buzzman

Great. Finally things in this thread are making sense to me. Thank you for your response.

We obviously see the world from very different perspectives. When making risk assessment ie.- whether it is just as safe to ride my bicycle as it is to walk, you look at data and if the data supports your biases you accept it even if it runs contrary to observed given circumstances.

I live in a world where collected data is a part of research and "research" means we don't really have the answer yet, we may never have it. This is evidenced by the collected data John Ratliff just showed you.

And here's where you really go off for me (unless this is a typo, a Freudian slip or weak grammar)- "population results show accurate accounts of what happens." No, that is dead wrong. Well documented population results may show accurate accounts of what happened- but they are not accurate predictors of what happens. They may predict the odds of individual or future results but it's still a gamble as to what will happen.

In the case of the specific circumstance I mentioned in my original post, to draw the conclusion that it is just as safe to descend a 2 mile grade with an average drop in elevation of 8% on a human powered mechanical device at speeds of up to 40 mph as it would be to walk is sheer lunacy.

Posters in this thread often claim that helmet wearers are under some kind of illusory cloud of protection in their "magic hat" that makes them believe they are invulnerable to all injury. Obviously this goes both ways as evidenced by your posts and ones like Skye's where he descends at 42 mph safely secure in the belief that statistics show him just as safe without a helmet as with.

I suggest you print out your statistics and make a small paper cycling hat to protect you from head injuries I'm sure you'd be just as statistically safe as you make a mountain descent as you would be wearing a helmet.

closetbiker

yet a helmet is made for a simple fall, the type that pedestrians suffer every day.

Just how is the suggestion of a pedestrian wearing a helmet for protection in such a fall, lunacy?

buzzman

You really are masterful at eluding the real issue. My comments are primarily about your statement "riding a bike carries no more risk of head injury than walking down the street."

I'm not talking right now about helmet or no helmet (sorry if the paper hat reference threw you off topic). How is a bike rider just as safe from head injury as someone walking in the circumstances I described? Helmet or not?

closetbiker

and I've given references for that statement.

It seems what you're asking for is for a reliable, crystal ball-type prognostication for yourself

buzzman

That might be true if I were the only cyclist in the world who rides down steep descents like I just described. But I think I'm representative of a number of cyclists.

The statistical references you site are for a large general population, which skews the results to such a degree that they are not germane to anyone's given circumstances and therefore, in my opinion, useless in the real world. If you want to use them to support a theoretical argument that "riding a bike carries no more risk of head injury than walking down the street." when posting on line good for you but I wouldn't recommend anyone using those statistics to make every day decisions.

The way you are using statistical evidence is like saying Phillipe Petit, the tightrope walker, is just as safe walking between two skyscrapers as walking down the street because statistically very few people fall walking between skyscrapers. You could even use data more specifically and say that Phillipe Petit is just as safe walking between two skyscrapers as walking down the street because he has done it x number of times and never fallen and therefore he is "just as safe" as walking anywhere else he has walked x number of times.

It's nice in theory and it makes for great on line fodder but it really doesn't work for people like me.

closetbiker

and I'd say people like you and me are much safer than the general population because we hold more skill and have more experience on bikes than the gen pop.

Helmet use for bikes requires a belief that head injury is more likely on a bike than off it, but there's very little evidence (if any) that shows this is true. If you have any information that shows you or I are running greater risks on the bike than off it, that'll be great to see.

As it is, I can trip on that curb, a car can make a turn into me as I use a cross walk, I can be T-boned in my car at an intersection by a light runner, or I can fall down my stairs, or out of my bed - all of which could result in head injuries. Maybe a 24/7 helmet rule should be the order of the day?

buzzman

When you're playing with statistical odds on a piece of paper or a computer that might make sense. In the real world it might make sense if you were on a construction site, working in a mine or serving in an active combat zone for a 24 hour shift. If we lived in a world where every person was involved in identical given circumstances every day then the 24/7 helmet rule would apply for everyone.

