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 11-16-11, 01:06 PM   #551
Simon Cowbell
Senior Member
 
Simon Cowbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW
Bikes: Ti Lite and a Vaya
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
FWIW I've voted twice against MHLs for motorcyclists. It's their head, I'll mind my own business. Mountain bike riding or racing, I've always worn a helmet, but touring along a hwy shoulder or beer runs on the grocery getter haven't ever struck me as particularly high risk activities. I think tail lights do more to protect me in both of those cases.
Simon Cowbell is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 01:13 PM   #552
idc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Virginia/DC
Bikes: GT road, Kona Jake disc, Wabi Special FG, Swift Folder, beater 26" MTB, Genesis Day 00, Salsa ElMar, Raleigh RXS
Posts: 1,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Cowbell View Post
FWIW I've voted twice against MHLs for motorcyclists. It's their head, I'll mind my own business.
It might affect your insurance though. I don't know if it does but it's a thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony_merlino View Post
So the question is: Do helmets do more harm than good, more good than harm, an equal amount of good and harm, or nothing at all? I'm particularly asking from the point of view of a city/utility cyclist. And again, I'm not looking for any new laws or rules one way or the other, just trying to figure out if I'm baking my head for no good reason.
I think that's a decision every person has to decide for themselves, assuming there are no mandatory helmet laws. When I rode a bikeshare bike in the streets on Copenhagen I had no qualms riding without a helmet. I will almost always ride with one where I live. The exceptions being certain rides, all less than 4 mi.

Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
all the information on this is in the paper I linked but to boil things down in a very simple way, it's the movement of the brain within the skull that causes DAI (concussion is the mildest, and most common form of DAI).

Any kind of jarring motion (such as whiplash, or what happens in "Shaken Baby Syndrome" can cause this movement.

Helmets are designed to adress only linear impacts and not the oblique impacts that cause so much trouble, thus the quote from the linked paper...
Ok thanks. Makes sense. I wasn't clear on the semantics of DAI and concussion. But you can't then say that impacts don't cause concussion. That's what had me really confused. Certain impacts (oblique) cause concussion, and helmets don't do well preventing oblique impacts.
idc is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 01:14 PM   #553
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 tony_merlino View Post
I realize that this is a very touchy subject, and that I'm probably nuts for jumping in. I haven't read all 22 pages of this thread, and I apologize if I'm going over ground that was covered already.
No problem. This is a thread for learning. Can't learn if you don't jump in. The problems usually come when posts are disrespectful and narrow minded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony_merlino View Post
I learned to ride in the 1950s, and naturally didn't wear a helmet. A friend of mine was killed when we were both 18 years old - he was riding pretty slowly, in city traffic, and the taxi in front of him stopped short, and he went over the handlebars and hit his head. (I know, I know, ... it isn't the point that he shouldn't have been following that closely, or he should have been paying more attention, ...) This was 1969, so of course, no helmet. He was dead by the next morning. There's no way to know for sure, but it seems like that situation is exactly what helmets were made for.
Helmets are made for simple falls with little to no forward momentum, so it is possible that a helmet could have mitigated a minor injury, maybe even "saved his life" but we don't and can't really know for sure. What we do know a drop in fatalities due to helmet use has been extremely difficult to verify but more importantly, the risk of death from a simple fall from a bike isn't any greater than the same risk of death from falling while not on a bicycle. As rare as it is, people do trip, fall, and suffer fatal head injuries, more often off a bike than on it. If people are worried about head injury, why aren't they wearing them all the time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony_merlino View Post
But it never occurred to me that it might not even be serving any worthwhile purpose.
helmets do serve a purpose, but they're just not as effective as some people seem to think they are. Further there is some credence to the issue of helmets drawing danger. Certainly if we can agree helmet do provide a level of protection, why is this so difficult to see?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tony_merlino View Post
I have to admit, it would feel weird to not wear a helmet after all these years. Sort of like not buckling my seat belt...
After wearing a helmet for 21 years and giving it up, it seems weird to me to wear a helmet. Sort of like an admission riding a bike is dangerous and likely to result in injuring myself.

The seat belt comparison is often used with helmets but they are completely different items that work on a different theory and have much different records of efficacy.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 01:18 PM   #554
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 idc View Post
... Ok thanks. Makes sense. But you can't then say that impacts don't cause concussion. That's what had me really confused. Certain impacts (oblique) cause concussion, and helmets don't do well preventing oblique impacts.
Point taken. The problem is that helmets are made for linear impacts and linear impacts don't cause concussion.

