell yes to encouraging people to wear one.

Helmet Laws = less people cycling, at least I think.
carkmouch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-09, 11:49 PM   #85
speedycat
может да
 
speedycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: places
Bikes: a lugged steel ss pos
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Never thought I'd see a thread nearly 10 years old get bumped. Anyway, mandate helmets if you want. I'm still not wearing one.
speedycat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-09, 12:37 PM   #86
dogbreathpnw
1973 Sekine
 
dogbreathpnw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Bikes: Sekine (commuter), Lemond Victoire, Cannondale T1000, Frankenbike (ask!), Harry Perry (fixie, now)
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's indisputable that helmets would prevent serious injuries in automobiles as well. Race car drivers use them, after all.

I'm all in favor of a helmet law as long as it's universal, that we require motorists to wear them as well.
dogbreathpnw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-09, 12:39 PM   #87
powerhouse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Portland, Maine USA
Bikes: Trek 850 Antelope
Posts: 778
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'll speak for myself and take an approach of common sense.

For all the time while riding a bicycle, I've worn a helmet for my own personal safety and always will. I simply will not ride my bicycle without one. I've been through numerous incidents where I might have been killed or seriously injured if I hadn't been wearing it. While the helmet could and had to be replaced after each incident, I knew full well that this is not so for the human brain.

I strongly recommend that people wear a helmet while on a bicycle or motorcycle. I believe that people should be educated about the benefits of wearing a helmet first and let them make them make the choice in the end. I've lived and worked around people who didn't and who now have permanent head injuries.

Last edited by powerhouse; 01-29-09 at 07:38 PM.
powerhouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-09, 01:56 PM   #88
StrangeWill
Senior Member
 
StrangeWill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Fallbrook, CA.
Bikes:
Posts: 1,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogbreathpnw View Post
It's indisputable that helmets would prevent serious injuries in automobiles as well. Race car drivers use them, after all.

I'm all in favor of a helmet law as long as it's universal, that we require motorists to wear them as well.
Actually better restraints would help a trillion times more, you get back and neck injuries way more than you get head injuries in a standard accident. Not to mention proper racing equipment creates horrible blind spots in cars, being as you can't move your head very well (which is needed to check blind spots).

If you're okay with cyclist fatality rate going up by like 100 fold, we'll enact that law.
StrangeWill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-09, 02:50 PM   #89
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,744
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerhouse View Post
I've been through numerous incidents where I might have been killed or seriously injured if I hadn't been wearing it.
Numerous incidents where a helmet saved you from being seriously injured or killed? I recommend that you immediately quit bicycling since you are either so careless, clueless and/or accident prone that bicycling is just too dang dangerous for you. That you are still alive in spite of reckless cycling has more to do with good luck than the risk reduction capability of your various broken helmets.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-09, 04:55 PM   #90
StrangeWill
Senior Member
 
StrangeWill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Fallbrook, CA.
Bikes:
Posts: 1,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My personal experience has only been one time where I would have probably suffered a mighty fine concussion and a bloody head.

Worth it for that alone IMHO, made me think more about how some face protection would be good in a helmet redesign.


Death? Err not so much, it isn't on par with what a helmet should be.
StrangeWill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-09, 06:23 PM   #91
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Numerous incidents where a helmet saved you from being seriously injured or killed?
Caught that too, eh? I just hope I never end up behind him in a paceline.
Six jours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-09, 02:09 PM   #92
billew
meandering nomad
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Newport,Rhode Island
Bikes: eleven bikes no car
Posts: 413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
In the words of my good friend who was a SanFran bike messenger. I don't intend to hit my head when I ride a bike,therefore I don't need a hunk o' foam on my head. I bike year round in New England in all conditions of weather. Anyone who thinks a helmet will save their life in a real crash in dreaming or falls because of their clip ins at a stop light.
billew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-09, 02:15 PM   #93
dwilbur3
Freewheelin' Fred
 
dwilbur3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Bikes: Surly Cross Check
Posts: 742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by billew View Post
In the words of my good friend who was a SanFran bike messenger. I don't intend to hit my head when I ride a bike,therefore I don't need a hunk o' foam on my head. I bike year round in New England in all conditions of weather. Anyone who thinks a helmet will save their life in a real crash in dreaming or falls because of their clip ins at a stop light.
Nobody ever INTENDS to have an accident.

(But I'm not big for mandatory helmets. Let natural selection sort it out.)
dwilbur3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-09, 02:17 PM   #94
cudak888 
www.theheadbadge.com
 
cudak888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southern Florida
Bikes: http://www.theheadbadge.com
Posts: 22,744
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by billew View Post
In the words of my good friend who was a SanFran bike messenger. I don't intend to hit my head when I ride a bike,therefore I don't need a hunk o' foam on my head. I bike year round in New England in all conditions of weather. Anyone who thinks a helmet will save their life in a real crash in dreaming or falls because of their clip ins at a stop light.
Do tell what your friend's fail-proof method is to avoid a driver utilizing your person for automotive target practice. I'm sure it will be revolutionary.

Yaawwwwnnn...

-Kurt
__________________
cudak888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-09, 06:30 PM   #95
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The idea that a helmet will save you when impacted by a few hundred thousand foot-pounds of force is perilously close to fantasy.
Six jours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-09, 06:33 PM   #96
dwilbur3
Freewheelin' Fred
 
dwilbur3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Bikes: Surly Cross Check
Posts: 742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
The idea that a helmet will save you when impacted by a few hundred thousand foot-pounds of force is perilously close to fantasy.
If your bike falls over (dodging a dog for example) and you land on your head, would you rather have a helmet or a smug attitude?
dwilbur3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-09, 06:53 PM   #97
cudak888 
www.theheadbadge.com
 
cudak888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southern Florida
Bikes: http://www.theheadbadge.com
Posts: 22,744
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
The idea that a helmet will save you when impacted by a few hundred thousand foot-pounds of force is perilously close to fantasy.
The few hundred thousand foot pounds that impacts you is occasionally not as big a problem as the pavement next to it. That said, most helmets (with exception to some of the skater designs) have virtually no forehead protection to keep you from scraping your mug to shreds in such cases.

-Kurt
__________________
cudak888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-09, 07:37 PM   #98
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
If your bike falls over (dodging a dog for example) and you land on your head, would you rather have a helmet or a smug attitude?
If I have a choice I'd really rather just land on some idiot from bike forums.

And thanks for asking.
Six jours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-09, 07:42 PM   #99
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
The few hundred thousand foot pounds that impacts you is occasionally not as big a problem as the pavement next to it.
Yes, if I'm struck by an object carrying several hundred thousand foot-pounds of energy and am completely uninjured by it but am then definitely going to land on my head -- but not the front, sides, or back of my head, mind you -- AND don't have a handy bike forums member to land on, then yes, I'd rather have a helmet.

In that light, it's obvious we need a law.
Six jours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-09, 06:47 AM   #100
Basil Moss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Bikes: Specialized Allez (2007)
Posts: 1,051
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwilbur3 View Post
If your bike falls over (dodging a dog for example) and you land on your head, would you rather have a helmet or a smug attitude?
The smug attitude, definitely. Then I'll pick myself up, brush the grit out of my road rash, and get back on my bike- exactly as I did last time I came off. Interestingly, earlier that ride, and American cyclist had been trying to tell me that I was running some massive risk of instant death by riding my bike without a helmet. He didn't look so sure after I washed out so spectacularly and didn't even hit my head. But that's the benefit of not making your head a much bigger, heavier target.
Basil Moss is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:18 AM.