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.

View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet 178 10.66%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped 94 5.63%
I've always worn a helmet 648 38.80%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do 408 24.43%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions 342 20.48%
Voters: 1670. You may not vote on this poll

User Tag List

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-11-13, 09:22 PM   #5251
rekmeyata
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 7,754
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
See charts in post 5124 to see why this analogy doesn't work.
Thanks for pointing that out, but even your charts show a 20% decline in mortality since helmet wearing increased. The problem with your seatbelt charts is that their skewed! How's that you scream? Simple, as the cars get newer they have been crashing better thus protecting the occupants better, plus air bags began to be more common place and that's why the big decrease in fatalities starting in 91, belts were required in cars long before 91 or 88, so the decrease is due to air bags and car safety crash or crumple zones. So I don't buy those charts for seat belts. Like I said, I wear seat belts so I'm not trying to champion the cause of not wearing them, but your charts don't prove the worthiness of seat belts.
rekmeyata is online now  
Old 05-11-13, 09:29 PM   #5252
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:
Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
...20% decline in mortality since helmet wearing increased...
The trend began decades before and actually started to level off once the helmet law was enacted. So your post is either the worst kind of cherry-picking or simply more evidence that you are completely out of your depth here.
Six jours is offline  
Old 05-11-13, 10:06 PM   #5253
rekmeyata
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 7,754
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
The trend began decades before and actually started to level off once the helmet law was enacted. So your post is either the worst kind of cherry-picking or simply more evidence that you are completely out of your depth here.
Cherry picking? Ok, so even though more cyclists are on the roads then decade ago, and more riders wear helmets then decades ago doesn't mean a damn thing right?

And of course you didn't seem to have an answer for the seat belt issue, I guess you cherry pick too.
rekmeyata is online now  
Old 05-12-13, 10:21 AM   #5254
sudo bike
Bicikli Huszár
 
sudo bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Posts: 2,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
Thanks for pointing that out, but even your charts show a 20% decline in mortality since helmet wearing increased. The problem with your seatbelt charts is that their skewed! How's that you scream? Simple, as the cars get newer they have been crashing better thus protecting the occupants better, plus air bags began to be more common place and that's why the big decrease in fatalities starting in 91, belts were required in cars long before 91 or 88, so the decrease is due to air bags and car safety crash or crumple zones. So I don't buy those charts for seat belts. Like I said, I wear seat belts so I'm not trying to champion the cause of not wearing them, but your charts don't prove the worthiness of seat belts.
OK, so you're just going to ignore the ongoing downward trend and presume that it would have magically stopped had helmets not been put into use, so why not attribute them with a 20% decline. Gee, no wonder helmets are so effective.

Seat belts have a much stronger correlation. Fatalities decrease at the same rate belt use increases, which is entirely what you would expect of an effective life-saving device. Meanwhile exponential increases in helmet use led to arguable effects on a continuing downtrend in cycling fatalities.
sudo bike is offline  
Old 05-12-13, 12:24 PM   #5255
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:
Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
Cherry picking? Ok, so even though more cyclists are on the roads then decade ago, and more riders wear helmets then decades ago doesn't mean a damn thing right?
Ridership declined in Australia following the helmet law. And more riders wearing helmets should have accelerated the downward trend, not slowed it - if helmets were effective life-saving tools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
And of course you didn't seem to have an answer for the seat belt issue, I guess you cherry pick too.
Not responding to every detail of every harebrained thing you write =/= cherry-picking. Moreover, I have responded to the seatbelt issue, repeatedly and in detail. Apparently you're so good at ignoring things you don't want to see that you forget you ever did.
Six jours is offline  
Old 05-12-13, 01:53 PM   #5256
rekmeyata
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 7,754
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
Ridership declined in Australia following the helmet law. And more riders wearing helmets should have accelerated the downward trend, not slowed it - if helmets were effective life-saving tools.



Not responding to every detail of every harebrained thing you write =/= cherry-picking. Moreover, I have responded to the seatbelt issue, repeatedly and in detail. Apparently you're so good at ignoring things you don't want to see that you forget you ever did.
Really, see this that's me ignoring this subject.