Because of the way the head is positioned on the neck, and the usual movement a cyclist is making, the manner in which most cyclists hit their heads involves a twisting motion that can (but not always does) rotate the brain within the skull
closetbiker is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 01:23 PM   #555
AlmostTrick
Yabba-Dabba-Doo!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bedrock, IL
Bikes: 1968 Schwinn Orange Krate, 5 speed stick shift
Posts: 4,778
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony_merlino View Post
I have to admit, it would feel weird to not wear a helmet after all these years. Sort of like not buckling my seat belt...
Not wearing a seat belt when you are accustomed to one feels weird because they give the wearer a feeling of restraint... helmets don’t. I think you’d be surprised at how quickly you’d feel normal without one. I alternate with/without and honestly don’t “feel weird” either way.
AlmostTrick is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 01:29 PM   #556
Simon Cowbell
Senior Member
 
Simon Cowbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW
Bikes: Ti Lite and a Vaya
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by idc View Post
It might affect your insurance though. I don't know if it does but it's a thought.
I could be wrong but my personal opinion is that Greens Fees probably have more to do with my insurance premiums than motorcycle crashes.
Simon Cowbell is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 01:39 PM   #557
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 tony_merlino View Post
So the question is: Do helmets do more harm than good, more good than harm, an equal amount of good and harm, or nothing at all? I'm particularly asking from the point of view of a city/utility cyclist. And again, I'm not looking for any new laws or rules one way or the other, just trying to figure out if I'm baking my head for no good reason.
It would seem voluntary use can be beneficial but mandatory use harmful, however because of the lack of clear evidence of helmet use in reducing head injuries, it would seem any evidence of benefit from use is elusive.

One harmful point is in the prioritization of helmet use over safe riding and driving behavior, another is wearing a helmet is signaling cycling as dangerous and risky, something it is not.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 01:45 PM   #558
tony_merlino
Senior Member
 
tony_merlino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Northeastern NJ - NYC Metro Area
Bikes:
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post

helmets do serve a purpose, but they're just not as effective as some people seem to think they are. Further there is some credence to the issue of helmets drawing danger.
I don't understand this. How do they "draw danger"?



Quote:
After wearing a helmet for 21 years and giving it up, it seems weird to me to wear a helmet. Sort of like an admission riding a bike is dangerous and likely to result in injuring myself.
I understand what you're saying. I'm not making any sort of statement with my bike. I will admit to being a little amused by the looks that I get when people see this old, short, fat Italian guy with 40 lbs of groceries loaded on his bike. But I'm not a cycling advocate - I really don't care what other people do, other than it would be nice if there were fewer cars on the road around here. (A futile dream...)
Quote:

The seat belt comparison is often used with helmets but they are completely different items that work on a different theory and have much different records of efficacy.
Yeah - the efficacy thing is really what I'm trying to assess. Also - are you saying that the likelihood of getting a head injury of the kind that a helmet would mitigate is the same for walking as for riding a bike? Or just that there is some non-zero probability that you will?
tony_merlino is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 01:52 PM   #559
tony_merlino
Senior Member
 
tony_merlino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Northeastern NJ - NYC Metro Area
Bikes:
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
It would seem voluntary use can be beneficial but mandatory use harmful, however because of the lack of clear evidence of helmet use in reducing head injuries, it would seem any evidence of benefit from use is elusive.
That's interesting. Can you point me to any references, i.e. studies that have found no evidence of benefit? Or is it more a matter of that the existing studies haven't looked at the right things?
Quote:

One harmful point is in the prioritization of helmet use over safe riding and driving behavior, another is wearing a helmet is signaling cycling as dangerous and risky, something it is not.
I speak only for myself in saying that policy is irrelevant to me. I will ride the way that I ride, helmet or not. I don't believe that I've ever taken any additional chances because the helmet made me feel safer. Similarly, I agree that learning to ride and drive safely are extremely important.

