Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   The helmet thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/771371-helmet-thread.html)

Six jours 10-16-11 04:49 PM

If youth is off the table as your excuse, then that leaves several, far less polite, possibilities. But hey, good luck on your crusade anyway.

TurbineBlade 10-16-11 06:05 PM

A new thread -- excellent ;). I posted on the previous one as a pro-helmet, "everyone else is a moron" poster until I began to read....mostly thanks to closetbiker. It was difficult to change my opinion honestly, since I've been wearing a helmet since I can't even remember. The mind is resistant to change it seems.

Though I still wear one while cycling, I no longer hold the same opinions, and I definitely don't view non-helmeted cyclists the same as I did before. I've additionally come to their defense when discussing helmet efficacy (or lack thereof).

I consider this a positive result of a thread on BF -- so who ever said BF doesn't do good things? ;)

closetbiker 10-16-11 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electrik (Post 13372832)
... Paying attention to traffic will only get you so far...Helmets reduce head injury...

well, if you have any data that shows when entire groups of people wear helmets, injuries are reduced, please provide it.

In spite of what you may think, prevention is superior to mitigation, and the areas that have the least amount of injuries to cyclists, have the least amount of helmet use.

Hippiebrian 10-16-11 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electrik (Post 13372832)
The REAL reason you hate helmets has NOTHING todo with your ears, but what is between them. Paying attention to traffic will only get you so far, that is why i think some people here just got lucky enough to never get sense knocked into them.



Helmets reduce head injury. You've taken some correlation study and implied causation - FAIL!



Are your intended consequences to get people hurt? BEcause that seems like what you're doing trying to white-wash helmets as no good(even CAUSING injury)! IT is well known your links belong mostly to the anti-helmet brigade and it's well known one can prove what they want by referencing "sites" and links on the internet. The truth however is that helmets DO prevent head injury... i suggest you stop wasting time.



Oh, thank you for excusing my behaviour. I like how you freely admit cycling can be dangerous and cite a "Cat 4" crit... well take a look around you on the road, that is right nobody is Cat anything... cat 5 plus even!

If i'm too young then you must be an some relic from the early 1900s who thinks new fangled styyroofoam helmets and seatbelts are for wimps... do i have that right? Why don't you stop trying to insult me. Riding within your limits is where a LOT of accidents occur, do you fail to understand what the term "Accident" means? It means you don't know it's going to happen! Smart people do something to mitigate that risk, like ooo say, wear a helmet. :thumb:

Anyone else smell troll farts? I'm ignoring this dude...

electrik 10-16-11 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Six jours (Post 13372858)
If youth is off the table as your excuse, then that leaves several, far less polite, possibilities. But hey, good luck on your crusade anyway.

Sure, right back at you...

Quote:

Originally Posted by closetbiker (Post 13373126)
well, if you have any data that shows when entire groups of people wear helmets, injuries are reduced, please provide it.

In spite of what you may think, prevention is superior to mitigation, and the areas that have the least amount of injuries to cyclists, have the least amount of helmet use.

Helmets are prevention. Stop confusing correlation(common things that happen to people who have helmets) with causation(things directly caused by helmets).

electrik 10-16-11 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippiebrian (Post 13373265)
Anyone else smell troll farts? I'm ignoring this dude...

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/167278.gif

You got it backwards my boy, but go stick your head in the sand... at least it won't rip your precious ear off like a helmetless tumble on the asphalt would. :thumb:

chasm54 10-16-11 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electrik (Post 13372832)

Helmets reduce head injury. You've taken some correlation study and implied causation - FAIL!

Er, no. I have made no such implication. I have merely observed that as helmet use has become widespread, the numbers of injuries does not appear to have fallen. So if "helmets reduce head injury" as you so confidently assert without producing any evidence to support it, how do you come to that conclusion?

And please try to stop insulting people in the thread, it doesn't help.

SweetLou 10-16-11 09:05 PM

Queen City Bike is a local advocacy group where I live. They decided to have a little ride to show off some of the new bicycle infrastructure that has been put up near my home. The ride is just a short one, 10 or 11 miles. My physical therapist wants me to start riding longer rides, meaning 5-10 miles. The last couple of months, I have not ridden farther than 2.5 mile grocery trips.

I saw this blog about the ride and thought it would be a good choice for my first "long" ride. The start is about .5 miles from my home and the route goes right by my home. If I couldn't make the 10 miles, I could easily get off of the bike and either walk or hop on a bus. I've also been interested in this group since I learned about them a few months back. They mostly like the things I like and I like their mission:
Quote:

Queen City Bike is a non-profit organization that promotes bicycling as a safe and healthy means of transportation and recreation in Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky. Queen City Bike’s all volunteer membership creates and implements a series of bicycling education and advocacy initiatives throughout the year.
I also thought it might be a good way to meet some cyclists near me.

