Zeuser

Completely ******** comment. There's no evidence that not wearing a helmet is safer than wearing a helmet.

And how can you compare an SUV to a Helmet? That's just plain stupid. SUVs vs. regular cars are a completly different argument compared to Helmets vs. no helmets.

If you want to use a car based comparison, you really should be referring to helmets as seatbelts. Last time I checked, a Helmet wasn't a complete vehicle, just a safety device.

adriel

posted here:

https://austincyclingnews.com/?p=168

Riders cycle cross country to create helmet awareness, die while wearing helmets.

By adriel • Jul 24th, 2008 • Category: Rants “Barry and her husband, Ben, have been making long bike trips around the country to help raise the importance of wearing bike helmets and also that those who had sufferend injuries still had lives worth living.”
She was wearing a helmet, and yet she died.
“The driver of the SUV, a woman from Greensboro who has not been charged, was not injured, the S.C. Highway Patrol said Monday. The wreck remains under investigation.”
The person who killed her (who was NOT wearing a helmet), was not even charged.
I mention this because we have too much focus on helmets and not enough on motorists driving safely. Or perhaps you think that these two who just cycled across the NATION didn’t know how to ride safely.
https://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_arti...?storyid=82604

Zeuser

So? What does that have to do with your previous argument? "Helmet zealots are equivalent to SUV drivers". Yet you go on to mention that the lady who got killed was wearing a helmet and by your own words knew how to ride safely.

I don't get your logic. You're contradicting yourself and are in fact backing my argument that while helmets aren't 100% effective, they're still better than bare skin.

Helmets are not guaranteed to work 100% of the time. Just like seatbelts don't save 100% of motorists but they do help save lives. So just because seatbelts aren't totally effective are we supposed to unbuckle them because they give us a false sense of security?

That's stupid! And the same argument applies to helmets. For the times that they do work as intended, you'll be glad you had one on your head.

adriel

yes, and for the times you should have worn a collar brace, you would be glad you have that, for the times you would be glad you had full leathers, you would be glad you had that, where does it end? Should we have a mandatory bubble wrap suit for all cyclists?

Also, what no helmet advocate will admit is that really ALL pedestrians are at an EQUAL OR GREATER risk of head injury, why would anyone recommend that a pedestrian NOT wear a helmet? Why not just make it the law?

The biggest problem I have with helmets? Helmet nuts are more concerned about that, then the fact that 90% of motorists who injure and kill cyclists, do not even get a ticket. They are less concerned about speeding and the death toll that it incurs. In short, it becomes a distraction from the real problems cyclists face.

I would rather spend all my attention on slowing motorists down, enforcing reckless driving laws, etc etc, and after we get all of that done, and motorists (who kill far more people than bare scalps do) drive safely, THEN we can look at something far less important like a helmet.

closetbiker

I'm not sure what the biggest problem I have with it.

Their promotion (or certainly laws mandating use)

*reduce the number of cyclists on the road,

*promotion techniques often center on scaring people into believing cycling is more dangerous than it is,

* promotion confuses the public into believing that the helmet is effective in collisions cyclists have with motor vehicles,

*promotion distracts from far more effective and proven measures to keep cyclists safe,

but for sure, yeah, it seems that,

*to some helmet use seems to be an end unto itself, rather than a means to an end

It's not so much that a helmet isn't good, it's just that the promotion of them has been so bad as to have been counter-productive to cycling safety.

Zeuser

Fine. Then go discuss about that in another thread. I'm with you on the ticketing of drivers for injuring and killing cyclists. But last I checked this thread was about helmets cramping one's style.

twiggy_D

In that case Zeuser, how do helmets cramp your style?

*

It's interesting seeing the division this causes. If we're talking cycling activism we should be presenting a unified front to the motorists and government bodies, not victim blaming and giving them everything they need to throw at us when one of our number gets hurt.

If a cyclist is injured in a collision and it was the motorist's fault they should expect to be held accountable.
But even when they are asked to account for their actions they are throwing the whole "cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet" or "wasn't wearing a good enough helmet" out there and getting away with murder, sometimes literally.

If you think it's right to say "she wasn't wearing a helmet so it's her fault" then you've got something really wrong with you, it's like saying that if someone is shot and dies; "should have been wearing a bulletproof vest"

Because that's currently what's going on, that's the situation helmet "advocates" are putting us all in.

Zeuser

Actually, that's not my position as a helmet advocate. I don't blame people for getting hurt because they weren't wearing their helmets. But like any officer who comes across a car crash and says: "His/her life could've been saved by wearing a seatbelt", I will also say the same. That doesn't put the blame on the cyclist for being killed.