For the latter, as I said previously, I'm not riding to send signals of one kind or another. I'm just enjoying myself. This isn't a political or philosophical activity for me. Just (hopefully healthy) fun.
tony_merlino is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 02:05 PM   #560
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 tony_merlino View Post
I don't understand this. How do they "draw danger"?
Risk compensation. Not only does it apply to cyclists, it applies to the behavior of motorists driving near cyclists

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony_merlino View Post
I understand what you're saying. I'm not making any sort of statement with my bike. I will admit to being a little amused by the looks that I get when people see this old, short, fat Italian guy with 40 lbs of groceries loaded on his bike. But I'm not a cycling advocate - I really don't care what other people do, other than it would be nice if there were fewer cars on the road around here. (A futile dream...)
even if you're not a cycling advocate, your environment can change based on whether others think cycling is dangerous because it's been shown that more cyclists on the streets means the streets are safer for cyclists. If people thik cycling is dangerous, they're less prone to cycle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony_merlino View Post
Yeah - the efficacy thing is really what I'm trying to assess. Also - are you saying that the likelihood of getting a head injury of the kind that a helmet would mitigate is the same for walking as for riding a bike? Or just that there is some non-zero probability that you will?
I'm saying the likelyhood of a head injury while riding runs equal to that of receiving one while walking and the standards to which helmets are made mean helmets can offer the same (or even better) protection to pedestrians

Last edited by closetbiker; 11-16-11 at 02:18 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 02:07 PM   #561
Monster Pete
Senior Member
 
Monster Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Warwick, UK
Bikes: 2000-something 3 speed commuter, 1990-something Raleigh Scorpion
Posts: 1,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony_merlino View Post
I don't understand this. How do they "draw danger"?
It's the idea that wearing a helmet can cause people to take risks they wouldn't otherwise, due to an ill-placed faith in their helmet's ability to prevent injury. People seem to note that drivers tend to pass a helmeted cyclist closer than a bare-headed one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony_merlino View Post
Yeah - the efficacy thing is really what I'm trying to assess. Also - are you saying that the likelihood of getting a head injury of the kind that a helmet would mitigate is the same for walking as for riding a bike?
That's basically it. Riding a bicycle on the road in a safe and predictable manner is not an inherently dangerous activity. Injuries from simple falls, which could be mitigated by the use of a helmet, are just as likely if not more so when walking on uneven footpaths, climbing a ladder, wandering home drunk, or simply being old and frail. Yet no one ever considers the use of a walking helmet, ladder helmet, drinking helmet or old-age helmet. It's entirely unlike the use of seatbelts in cars, which are proven to reduce injuries. For cycling helmets, when helmet use goes up, there isn't a clear reduction in head injuries.

The difference with cycling is that injuries are far more likely to occur during an accident involving a motor vehicle or a high-speed crash. The forces involved here simply overwhelm a bicycle helmet. In competetive road cycling, mountain biking or riding in snow for example, simple falls and/or crashes involving another cyclist are far more likely, so a helmet is a wise choice here.

No one is going to tell you not to wear a cycling helmet if you want to- it's your choice. However, the bare-headed sector of this forum generally dislikes being told to wear a helmet of dubious practical benefit based on an anecdote ('it saved my life' etc- you just can't tell one way or the other) nor being told they're stupid for making an informed decision not to.
Monster Pete is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 02:09 PM   #562
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 tony_merlino View Post
That's interesting. Can you point me to any references, i.e. studies that have found no evidence of benefit? Or is it more a matter of that the existing studies haven't looked at the right things?
No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony_merlino View Post
I speak only for myself in saying that policy is irrelevant to me. I will ride the way that I ride, helmet or not. I don't believe that I've ever taken any additional chances because the helmet made me feel safer. Similarly, I agree that learning to ride and drive safely are extremely important.
even if you don't feel you change your behavior when wearing a helmet (risk compensation) Dr. Walker's research showed the drivers with whom they share the road certainly change theirs
closetbiker is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 02:29 PM   #563
tony_merlino
Senior Member
 
tony_merlino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Northeastern NJ - NYC Metro Area
Bikes:
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That's really interesting. I live/ride in "Sopranos Country" (I don't know if you got the TV show in BC, so you may not get the reference. It was a show about a Mafia family that operated around my town, and gave a unique but not totally inaccurate portrayal of life around here.) I just figured the nasty driver attitude was part of their habitual approach to life - I didn't realize I was inviting it by wearing my helmet.