Last edited by rekmeyata; 05-12-13 at 01:56 PM.
rekmeyata is online now  
Old 05-13-13, 06:26 PM   #5257
RazrSkutr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
The trend began decades before and actually started to level off once the helmet law was enacted. So your post is either the worst kind of cherry-picking or simply more evidence that you are completely out of your depth here.
Pedestrian fatalities also declined during the same time. Obviously due the wearing of helmets by bicyclists. Duh.

http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/fatalsnz.html
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 05-13-13, 06:29 PM   #5258
RazrSkutr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
Really, see this that's me ignoring this subject.
This seems more up your alley:
http://imgur.com/gallery/0UN0T
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 05-13-13, 06:37 PM   #5259
rekmeyata
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 7,754
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr View Post
Pedestrian fatalities also declined during the same time. Obviously due the wearing of helmets by bicyclists. Duh.

http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/fatalsnz.html
No, the reason pedestrian fatalities are falling is because newer technology running shoes are making the peds get out the way of cars faster. So DUH right back at ya!
rekmeyata is online now  
Old 05-14-13, 03:10 PM   #5260
Grumpytroll
Junior Member
 
Grumpytroll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Inverness Florida
Bikes:
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I personally have not ever worn a helmet, but have not ridden a bike since 1999 so now I have just started riding again will be getting a helmet next week, I'm dumb enough without bouncing what little brains I have left on an inanimate object. IMO.
Grumpytroll is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 03:30 AM   #5261
chasm54
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Bikes:
Posts: 8,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The British Medical Journal has today published some research into the impact of Mandatory Helmet Laws in Canadian Provinces. Their conclusion is that making helmets mandatory has had "minimal" impact on the rate of cyclists being admitted to hospital with head injuries.

Bizarrely, the authors quote without qualification the widely discredited Thomson and Rivara study that claimed helmets were 88% effective in reducing head injuries, and go on to express puzzlement as to why, in that case, they can't find any real-world evidence for this. Thye conclude that other factors relating to road safety may be more important in reducing the rate of injury, and (surprise surprise)
Quote:
A third possible explanation for our results is that the effectiveness of helmets is greater for mild and moderate head injuries than for the severe head injuries captured by hospital admission data.
In other words, helmets are good at saving you from bumps and scrapes, but are unlikely to save your brains, or your life.
chasm54 is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 06:39 AM   #5262
RazrSkutr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasm54 View Post
The British Medical Journal has today published some research into the impact of Mandatory Helmet Laws in Canadian Provinces. Their conclusion is that making helmets mandatory has had "minimal" impact on the rate of cyclists being admitted to hospital with head injuries.

Bizarrely, the authors quote without qualification the widely discredited Thomson and Rivara study that claimed helmets were 88% effective in reducing head injuries, and go on to express puzzlement as to why, in that case, they can't find any real-world evidence for this. Thye conclude that other factors relating to road safety may be more important in reducing the rate of injury, and (surprise surprise)

In other words, helmets are good at saving you from bumps and scrapes, but are unlikely to save your brains, or your life.
You beat me to it! Was just about to make exactly the same comment about them citing TRT2000. Some researchers take the Cochrane reviews as "the truth" in the medical literature, the fact that TRT are citing their own work and conducting the review makes me skeptical of Cochrane reviews.

It is an interesting but largely unsatisfactory paper, not least due to the fact that "[d]ata on exposure to cycling are desirable, yet were unavailable for Canada at the time helmet legislation was implemented." I also very much doubt that they have accurate data on real cycling exposure rates now.The authors also mention the confounding presence of multiple other effects which can not be accounted for, i.e. CAN-BIKE programs and other educational efforts.

To some extent I sympathize with the authors as it's hard to say anything that is meaningful in this area due to the paucity of data.
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 06:51 AM   #5263
DX-MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 4,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpytroll View Post
I personally have not ever worn a helmet, but have not ridden a bike since 1999 so now I have just started riding again will be getting a helmet next week, I'm dumb enough without bouncing what little brains I have left on an inanimate object. IMO.
Do what you like, it's your bike ride; but a point A LOT of people make here is that the lack of helmet does NOT equal brain splash.

Seeing as how you're from Florida, and since I still have flashbacks to the terroristic way drivers operated down there, I'd be more concerned about your brains being splashed by the careless CAR TIRE. So that may be the better choice, after all.
DX-MAN is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 07:06 AM   #5264
rydabent
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
Posts: 5,704
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Since Im old and dont want to wade back thru 211 pages, could the anti helmet cult refresh my memory on what they get out of trying to keep people from wearing helmets????
rydabent is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 08:18 AM   #5265
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,140
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasm54 View Post
In other words, helmets are good at saving you from bumps and scrapes, but are unlikely to save your brains, or your life.
Dismissing moderate head injury as "bumbs and scrapes" really doesn't capture the severity of moderate injury. Sure, I'll wear a helmet to prevent having to have road rash scrubbed out at ER, or stitches in my scalp...
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 10:53 AM   #5266
RazrSkutr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
Since Im old and dont want to wade back thru 211 pages, could the anti helmet cult refresh my memory on what they get out of trying to keep people from wearing helmets????
Keep wearing your helmet. Just don't lie about what it's capable of doing.

That's what makes the paper Chasm54 just cited interesting: even given a reading of the literature which is apparently skewed towards accepting that helmets do something besides stopping scrapes and cuts it's seems probable that in Canada widespread helmet use has not decreased concussions, death, and mental impairment.