Well, I was wrong. When I showed up at the meeting place, I was informed that helmets are required. I thought they wanted to promote that cycling was a "safe and healthy means of transportation and recreation". I was disappointed that I was unable to ride with them.

I guess they would rather promote helmets than bicycle riding. :(

electrik 10-16-11 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chasm54 (Post 13373864)
Er, no. I have made no such implication. I have merely observed that as helmet use has become widespread, the numbers of injuries does not appear to have fallen. So if "helmets reduce head injury" as you so confidently assert without producing any evidence to support it, how do you come to that conclusion?

And please try to stop insulting people in the thread, it doesn't help.

You've nothing to complain about, nobody has insulted you! Again you fail to understand that one does not cause the other simply because it so happens that those things were observed in the same general space. Without realizing this you're lost and bound to make baseless claims such as "helmets cause injury".

Hippiebrian 10-16-11 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SweetLou (Post 13373874)
Queen City Bike is a local advocacy group where I live. They decided to have a little ride to show off some of the new bicycle infrastructure that has been put up near my home. The ride is just a short one, 10 or 11 miles. My physical therapist wants me to start riding longer rides, meaning 5-10 miles. The last couple of months, I have not ridden farther than 2.5 mile grocery trips.

I saw this blog about the ride and thought it would be a good choice for my first "long" ride. The start is about .5 miles from my home and the route goes right by my home. If I couldn't make the 10 miles, I could easily get off of the bike and either walk or hop on a bus. I've also been interested in this group since I learned about them a few months back. They mostly like the things I like and I like their mission:

I also thought it might be a good way to meet some cyclists near me.

Well, I was wrong. When I showed up at the meeting place, I was informed that helmets are required. I thought they wanted to promote that cycling was a "safe and healthy means of transportation and recreation". I was disappointed that I was unable to ride with them.

I guess they would rather promote helmets than bicycle riding. :(

Yet another reason I don't do a lot of group rides. The helmet industry ( and yes, it's the industry that has pushed these ideas) has gotten to almost every advoccy group in this country, so instead of promoting how safe cycling actually is, they wind up promoting "safe cycling" which they claim required classes, helmets, mirrors, and assorted other unnecessary equipment.

All you need is a bike to take a bike ride!

electrik 10-16-11 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SweetLou (Post 13373874)
Queen City Bike is a local advocacy group where I live. They decided to have a little ride to show off some of the new bicycle infrastructure that has been put up near my home. The ride is just a short one, 10 or 11 miles. My physical therapist wants me to start riding longer rides, meaning 5-10 miles. The last couple of months, I have not ridden farther than 2.5 mile grocery trips.

I saw this blog about the ride and thought it would be a good choice for my first "long" ride. The start is about .5 miles from my home and the route goes right by my home. If I couldn't make the 10 miles, I could easily get off of the bike and either walk or hop on a bus. I've also been interested in this group since I learned about them a few months back. They mostly like the things I like and I like their mission:

I also thought it might be a good way to meet some cyclists near me.

Well, I was wrong. When I showed up at the meeting place, I was informed that helmets are required. I thought they wanted to promote that cycling was a "safe and healthy means of transportation and recreation". I was disappointed that I was unable to ride with them.

I guess they would rather promote helmets than bicycle riding. :(

They aren't prompting helmets.. haha - what probably happened is a rider without a helmet sustained a head injury on a ride and sued somebody. It's all about insurance at this point, why should they take you - a risk - on their ride when you're not going to bother with proper safety.

Get a helmet, stop complaining. Either that or ride alone and take your chances.

electrik 10-16-11 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippiebrian (Post 13373983)
Yet another reason I don't do a lot of group rides. The helmet industry ( and yes, it's the industry that has pushed these ideas) has gotten to almost every advoccy group in this country, so instead of promoting how safe cycling actually is, they wind up promoting "safe cycling" which they claim required classes, helmets, mirrors, and assorted other unnecessary equipment.

All you need is a bike to take a bike ride!

This sounds like a conspiracy theory...If all you need is a bike, as you say, then go on your bike ride and stop complaining that when YOU want to join somebody's group you refuse to play by the rules - which are there for a GOOD reason.

closetbiker 10-16-11 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chasm54 (Post 13373864)
... try to stop insulting people in the thread, it doesn't help.

You're right. He's entitled to his opinion, but he has little verifiable evidence that backs his opinion, and there's no point in being rude.