Dan The Man

Jeeze are you guys even speaking the same language? I know you want to argue, but it sounds like there is a lack of comprehension between your posts.

RazrSkutr

No, that's not what has been used as the basis for the comparison of the risks of cycling/walking/driving. What people generally use are either incidents-per-distance or incidents-per-hour. They yield different results, but all are within the same magnitude.

You really need to read some of this stuff before you go making up crazy theories to justify why you can descend at 40mph and not risk a broken neck from hitting a deer just because you're wearing your magic hat.

closetbiker

I think we are both arguing the same point, that is, the advisability of wearing a helmet.

It seems Buzz is saying it's a good idea, just in case. I'm saying for some, the risk just doesn't merit it.

buzzman

Wow. What crazy theory did I propose to justify descending down a hill at 40 mph? In my post I simply stated that I did not think I had an identical risk of head injury on that stretch of road riding the bike as I did when I was walking.

And what "magic hat" or "crazy theory" is Skye applying when he says : Aren't you the guy under the impression that helmets make cyclists take more risks?

buzzman

I actually think Dan the Man is correct. We are definitely not comprehending one another's posts. I was actually making the point that your statement: "riding a bike carries no more risk of head injury than walking down the street." is a useless foundation for every day decision making because A) the statement may not be accurate and is debatable and B) if it is true it's only true for a broad statistical population and barely a factor when assessing actual risk in a given moment.

Even for the decade or so that I rode bikes without a helmet I would have pointed out that statement as a fallacy. It really doesn't have much to do with wearing a helmet or not. Both Skye and I, in my opinion, are at greater risk of head injury on those descents riding our bikes than if we were walking- helmet or not.

RazrSkutr

Which can be summed up as "waffle, waffle, waffle". You hold the "commonsense" position that you are safer when you wear a piece of EPS on your head when you descend like a fool at 40mph. You have nothing bar your own ignorant assertion to support that position. The helmet is not DESIGNED for that scenario. It's designed for a simple, stationary fall. Not for your out-of-control barrelling down a hill into the furry creatures that YOU referenced earlier.

It's interesting that you've completely avoided the question of whether or not you might be a bit smarter to reduce your speed.

closetbiker

and didn't I post that the stat is based on broad population results that have little to do with a particular, individual situation?

sure it does. people hurt their heads dong all kinds of things in all kinds of ways. you can't deny that

buzzman

Actually, I didn't say that and I'm sorry if that's the impression you got from my post. I was saying I did not think I had the same risk of head injury cycling on that road as walking. As to whether I descend at 40 mph "like a fool". I think that my be relative to the observer. I think to other cyclists of my skill and experience I descend that hill with a modicum of restraint.


Did I? I thought I made a tongue in cheek reference to the fact that perhaps I should descend at walking speed on my bike, which then might equalize somewhat the risk of head injury between walking and cycling. But obviously, you're right, going slower might substantially reduce the risk of an accident. That's a judgement call I make every time I make a descent.

You see, Razr, I like doing rides like this*:



And sometimes, I admit it, I push the envelope. I might do a ride like this and want to make a better time than I did the year before or keep up with other riders. And when it's that hilly and I've been going up for an hour at 5 mph I'd like a little bit of payoff on the way down.

Hopefully, there are other riders, helmeted or not, who understand what I'm saying here! For some of us it's why we ride a bike or ski or snowboard. But there is an inherent risk involved and I certainly do not suffer under either the illusion that I am just as safe from head injury on such a ride as if I were walking nor am I under the illusion that wearing a helmet can and/or will save my life in every possible crash I might have. Yeah, maybe that's "commonsense" but I much prefer that reasoning than basing my decisions on a

If that makes me more the fool, then so be it.

*D2R2 Deerfield Dirt Road Randonnee

closetbiker

You're no fool but I think you have misinterpreted my post.