But are you really saying that the likelihood of running into a situation where my helmet would help me avoid injury on my bike is the same as that of running into it just walking around on the sidewalk? Are there references? If so, I will give up the helmet.
tony_merlino is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 02:35 PM   #564
zerogravity
Trek DS 8.4 Rider!
 
zerogravity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anaheim, CA
Bikes: 1991 Gt Avalanche, 2012 DS 8.4
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulkal View Post
If your helmet flew off, how did it protect your head?
Because it flew off when i HIT my head on the ground. If i didn't have it on...i would have hit my head directly on the ground/rocks.
zerogravity is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 02:45 PM   #565
zerogravity
Trek DS 8.4 Rider!
 
zerogravity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anaheim, CA
Bikes: 1991 Gt Avalanche, 2012 DS 8.4
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
I ran a poll on BF recently asking how many people believed they had had their lives saved by their helmets. More than half the respondents thought they had. We know the sport did not have a 50% fatality rate prior to helmets, so the obvious conclusion is that people are vastly overrating the dangers of cycling and vastly overrating the protective properties of helmets. So while it's possible your helmet really did save you from serious or fatal injuries, it's also quite likely that you're one of those "fifty percenters".
I could very well be one of those 50%ers...I still think wearing it does protect me from head injuries more so if i we not wearing any protection at all. I'd rather be safe than sorry. I have to admit, i have not read all 23 pages of this thread, that and being new to this scene, it really doesn't interest me why people are getting upset but..people are entitled to their own thoughts and opinions. Take it easy everyone.
zerogravity is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 02:55 PM   #566
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 tony_merlino View Post
That's really interesting. I live/ride in "Sopranos Country" (I don't know if you got the TV show in BC, so you may not get the reference. It was a show about a Mafia family that operated around my town, and gave a unique but not totally inaccurate portrayal of life around here.) I just figured the nasty driver attitude was part of their habitual approach to life - I didn't realize I was inviting it by wearing my helmet.
I'm a big Soprano's fan (I even liked the finale) and I think nasty drivers are present everywhere (it's a human quirk being nasty - there even are nasty cyclists)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony_merlino View Post
But are you really saying that the likelihood of running into a situation where my helmet would help me avoid injury on my bike is the same as that of running into it just walking around on the sidewalk? Are there references? If so, I will give up the helmet.
From the UK
Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled

(in my Canadian province pedestrians have a fatality rate 5 times greater than cyclists per collision with motor vehicle)

from the US
1.On a per-mile basis, the odds of being killed or sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about the same as the odds of being killed or injured while out for a walk.

2. On a per-capita basis, the odds of being killed while riding a bicycle are nearly the same as the odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning


but I think if you use a helmet for minor injuries, it will not disappoint. If it's intended for serious injury or death prevention, it's bound to disappoint

Last edited by closetbiker; 11-16-11 at 03:00 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 03:15 PM   #567
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Posts: 1,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monster Pete View Post
It's the idea that wearing a helmet can cause people to take risks they wouldn't otherwise, due to an ill-placed faith in their helmet's ability to prevent injury. People seem to note that drivers tend to pass a helmeted cyclist closer than a bare-headed one.

That's basically it. Riding a bicycle on the road in a safe and predictable manner is not an inherently dangerous activity. Injuries from simple falls, which could be mitigated by the use of a helmet, are just as likely if not more so when walking on uneven footpaths, climbing a ladder, wandering home drunk, or simply being old and frail. Yet no one ever considers the use of a walking helmet, ladder helmet, drinking helmet or old-age helmet. It's entirely unlike the use of seatbelts in cars, which are proven to reduce injuries. For cycling helmets, when helmet use goes up, there isn't a clear reduction in head injuries.

The difference with cycling is that injuries are far more likely to occur during an accident involving a motor vehicle or a high-speed crash. The forces involved here simply overwhelm a bicycle helmet. In competetive road cycling, mountain biking or riding in snow for example, simple falls and/or crashes involving another cyclist are far more likely, so a helmet is a wise choice here.

No one is going to tell you not to wear a cycling helmet if you want to- it's your choice. However, the bare-headed sector of this forum generally dislikes being told to wear a helmet of dubious practical benefit based on an anecdote ('it saved my life' etc- you just can't tell one way or the other) nor being told they're stupid for making an informed decision not to.
I can't help wondering: If one tends - for one reason or the other - to have more accidents when wearing a helmet than when not, then the fact that fatalities seem to be constant with/without would point to helmets having at more beneficial than harmfull effect. All things being equal, that is...
hagen2456 is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 03:23 PM   #568
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)
Not if the accidents involve impacts beyond a helmets abilities, or involve injuries other than ones to the head.

It's also most preferable to avoid accidents/falls/collisions on the first place. If wearing a helmet means an accident is more likely to happen, it's the less safe option to peruse.