I'm guessing he thinks if he kicks up enough fuss, he'll make a difference and maybe he's kinda right, it's just not the difference I think he'd like. By the way he's posted here I'd guess he's managed to turn people away from considering what he wants to say. That's different than if he had presented a decent argument backed up with some reasonable evidence.

sudo bike 10-17-11 12:23 AM

I wonder if electrik wants to address my points about how the scalp functions, and the citations provided that helmets mitigate this effect and so actually may make rotational injury (believed to be a big cause of brain damage) worse, or whether he'd rather continue in pretending evidence against his position doesn't exist so he won't feel like a fool. I wonder if electrik disputes this position, if he can explain why they are trying to copy this scalp design in future helmets?

SweetLou 10-17-11 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippiebrian (Post 13373983)
Yet another reason I don't do a lot of group rides. The helmet industry ( and yes, it's the industry that has pushed these ideas) has gotten to almost every advoccy group in this country, so instead of promoting how safe cycling actually is, they wind up promoting "safe cycling" which they claim required classes, helmets, mirrors, and assorted other unnecessary equipment.

All you need is a bike to take a bike ride!

Yup, I don't do group rides for that reason, except for the shop I used to work at had a night ride where helmets were required. I did do those. The only other event that I know of that doesn't require helmets is RAGBRAI. They recommend helmets, but don't require them.

I wished they would have let us know that helmets were required before I left the house. I actually asked in the comments section of the article. When I did, I got a message about waiting for the admin to approve the message. I don't know if it was declined or if the admin never got to it, but it was never put up on the site. Oh well, now I know and won't try to do any of their other rides. Nor will I become a member of Queen City Bike. I guess I'll just ride to Findlay Market by myself (once I am healed). Not that that bothers me, I was just kind of hoping to ride with others every once and a while.

chasm54 10-17-11 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electrik (Post 13373974)
You've nothing to complain about, nobody has insulted you! Again you fail to understand that one does not cause the other simply because it so happens that those things were observed in the same general space. Without realizing this you're lost and bound to make baseless claims such as "helmets cause injury".

Who you insult is almost immaterial, by doing it you drag the thread into a slanging match instead of a discussion of the issues.

I haven't said that helmets cause injury, though in some circumstances it must be possible.

Again, given your confidence that helmets prevent injuries, what is your explanation for the fact that as more people wear helmets, the incidence of injury does not decrease?

TurbineBlade 10-17-11 04:29 AM

Hey, electrik! I'm glad you showed up here -- this helmet thread was far too logical there for a couple of pages. We need more emotion in here to carve things up!

Do you wanna swap stories about a friend of a friend's friend who was wearing a helmet this one time, and who was involved in a crash who would have died, had he not been wearing a helmet? (afterall, the cop said so)

Don't be afraid to share your feelings on this one. You really opened up about feminine side on that other thread -- it's just like stepping into a warm bath. Just keep going! :lol: Heck, we should discuss these kind of issues outside of BF if you want. We obviously watch some of the same films -- why just be a single-serving friend?

Edit - It's worth mentioning that I do wear a helmet on every ride. I don't believe for 1 second that it mitigates any possibly severe head injury and/or concussion, because there's no evidence that suggests that this is possible.

TurbineBlade 10-17-11 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippiebrian

Yet another reason I don't do a lot of group rides. The helmet industry ( and yes, it's the industry that has pushed these ideas) has gotten to almost every advoccy group in this country, so instead of promoting how safe cycling actually is, they wind up promoting "safe cycling" which they claim required classes, helmets, mirrors, and assorted other unnecessary equipment.

All you need is a bike to take a bike ride!
This sounds like a conspiracy theory...If all you need is a bike, as you say, then go on your bike ride and stop complaining that when YOU want to join somebody's group you refuse to play by the rules - which are there for a GOOD reason.
Man, I can't believe I'm doing this -- but I may have to partially agree with electrik here. The bit of foam provided by a helmet has no credible efficacy to prevent head injury, but cycling courses are one thing that can prevent head injury. I'd much rather promote "safe cycling" courses to people than simply handing them a useless accessory and letting them "take a stab at it".

mconlonx 10-17-11 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SweetLou (Post 13373874)
I guess they would rather promote helmets than bicycle riding. :(

They'd rather not get sued if something goes wrong on their ride.

Do we know of any case where the organizers of a helmet optional event or situation have been successfully litigated against by an accident victim or their representatives? Because that's the fear. If there's cases like that out there, I can certainly see why there is usually a helmet requirement. If not, where's the scare tactics coming from? Insurance industry?