You can start whining when you get a cop coming up to your daughter and telling her to take her helmet off. Until then it would be prudent for you to zip it up unless you want to be taken for anything other than a troll.
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 10:59 AM   #5267
rydabent
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
Posts: 5,704
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr View Post
Keep wearing your helmet. Just don't lie about what it's capable of doing.

That's what makes the paper Chasm54 just cited interesting: even given a reading of the literature which is apparently skewed towards accepting that helmets do something besides stopping scrapes and cuts it's seems probable that in Canada widespread helmet use has not decreased concussions, death, and mental impairment.

You can start whining when you get a cop coming up to your daughter and telling her to take her helmet off. Until then it would be prudent for you to zip it up unless you want to be taken for anything other than a troll.
I dont understand why the police would tell a daughter I dont have to take her helmet off??

Your last statement sounds like a threat!!!
rydabent is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 11:30 AM   #5268
RazrSkutr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
I dont understand [...]
So, as usual you have nothing to say about the interesting, substantive point: in yet another country (Australia and N.Z. being already established) it appears that despite widespread helmet use there is no discernible decrease in exactly the types of head injuries from which most helmet wearers believe they are protected.
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 06:15 PM   #5269
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,140
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr View Post
So, as usual you have nothing to say about the interesting, substantive point: in yet another country (Australia and N.Z. being already established) it appears that despite widespread helmet use there is no discernible decrease in exactly the types of head injuries from which most helmet wearers believe they are protected.
My, what a lot of qualifiers you have going on there...
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 06:33 PM   #5270
RazrSkutr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
My, what a lot of qualifiers you have going on there...
Beware of people that don't use qualifiers.. they're usually trying to sell you a a helmet.

Interesting that you, too, are interested in moving to the personal and avoiding the central point that yet another country fails to show that helmets prevent concussions and other brain damage.
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 07:45 PM   #5271
350htrr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Bikes: 27 speed oryx with over 38,000Km on it, 10,000Km with a BionX assist on it
Posts: 2,280
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr View Post
Beware of people that don't use qualifiers.. they're usually trying to sell you a a helmet.

Interesting that you, too, are interested in moving to the personal and avoiding the central point that yet another country fails to show that helmets prevent concussions and other brain damage.
BUT what if 90% + of the bicyclers in the country were already volentarially wearing helmets? How would that change the ultimate outcome? (Hint, it wouldn't.)Just because it becomes a law that you "must" wear a helmet...? What was the difference in the helmet wearing or not wearing numbers before and after the law came into effect?
350htrr is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 10:40 PM   #5272
Jseis 
Grating member
 
Jseis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: SW Washington state on the ocean!
Bikes: 1973 Motobecane Grand Jubilee, 1981 Centurion Super LeMans, 2010 Gary Fisher Wahoo, 2003 Colnago Dream Lux, 2014 Giant Defy 1, 2015 Framed Bikes Minnesota 3.0, several older family Treks
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
I read through the last 10 pages. Interesting. I wear a helmet always and hope none of you non-helmet wearers are in my health insurance pool and if so..I've some DNR's you can happily sign. Otherwise...I could care less if you wear/don't wear. One exception is kids under 16, maybe 18.
__________________
Make Amerika Grate Cheese Again
Jseis is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 11:09 PM   #5273
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:
Originally Posted by jseis View Post
i read through the last 10 pages and learned nothing, but still thought i'd take the opportunity to be an ass.
fify.
Six jours is offline  
Old 05-15-13, 11:16 PM   #5274
Jseis 
Grating member
 
Jseis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: SW Washington state on the ocean!
Bikes: 1973 Motobecane Grand Jubilee, 1981 Centurion Super LeMans, 2010 Gary Fisher Wahoo, 2003 Colnago Dream Lux, 2014 Giant Defy 1, 2015 Framed Bikes Minnesota 3.0, several older family Treks
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Proved my point.
__________________
Make Amerika Grate Cheese Again
Jseis is offline  
Old 05-16-13, 06:17 AM   #5275
RazrSkutr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post
BUT what if 90% + of the bicyclers in the country were already volentarially wearing helmets? How would that change the ultimate outcome? (Hint, it wouldn't.)Just because it becomes a law that you "must" wear a helmet...? What was the difference in the helmet wearing or not wearing numbers before and after the law came into effect?

That's true for the "what if?". But helmet use has been estimated prior to this and generally pre-legislation most people do not bother. In general we see (e.g. pp22-23 [1]) a doubling across age cohorts with initial values ranging from 30 to 50%. So we would expect a halving of head injuries, which is not shown.

This all neglects actual exposure rates to cycling.

1. https://era.library.ualberta.ca/publ...32ec921.../DS1
RazrSkutr is offline  
Closed Thread


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 08:00 PM.