I find it funny that you blame "advocates" for creating the division when you don't even realize that non-advocates are just as responsible for this.

What's really going on is that there are two camps pointing the finger at the other and blaming the other side for interfering with cycling activism.

You blame the "advocates" for not having sympathy towards non-helmet wearing cyclists. I blame non-advocates for not doing everything they can feasibly do to ensure ones own safety and presenting the cycling community to the motorists as a big bunch of reckless riders.

Every time I see a reckless rider in Toronto, he's not wearing a helmet. These are the riders motorists remember the most. And yes... I did say HE. 90% of the time these helmetless reckless riders are young males.

As a survivor of a motorcycle crash, which my helmet saved my life, of course I will advocate for the use of helmets whenever possible. Especially in high risk activities like cycling in downtown Toronto. Let's face it: when cycling in downtown Toronto, you really are taking big risks, motorists around here are psychos!

inunnguaq

To the above point: if someone is involved in a car accident and not wearing a seat belt, and the person who hit them is 100% at fault, I think the consensus will be that if the victim is gravely injured or dies, while everyone will be sympathetic to their plight, the impression will be that they did not make every effort to reasonably protect themselves from being hurt. That doesn't mean it was their fault that they are injured or dead, and it shouldn't stop prosecution to the fullest extent of the accident's perpetrator. Would the seat belt have protected them? Maybe yes, maybe no, but probabilistically they would have had a better chance of survival with a seat belt. (Of course, there are cases where a sufficiently violent crash means that there is nothing that could have been done to protect the victim.)

I think many people would have a similar impression of a cyclist injured without wearing a helmet. Again, if I'm wiped out by someone T-boning me at 55 mph, there's no hope for me, helmet or not. I also think that because head injuries are so grievous and the head is so relatively fragile, it's worth trying to protect it as much as possible. Motorcyclists here aren't required to wear a helmet but it mystifies me why someone wouldn't. Horses for courses though, I suppose.

People bring up pedestrians wearing helmets: they are generally not going fast enough to have to worry and have better contact with the road than the small contact patches on bike tires. Also, if they were to literally "share the road" and walk down the streets with cars for miles and miles at a time, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea. (OK, it would be a bad idea, but the point is that their threat model is for the most part different.)

While bubble-wrapping the cyclist seems like the logical(?) extreme to protection, it obviously has its own drawbacks. That being said, if someone were to invent a device that is as minimally invasive as a helmet and could protect my spine when I'm cycling, I'd be pretty interested in it as well. A broken leg I can deal with; a broken spine or brain damage are a lot harder to recover from.

trombone

Containing as it does a logical fallacy, an inconsistency and and two misconceptions that paragraph really sums Zeuser's poor grasp of the subject.

Zeuser

Where's the fallacy? I did have a motorcycle crash back in 1990 and the helmet did save my life.
Where's the inconsistency?
Where's the misconception? Did you ever try biking in Downtown Toronto? It's scary stuff man!

conclusion: You have no idea what you're talking about!

twiggy_D

And that's the problem you see...

Instead of your message being "just try to give us the space we need and try not to hit us" you go on about how cyclists should wear helmets, and how reckless riders are without them.

What message does that send to motorists?
It tells them that cyclists not wearing helmets are at fault.


I really think that helmet = seatbelts should stop. The helmets = bulletproof vests argument works far better and draws more parallels.

Helmets help protect one part of the body
Bulletproof vests help protect one part of the body..
ect...
Whereas seatbelts provide no bodily protection, instead they stop you flying around when you hit something.

adriel

I just wish people could make a personal choice without trying to force it on everyone around them.

Whether or not someone is "sexy" with or without a helmet is nothing but peer pressure. Peer pressure sucks.

Have some people been saved because they had a helmet on? sure.
have some people died because they had a helmet on? yes.
are helmets uncomfortable? That is a personal answer, I cannot tell you you cannot tell me.
Have some people taken more risks and died as a result because they felt more protected by a helmet? Probably, we would only know by interviewing the dead cyclist.
Do helmets help if a car plows into you? Usually not.

The main point is that the whole issue of helmet effectiveness is not black and white, and calling me an idiot because I am aware of this is not pleasant or kind. And it makes me react defensively.

Would you not react defensively when you get called an idiot?

seventysevener

What about these? I'm listing this one on eBay cos I personally don't like how much attention white would attract.

https://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=230276243966

I think they're practical and are classic. It can be so inconvenient going to class and having a hardshell helmet, someone needs to build a collapsable one!

adriel

I have actually considered something like that.