Last edited by closetbiker; 11-16-11 at 04:39 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 03:30 PM   #569
rydabent
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
Posts: 5,623
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
A large number of people here including myself have posted the fact that a helmet has saved them from at least injury. Of course the anti helmet trolls immediately attack them as ignorant. But they are still here and able to post.

On the other hand damned few helmetless dead people have posted their right to ride without a helmet. But then of course we could maybe hear from a dead democrat from Chicago.
rydabent is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 03:36 PM   #570
tony_merlino
Senior Member
 
tony_merlino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Northeastern NJ - NYC Metro Area
Bikes:
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
I'm a big Soprano's fan (I even liked the finale) and I think nasty drivers are present everywhere (it's a human quirk being nasty - there even are nasty cyclists)
You'd love it here. I live a short walk from where Uncle Junior's house was, and a short bike ride to Holsten's the ice cream parlor where the final scene took place. Also a short bike ride to where Satriale's Pork Store was supposed to be. (It's an empty lot now.) The scary part of that show was how realistic it was.
Quote:



From the UK
Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled

(in my Canadian province pedestrians have a fatality rate 5 times greater than cyclists per collision with motor vehicle)
I think a per mile comparison is not valid - you generally go many more miles in the same amount of time on a bicycle. A fairer comparison would be in terms of total time on the road. Impressive. How does that compare with the per-capita statistics for pedestrians, I wonder. Though that's really not the issue. Most of us don't go around worried about being struck by lightning.
Quote:

but I think if you use a helmet for minor injuries, it will not disappoint. If it's intended for serious injury or death prevention, it's bound to disappoint
Prevention of any sort of injury is a good thing. I don't want to be obsessive about it,though.

I've done a little googling this afternoon, and I'm amazed at the lack of objective presentation on either side of this. That's the problem when an issue that shouldn't be emotional, becomes driven by passion and ideology.
tony_merlino is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 04:05 PM   #571
Monster Pete
Senior Member
 
Monster Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Warwick, UK
Bikes: 2000-something 3 speed commuter, 1990-something Raleigh Scorpion
Posts: 1,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
A large number of people here including myself have posted the fact that a helmet has saved them from at least injury. Of course the anti helmet trolls immediately attack them as ignorant. But they are still here and able to post.

On the other hand damned few helmetless dead people have posted their right to ride without a helmet. But then of course we could maybe hear from a dead democrat from Chicago.
No one is suggesting that helmets are completely useless. They are effective at reducing or preventing minor head injuries. If you are worried about these sort of injuries and want to wear one based on that, I can't argue and good for you. If you want the maximum possible protection when cycling, a helmet should be part of that. What they're not designed for is to prevent major injuries or death. All the 'anti helmet trolls' are suggesting is that they are not as important to safe cycling as they're often presumed to be, and that other equipment and simply riding in a safe manner are far more effective.

Few helmeted dead cyclists have posted either to say how their helmet didn't help them- what's your point.
Monster Pete is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 04:12 PM   #572
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by idc View Post
I don't know that anyone expects you to read 22 pages.
You haven't read all 22 pages?!? Nor the hundreds of pages from previous threads of this nature?!? Blasphemer! How can you hope to have even close to an intelligent conversation regarding helmet use without knowing the background...
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 04:20 PM   #573
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
even if you don't feel you change your behavior when wearing a helmet (risk compensation) Dr. Walker's research showed the drivers with whom they share the road certainly change theirs
Dr. Walker also said that driver's give cyclists more room if they have long hair. I have long hair and wear a helmet -- do those cancel each other out...?

If safety is your priority regarding how close cars pass, a wig would be better protection than a helmet...
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 04:28 PM   #574
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Thread link summary:

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasm54 View Post
Have you tried this? I know many will not regard it as neutral because it is very clear about the flaws in the pro-helmet position, but it does offer a fairly dispassionate analysis of the available evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
If you insist...
Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws

D. L. Robinson

AGBU, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
Accepted 6 February 1996. ; Available online 26 February 1999.
Abstract

The first year of the mandatory bicycle helmet laws in Australia saw increased helmet wearing from 31% to 75% of cyclists in Victoria and from 31% of children and 26% of adults in New South Wales (NSW) to 76% and 85%. However, the two major surveys using matched before and after samples in Melbourne (Finch et al. 1993; Report No. 45, Monash Univ. Accident Research Centre) and throughout NSW (Smith and Milthorpe 1993; Roads and Traffic Authority) observed reductions in numbers of child cyclists 15 and 2.2 times greater than the increase in numbers of children wearing helmets. This suggests the greatest effect of the helmet law was not to encourage cyclists to wear helmets, but to discourage cycling.

