ShooterK2

So you're saying you'd rather get injured, make a trip to the hospital, probably ruin an evening, and get stitches, than to put a helmet on your head and probably be able to get up and keep skating when something like that happens? Look, I'm not trying to say that helmet saved my son's life in that crash. Nowhere in my post did I say anything like that. It wasn't a hard enough crash to kill him. A concussion? Possibly. But certainly blood, pain, and a knot. If I'd had one on when I was a kid, I wouldn't have had to go thru the pain of gravel in my scalp. I'm not saying a helmet will save your life in a terrible crash. But just like gloves on the hands, it'll save you some skin in the right situation and nothing you or anyone else can say will change my mind on this.

pacificaslim

That's all fine and dandy. But the real question remains does promoting your view to others have a net positive effect on society or does it just decrease cycling participation which increases the danger for existing cyclists and adds to pollution and obesity and all that.

nick burns

Doubt it. People don't ride because they're lazy, not because they don't want to wear a helmet.

ShooterK2

+1

John C. Ratliff

On the other side of this question, does promoting your view that helmets are not worth anything have a potentially negative effect on child safety, on your kid's potential health, on the neighborhood's outlook on riding safely? Do you also promote good riding habits, aside from the helmet? Do you use other types of cycling PPE, such as gloves? If so, how do you justify not using a helmet? Or is this only about mandatory helmet laws, such as I proposed a while back?

John

PS--I'm surprised that no one picked up on the auto air pollution aspect accounting for some 25,000 excess deaths in the USA. I think that we can also try to negate the huge amount of advertising about cars ("Zoom, zoom") from auto makers by starting to talk about their down-side.

closetbiker

show us just where someone is saying or promoting that a helmet isn't worth anything John. Then maybe we can take your post seriously.

John C. Ratliff

No, this is not true, and the Mills paper has shown this conclusively. By slowing down the decelleration of the head, you slow down the movement of the brain inside to survivable levels.

If you test the same impact with and without a helmet, you will find a difference made by the helmet. If the helmet impacts prior to the other parts of the body (nose, chin, teeth), it can influence the amount of damage to those structures too. If people do extremely hazardous stunts, such as the one you showed above from the picnic table, it would obviously be better and safer to have face protection built into the helmet, with a chin extension.

John

John C. Ratliff

So what were you saying when you posted in #4460:
Are you saying now that you think helmets have value?

John

closetbiker

My positon would be that I'd have to believe that it's more likely that a cyclist ends up with more stiches on his head than anyone else to consider wearing a helmet when I don't normally wear one otherwise.

And yeah, I can see your point of the costs (if you were to pay out of pcket) of having stitches may be more than purchasing a helmet, but that's not neccassarily true either. Depends on how much money you would want to spend on a helmet or if you want to replace it often. Presumably, the cost of the stiches would be more stable (although 2 stiches must cost more than 20)

closetbiker

John, you know full well of my views on what a helmet can and cannot do. You yourself have commented on our agreement of the effectiveness of a helmet in preventing a certain level of injury. That you make a comment like this only shows you either are being misleading or you can't comprehend what it is either you or I have posted.

closetbiker

The Mills paper deals with a headform and doesn't deal with what happens to an object, such as a brain, within a headform. The argument is not the rotational effects on a skull, but the effects of rotational movement on a brain within a skull.

closetbiker

so if the areas that are not covered by the helmet are not impacted, the injuries will be less severe?

Sounds reasonable.

Zeuser

You still at it closetbiker?

Didn't Mrs. Richardson's case make you think twice about how wrong you are? In case you didn't know: Blunt force Trauma caused her death. A helmet would've increased her survival chances.

And this was just a fall on a bunny hill.

trombone

I think you're being a bit sensationalist, John, when Talking about people 'dying needlessly'. Every day, people die because they chose to do something that has risks, and they are unlucky. They used a ladder to paint a wall. They played basketball. They had unprotected sex with a stranger.

And it's not about 'mitigation strategies', 'education campaigns' or even 'recommendations'. It the immediate jump to ' enforceable policy interventions' (ie legislation to make the 'dangerous' activity illegal) that rankles. Perhaps all of the other activities outlines above should also be subject to 'enforceable policy interventions' - after all, people are dying because they choose to do such reckless things, and by not acting we are being unethical.