It had nothing to do with an individuals choice based his/her own assessment, but rather as a point of context; something that often goes missing when helmets are recommended

RazrSkutr

Yeah, yeah. At this stage you've said a lot of things, but as you reference you're original post, let's go back and have a look at what you claimed:

1. You descend at 40mph and you don't know if you're going to hit an animal and come of your bike because of it.
2. You assert that there are no downsides to wearing a helmet in this scenario in order to protect your head of hair.

You can do a ride like that and experience the roughly the same risk with or without a helmet. If you slide you might be lucky and have a helmet that doesn't snag on the road and twist your head. You might even be lucky enough that the increased head radius doesn't cause your head to get caught at all. Or the helmet might twist the hell out of your neck and leave you with a perfectly preserved dead head of hair. What the helmet will not do is to reduce the risk that you get a concussion.

If you're really, really worried about risk then you would not descend at 40mph.

Weasel words again. A helmet will not save your life in most crashes. It's not designed to save your life. It might save your hair from being torn off. Because they are not designed to prevent concussions and skull fractures they will probably not do so. There is a vanishingly small chance that in some freak accident it might save you. There are also unquantified, probably small chances that they may make your sliding accident worse.

Just remember, O Seeker Of Englightenment, that when you descend at 40mph there's not much that's going to save you if you hit a patch of oil, or some weird washed out crack parallel to travel, or something runs out and into you, or whatever. If you're cycling like that why the blazes do you even care about the helmet issue? What's it to you? Wear it and enjoy it if you're so minded.

buzzman

As a "point of context" it's a weak one. It's a fallacy. There are no ordinary circumstances under which the statement: "riding a bike carries no more risk of head injury than walking down the street." is ever true. For the following reasons:

1) Speed. As RazrSktur is so quick to point out rate of speed is relative to degree and rate of injury and the possibility of accident. Unless the bike rider and the walker are traveling at the same speed it will become a factor.

2) Balance. I may be able to do a track stand but stopping in place and staying upright on a bike requires more skill and concentration than simply walking or standing.

3) Distance. The head, on a properly adjusted bicycle with the rider in an upright position is further from the ground. The further the drop the more significant the injury to the falling object.

4) Mechanics. While there are things that can go wrong with the human body that is a constant for both the bike rider and the walker. Add the variable of the bike and you have more things that can go wrong.

So, if you're wondering why you have to remind people like John Railtiff and myself, "again and again" of this "point of context" and you are not making progress in your argument maybe you need to examine the statement more carefully.

This, I am sure, to many readers may seem like I am nit picking to death your statement but I do it because it's an example of the flawed reasoning I see used again and again in this thread.

RazrSkutr

In which case you need to explain why pedestrians suffer roughly the same per-hour rate of fatality as bicyclists.

Is it possibly because you're fallaciously considering "head injuries" as the main mechanism by which both cyclists and pedestrians die? In fact, when you slip off your bike at 40mph you are probably not going to hit your head and die. In fact, your chance of smashing into a deer and breaking your neck is low. In fact your odds of a crash are reasonably low even at 40mph when you're bonking.

Is it just possibly that the main reason that cyclists die is because they get hit by motor vehicles and crushed and rotated with such massive kinetic energy that nothing short of a being encased in a Volvo would save them.

Is it just possibly that this is also the main reason that pedestrians die?

Is it just possibly that helmets are completely irrelevant in this and that your demand for information on why you shouldn't wear one is on a par with a demand for the downside of sewing your favorite picture of Rick Astley into your chamois (for luck)?

Sorry if I seem like I'm nit-picking but you and John Ratliff seem to have missed this (among many other points).

closetbiker

placing things into context is never a bad thing to do. Suggesting context is fallacious, is ridiculous

Like it or not, the protection helmets provide for cyclists, is equally suitable and beneficial for a pedestrian that falls to the ground

Six jours

Kind of an extreme example, wouldn't you say? I mean what if I compared walking around on Mount Everest in wintertime with a casual ride to the market? See how much more dangerous walking is?