Author Keywords: Bicycle; Head injury; Helmet; Legislation
Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post

A far more realistic site that addresses the helmet issue is the first one I provided on this new version of the thread,

http://bicyclesafe.com

If one is interested in studies and analysis, far more qualified anaylsis and opinions can be found at http://cyclehelmets.org/

------------------------------

a worthwhile read is the wiki entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet <-- Grand-daddy/mommy mother/fatherlode of helmet study linkage in the text and references at the bottom

Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
...I would suggest going to this site, which provides objectively collected data, some pro-helmet interpretations and links to sites which counter their views:

http://www.bhsi.org

For researched rational responses to many of the negatives about helmets I would suggest this site:

http://www.bhsi.org/negativs.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
It's not common to receive head injuries on bikes any more than it is to receive them off a bike, which is, not not common.

Here's another link....
Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
[helmets/helmet advocates] promote injury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
If the scalp helps reduce rotational injury to the brain by helping the head slide along pavement rather than catch, and a helmet reduced this effect, doesn't it stand to reason that at least in these sorts of accidents a helmet mitigates the effect of the scalp?

Again, why do you think they are now trying to replicate this "scalp effect" in new helmets? What would be the purpose if it were not effective?

"It has been suggested that the major causes of permanent intellectual disablement and death after head injury may be torsional forces leading to diffuse axonal injury (DAI), a form of injury which usual helmets cannot mitigate and may make worse.[68]"

"A bicycle helmet with its own synthetic "scalp" has been designed with the aim of mitigating rotational injury.[71]"
Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
don't forget the paper the Australian judge read prior to rendering a decision:

The testing and design of standard helmets continue to reflect the discredited theory that linear acceleration is the dominant cause of brain injury and to neglect rotation.

and another study examining a vital lack of coverage by the bicycle helmet

The common designs of commercially available bicycle helmets do not prevent direct contact loading on the temporal and zygomatic arch region and this contact loading is potentially harmful.

has been shown in court to be common knowledge in the helmet industry

It has been known for years by the helmet industry that the majority of head impacts occur below the "test line," and that the majority of injurious impacts are concentrated in the front or temporal region.

but this issue of protection (or lack thereof) may be completely moot because

1) On a per-mile basis, the odds of being killed or sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about the same as the odds of being killed or injured while out for a walk.

2) On a per-capita basis, the odds of being killed while riding a bicycle are nearly the same as the odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning (this author has, in fact, been struck by lightning -- albeit indirectly -- so he is well aware that "extremely improbable" is not quite the same as "impossible"); the odds of sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about half the odds of sustaining a serious injury while out for a walk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
if you continue to be worried about hurting your head from falling over, you may want to wear your helmet while walking as well because,

The tests that cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
a bicycle helmet is not designed for impacts with other vehicles.

Impacts with other vehicles introduces additional forces that were not designed for... here's a third source that explains a bit more "when a cyclist is knocked off by another vehicle, this frequently results in the head being spun and subjected to torsional effects. One consequence of this is that they tend not to hit the ground as cleanly as children who are typically involved in low-impact, non-twisting injuries,"
Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
according to the Canada Safety Council, it is more important to wear a helmet than text while cycling

Paying attention to riding and avoiding distractions from cellphones and music players ranks second on the Canada Safety Council's top tips for improving cycling safety — behind wearing a helmet
And people question helmet skeptics when they say helmet promotion reduces cycling safety?

Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
even if you're not a cycling advocate, your environment can change based on whether others think cycling is dangerous because it's been shown that more cyclists on the streets means the streets are safer for cyclists. If people thik cycling is dangerous, they're less prone to cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
I'm going to try to keep this updated and posted every five pages or so. Previous posts will not reflect current changes.
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 11-16-11, 05:38 PM   #575
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Posts: 1,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
Not if the accidents involve impacts beyond a helmets abilities, or involve injuries other than ones to the head.

It's also most preferable to avoid accidents/falls/collisions on the first place. If wearing a helmet means an accident is more likely to happen, it's the less safe option to peruse.
Oh sure, but I find it paradoxical, somehow
hagen2456 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 12:12 PM.