The great thing about them is they are designed to be used over and over, unlike the "disposable" helmets.

They seem to be a good balance between nothing, and the styrofoam helmet.

chipcom 

I've seen way too many lives that could have been saved by not being sent off to faraway crapholes where people shoot at them and blow them up...yet we continue to send them anyway.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda is freaking meaningless and I hate seeing it brought up in these kinds of discussions. Unless one claims omnipotence, they simply can do nothing but speculate about what might have happened had something been done differently. You don't know if someone would have lived had they been wearing a helmet, nor that they would have died or become a veg had they not been wearing one.

Edit: Your motorcycle accident included...neither you, nor anyone else, can declare with certainty that the helmet saved you or that you would have died without it.

hnsq

I am really confused about this thread. I understand the arguement made by both sides, but if someone swerves into me and my head hits the ground at 25 MPH, wouldn't I rather a helmet cracks instead of my skull? Granted you can wear full kevlar or something if you want to be truely protected, but your head is pretty important, right? Why can't you wear one and still ride as if you didn't?

Just because I ride with a helmet doesn't mean I am more reckless. Wearing a helmet doesn't make me feel any safer - getting hit by a car would still absolutely suck.


I go rock climbing pretty frequently, and this is the same arguement free climbers make. I just honestly don't understand. If there is a chance a helmet can help you, why not wear it?? What exactly is the downside? Personally, I don't see one.

If someone from the non-helmet crowd can enlighten me, I will definately listen. I know there is more to it than this, but other than personal image, and feeling more aware without a 'safety net', I don't understand why someone wouldn't wear one just in case.

closetbiker

I believe this thread is really about the social relevance of respecting others rights to do as they see fit and not be too judgemental when someone does something you may think is not the right thing for you.

Of course the thread turns to a debate on the helmet issue because that's what the objection was referring to.

I recently wrote another column that originally was going to deal with the need for cyclists on the road to be accepted by our current "car culture" as deserving the respect we should have but don't seem to get, but I tied it into the emails I've been getting and the importance of this dialog to improve our status on the road.

Most emails I received delt with bike trails and helmets so I used the points as a way to look at the way the cultural acceptance of bicycles on the road and how it reveals how there is difference in the views of our society.

The headline was different than I thought it was going to be. I thought the headline should have been something about cultural acceptance of cyclists on the road, but it ended up keying on the helmet issue.

The paper also placed the column in the news section instead of the Community section.

https://tiny.cc/hi1NR

Helmets a controversial safety tool

Brad Kilburn, Richmond News

Published: Friday, August 01, 2008

One of the more positive aspects of writing a column on cycling issues is the opportunity to open a dialogue with the community in the hopes of improving the overall climate for cyclists in Richmond.
I've had several e-mails raising concerns about increasing or improving separated lanes or trails for cyclists.

While I think these facilities are a good thing, we should face the reality that, unless we are interested in cycling as a purely recreational pursuit, at some point a bikeway/lane/trail will end and the cyclist will have to interact with traffic.

It's imperative that both cyclists and motorists accept cycling on the road as a positive measure for transportation in the city.

Cyclists already have both a historical and legal right to use the road, so what we need to seek now, is an overall cultural acceptance for our place on them.

I've also had some response on my column regarding helmet use.

I think a helmet is a good piece of safety equipment but there seems to be an unclear view of just what the relative risk of head injury for a cyclist is, and at what point a helmet's effectiveness fades.

Much of the confusion on helmet effectiveness seems to stem from a single study by Thompson, Rivera and Thompson that claimed an 85 to 88 per cent reduction in head and brain injuries for cyclists who wore helmets.

When whole populations of Australia, New Zealand and British Columbia, switched to mandatory helmet use and results didn't reflect these numbers, further examination of the study revealed faulty methodology, statistical error and no scientific knowledge of the mechanisms of brain injury.

Brian Walker, the director of the United Kingdom's principal test laboratory for helmets, has spoken up on the issue because, in his words, "so many opinions on the topic have been technically adrift of reality or based on misinformation."

Writing in an article for the journal of the United Kingdoms national cyclists organization, Mr. Walker explains that the tests cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should provide similar protection to a pedestrian who simply trips and falls to the ground.

He explains that cycle helmets are the most fragile type of safety helmet and that the standards for helmets have lowered over the years.

Newer helmet designs offer less protection than previous ones, and in today's road traffic accidents, it's not unlikely for a helmet to be subjected to severity loads greater than what it is designed to cope with.
Walker describes a court case in which he was an expert witness.