At any rate, I still maintain that nobody really cares if you want to wear a helmet. The argument is simply that the "safety" provided by the helmet is more illusory than real. You are correct in pointing out that a helmet could save you from road rash, but that is just as true of knee and elbow pads. Regarding skull fractures, well, you're going to believe what you want to believe. I personally have strong doubts that the average bicycle helmet is going to help much in that regard. Frankly, I think you answer your own question #2 by pointing out that despite decades of riding and racing, you've never actually needed a helmet. The sport just isn't very dangerous, unless you make it so.

sudo bike

Comparing walking to downhill jamming at 30 mph is an apples and oranges comparison if there ever was one. Much more reasonable would be standard walking speed with standard cycling speed (which ain't 30 mph for most of us).

I understand and agree with your point that risk assessment is personal, but it's silly to draw such slanted comparisons to make that point. I think most people can understand that if someone says walking is as safe as cycling, it may not apply to their situation where they have to slalom through alligators.

corvuscorvax

According to the actual data, cycling is the number one cause of sports-related head injuries as measured by emergency room visits in the U.S.:

https://www.brainandspinalcord.org/br...tatistics.html

64,993 admissions for head injuries from cycling.
25,079 admissions for head injuries from baseball.
24,701 admissions for head injuries from basketball.
17,108 admissions for head injuries from soccer.
5,483 admissions for head injuries from hockey.
3,281 admissions for head injuries from rugby and lacrosse.

Running, for example, doesn't even appear on the list, despite the fact that there are nearly ten times as many regular runners in the U.S. as there are cyclists who regularly ride to work:

https://ccooper.typepad.com/writing_o...s-runners.html
https://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/commuter.htm

rydabent

Impressive-----now it is 86 pages of anti helmet trolls ranting and raving against wearing bike helmets. Maybe you trolls should give it a rest!!!!

closetbiker

I wonder if walking is considered as a "sports related" activity, and if looking at raw figures alone gives an accurate look at relative risk? After all, there are more than 4 times the amount of people dying falling down stairs than dying on bicycles, which is is about the same amount of people who die from falling out of a bed.

Overall, cyclists make up a tiny portion of head injury victims. In Canada over 90% of all head injuries are caused by falls, motor vehicle collisions, and assault.

I don't think anyone is denying a helmet can help with some injuries as well. The issue is more when the limitations of a helmets are exceeded and they can't help. A helmet can help when little Johnny has a tumble in the driveway, not so much when dad gets cut off and dinged by that Explorer making a quick left.

because of the wide discrepancy in severity of injuries, and the undisputed agreement on the degree of injury of a fatality, fatalities are often best when comparing relative risk.

A 2002 study by Malcolm Wardlaw, published in Traffic Engineering and Control, estimated that in Britain, the risk of fatality for cyclists was 34 per billion kilometres travelled. For pedestrians, it was 49. and another study shows that the risk of death per billion kilometres for pedestrians was 50; for cyclists, 25

In my province, statistics show that for each impact by a motor vehicle, pedestrians had a death rate 5 times greater than for cyclists

The government of Australia recently published a report on the benefits of cycling and in it, it says,

“The perception of risk from cycle accidents is often disproportionate to the actual risk. However, perceptions of risk were found to decrease with cycling experience. Whilst acknowledging the legitimate concerns people have to bicycle riding, the evidence demonstrates that in Australia, per 100,000 participants, an individual is seven times more likely to be hospitalised playing football than riding a bicycle. Risk-benefit analyses consistently report that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by factors ranging from five to one, to 20 to one.”

The government of England produced a similar report that had similar things to say about the relative safety of cycling

“… while cyclists do bear a risk higher than car drivers per billion kilometers travelled, they bear a lower risk than pedestrians… It is also important to note that actual risk remains small… the level of risks also needs to be related to potential benefits in terms of improved health”

So the fear mongering about the risks of cycling have to be seen for what they are. A profit motivated campaign by helmet manufacturers designed to portray the minority of a society as being something it isn't.