So, all you bare head advocates: you'd probably argue that the helmet requirement might turn people off of safety instruction, like in this current anecdote, much like stats show MHL reduces ridership. Is it better that new riders don't take safety classes, or should they suck it up and get a helmet in order to join a class or seminar? Leave the helmet in the closet most of the time, but use it for events, racing, off-roading, etc.?

chasm54 10-17-11 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 13374711)
They'd rather not get sued if something goes wrong on their ride.

Do we know of any case where the organizers of a helmet optional event or situation have been successfully litigated against by an accident victim or their representatives? Because that's the fear. If there's cases like that out there, I can certainly see why there is usually a helmet requirement. If not, where's the scare tactics coming from? Insurance industry?

I've never heard of such a thing, and in this country it would be easy to avoid by simply pointing out that riders are responsible for their own safety, that they should consider wearing a helmet etc. But you're a more litigious lot in the States, can't say it has never happened over there.

Quote:

So, all you bare head advocates: you'd probably argue that the helmet requirement might turn people off of safety instruction, like in this current anecdote, much like stats show MHL reduces ridership. Is it better that new riders don't take safety classes, or should they suck it up and get a helmet in order to join a class or seminar? Leave the helmet in the closet most of the time, but use it for events, racing, off-roading, etc.?
My argument would be rather different. Any safety class that makes helmets mandatory before you can participate is sending the wrong message, namely that a helmet is the most important thing about bicycle safety. So my first thought would be to find a class run by someone more sensible. But classes are a good idea, especially for children, and I'm inclined to think that very young children should wear a helmet anyway, so I'd encourage people to sign up.

And I do have an Atmos in the closet, and pull it out for events. And, earlier this year, for touring in Canada. Carting a helmet across the Atlantic and having it strapped to the back of the bike for 55 days, just so I could wear it for the three days I was in New Brunswick. Sigh.

closetbiker 10-17-11 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 13374711)
They'd rather not get sued if something goes wrong on their ride.

Do we know of any case where the organizers of a helmet optional event or situation have been successfully litigated against by an accident victim or their representatives? Because that's the fear. ...

I'm not aware of any success either, just a few attempts to blame a cyclist for a lack of helmet, but each attempt failed.

I wonder how much the manufacturers own waivers that come with the helmet have to do with it. They essentially say a helmet cannot be relied upon to prevent an injury should one occur.

hagen2456 10-17-11 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electrik (Post 13373974)
...you're lost and bound to make baseless claims such as "helmets cause injury".

I don't think it's safe to say that they can't cause injury, really. I for one would probably be six feet under, had I worn a helmet on May 17th 2010.

closetbiker 10-17-11 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 13374389)
I wonder if electrik wants to address my points about how the scalp functions, and the citations provided that helmets mitigate this effect and so actually may make rotational injury (believed to be a big cause of brain damage) worse, or whether he'd rather continue in pretending evidence against his position doesn't exist so he won't feel like a fool. I wonder if electrik disputes this position, if he can explain why they are trying to copy this scalp design in future helmets?

I'd bet electrik is ignoring it because he doesn't understand it and doesn't want to try to understand it because if he did, he would realize just how foolish he's been (then again, maybe he can't understand it - it's beyond his capacity to understand)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chasm54 (Post 13374452)
..I haven't said that helmets cause injury, though in some circumstances it must be possible...

I haven't said they do either (except in certain circumstances), although I have pointed out that when large groups of people wear them, head injuries to those large groups haven't had a corresponding drop. I suspect one of the reasons for this is that the types of injuries helmets prevent are minor in nature and not often recorded, thus the lack of a recorded drop in injuries with helmet use, but I also think the main culprit for this lack of corresponding drop in injuries with helmet use, is that helmets have become the focus of cycling safety rather than responsible use of the road

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurbineBlade (Post 13374611)
...cycling courses are one thing that can prevent head injury. I'd much rather promote "safe cycling" courses to people than simply handing them a useless accessory and letting them "take a stab at it".

so would I, and this leads into another link to a FAQ page that says

the helmet debate has little to do with safety... If the dicussion were about bicycle safety then we would be discussing how we can get the cycling public to adopt the most effective and proven method of preventing injuries i.e. responsible behaviour and application of skills when cycling.

electrik and his ilk don't care about safety, they just care about helmets

rando 10-17-11 12:44 PM

it almost boils down to a religious belief; you believe in the power of the helmet. you believe biking is so dangerous that you HAVE to wear one. those who don't believe are infidels! you must slay them! or at least insult and ridicule them.

closetbiker 10-17-11 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rando (Post 13376462)
it almost boils down to a religious belief; you believe in the power of the helmet. you believe biking is so dangerous that you HAVE to wear one. those who don't believe are infidels! you must slay them! or at least insult and ridicule them.

Faith; belief that is not based on proof


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:20 AM.