The Queens council tried to persuade a respected materials expert and two prominent neurosurgeons that one must be safer in a simple fall with a bicycle helmet on than not.

All three refused to do so explaining that brain injury is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping statement to be true.

Since the inherent aerobic benefits of riding a bicycle actually lowers the risk of acquired brain injury through heart disease/stroke to a much greater degree than cyclists are likely to receive from a traumatic brain injury through accidents, and ticketing cyclists who may be riding without helmets actually leads to fewer people cycling (re: The British Medical Journal), and that fewer people cycling actually leads to more collisions between cyclists and motorists (also, from the BMJ), it would seem that ticketing cyclists for not wearing helmets for their own safety is a self-defeating exercise.

Considering also that it has yet to be shown that a cyclist is at any greater of risk of head injury than any other individual doing any number of other routine daily activities, I find this action reflects the same lack of cultural acceptance of cycling on roads that I brought up earlier.

My next column will address a more effective method of reducing injury: Predicting when and where collisions occur and how to avoid them.

Send questions and comments to Brad Kilburn at thespokesman@rocketmail.com.

Six jours

One part of the argument is that bicycle helmets really don't offer much protection. I, for one, see little evidence that helmets make much difference in high-speed falls involving automobiles. I do believe that they are a little better, but not so much better as to justify the stridency that helmet fans display.

Many of us say this exact thing. Statistically, however, it appears as though helmet wearers take more risks than non helmet wearers, on average.

This -- the bolded part especially -- makes you a minority, in my experience. Many riders do seem to believe that a few ounces of foam makes them "safe", and in my opinion this is a big part of the reason why group riding is so much more dangerous than it used to be.

As a mountaineer, I think there is an interesting analogy to be made here. I -- and all the climbers I know -- make a choice about when to wear the helmet. We analyze the objective hazards and decide when and where to don the helmet. Informed personal decision is the norm here. Cyclists, OTOH, seem to take a "zero tolerance/zero thought" approach: put on the helmet and you are "safe", ride bareheaded and you are a moron. Well, when climbing I do not wear the helmet on the approach and I do not wear it on gentle snow slopes. When ice or rockfall becomes a threat, or when a long fall becomes a possibility, then the helmet goes on. I go through the same decision making process for cycling. The only real difference is that my fellow cyclists are distinctly less tolerant of this than are my fellow climbers.

Taking the philosophical question out of it -- and that is a big part of it, for many of us -- I am simply more comfortable with a cycling cap. It keeps the sun out of my eyes or off my neck, it absorbs sweat better than any helmet I have tried, and it has no annoying straps to fiddle with. If I truly believed that the helmet made a substantial difference in safety, I would put up with it, but as I honestly do not see any substantial need for the helmet, then I choose to use whatever suits my individual purposes best.

As always, I have no argument at all with the person who chooses to use a helmet every time. I simply want the freedom and respect to make my own choice as well.

nkuvu

I always wear a helmet, but I agree with this statement.

hnsq

thanks for the help all. I am fairly new to cycling (only about 2 years) and it is interesting to consider this point of view.

perico

Wear your helmet stupid, aside from car wrecks (drunk driving), being killed (either in a gang or wrong place wrong time), not wearing a helmet is something like the third biggest killer of people under 35. Stupidity is a preventable disease, although not wearing helmets might cure hipsters of being hipsters and convert them into hospital patients. Not wearing a helmet is just as stupid as not wearing a condom, not wearing your setbelt or jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. And if you dont ride with a helmet, you dont have my respect and you wont have my sympathy.

closetbiker

apparently not ...

Six jours

I guess we'll have to learn to live with that.

trombone

I guess you dashed this off without really thinking about it. However, I'd encourage you to think really really hard about what you have written.

Some points to ponder:
- is not wearing a helmet really contributing that much to deaths under 35? You might want to check this one out a bit more. Google is your friend. (Hint - you are way off the mark. Way way off.)

- Is not wearing a helmet really as stupid as not wearing a condom? I have a monogamous relationship with my wife, and we are trying for a baby. Wearing a condom would be really rather stupid for me, don't you think? (Hint - clarity of language is important. Think about your analogies more carefully. Do they really help inform the debate?)

- You wouldn't give your sympathy to someone who wasn't wearing a helmet? If you came across someone who was in a wheelchair because he was hit by a truck whilst riding without a helmet and the truck ran over his legs (but his head was uninjured), you'd not offer him any sympathy; you'd rather say to him 'dude, I don't respect you coz you weren't wearing a helmet so it's your own stupid fault you're in a wheelchair'? (Hint - think about what you write, how vindicive it sounds, and try to have some humanity and humility.)