Every day, I ride to work. I ride a fixed gear bicycle, because it's fun, and it makes my fairly short ride into a more intense workout.

However, fixed gear bikes come with a number of additional risks. Pedal strike is more likely. It's harder to jump up or down a curb if needed to get out of trouble. Throwing the chain can have much more serious consequences than on a regular bike. A failure of the foot retention system whilst on a fast downhill can be quite dangerous.

Goodness, it seems that riding a fixie is more dangerous than riding a regular bike. I hadn't realised how reckless I was being. I've even recommended to some friends to try out fixed gear riding - how can I live with myself? From this point forward I'm going to put my fixie aside, and start campaigning for enforceable policy interventions to prevent people riding fixed gear. To do anything else would not be ethical.

Absolutely. My slightly tongue in cheek comments above aside, I don't think anyone is asking for anything more.

John C. Ratliff

Trombone,

My son rides a fixed gear bike, and enjoys it a lot for a similar reason. I'm at an age where I need the gears. We were coming back home from the Bridge Pedal last year, I on my Trek 1420 and he on his fixie. We had to climb the Portland hills. He left me way behind, to the point that I had to tell some other bikers who passed me that, if they saw him, tell him I'm still coming. But I guess at my age, just climbing the Portland West Hills after riding the Bridge Pedal is enough. I haven't had any problems with him doing this as a safety issue, nor with you. By "dying needlessly," I'm saying that as a researcher compiling these data, that would be a reasonable assumption to make, both about ATV riders without helmets and bicyclists without helmets.

Concerning the point I was trying to make, you were taking a very personal view, and I was asking you to step into the shoes of the researcher and ask yourself those questions. I know your answer, but was looking for you to try to see things in just a bit different perspective, from the researcher's viewpoint.

Closetbiker,

I know what you said, but I see you continue to rail against someone who decides to wear a helmet. Actions speak louder than words.

John

ShooterK2

Well I don't know about everyone else, but when I was first getting into cycling, I absolutely loved going to the LBS and looking at all the gear, gloves, helmets, shorts, etc. It's just part of the hobby. And as with any hobby I've ever been involved in (and I've been involved in a LOT of different hobbies over the years), accessories are one of the fun aspects. My girlfriend and kids view it the same way. The day we all got new helmets (and ditched the Wal-Mart ones), the kids couldn't wait to go for a ride and try 'em out! And these days, it seems the prices have gotten pretty darn cheap for some really sweet looking helmets. And you can get them in a variety of colors to match clothing, bike, or whatever, if you're into that sort of thing.

So, no, I don't think it decreases cycling participation for the most part. Now, I agree that everyone won't view this subject the same as I did when I was starting out. I'm just stating how it happened with my family.

closetbiker

You've got to explain that one. Just who are you referring to me making comments about and just what exactly is "railing against"?

Seems to me you're commenting on my comment on Exit's post about knee pads and helmets and I can't see how explaining how each works or doesn't is "railing against" wearing a helmet.

Six jours

If the concern is that cyclists are exposing their heads to bumps, bruises, and scrapes, then I don't think there is any question that helmet can help prevent those things. Yet I never see people passionately argue for the use of elbow and knee pads, which are at least as good at preventing bumps, bruises and scrapes as helmets are. So don't they fall under the same definition of "common sense" that you have used to determine the value of helmets?

martl

I've only spent two months in the US, but my impression was that there bicycling is majorly a leisure activity; if people used their bikes to commute, or generally as a way of transport, it was mostly students. When we look at countries where bicycling is also a commuting/transportation vehicle, things get different.
When you commute to work, things like outer nice appearance become more important. Not only for female people who work in public areas, cramping up their haircut with a helmet is not an option for a <5km commute.
Also, the charme of using a bike for short distances is that its uncomplicated to use. The less additional equipment needed, the better.

martl

Ok. now you tell me why that only concerns you when on a bike. Theres no evidence at all that you're more likely to damage your head than at many other things you don't wear one.

nick burns

Isn't this Bike Forums not Many Other Things Forums?

Six jours

It isn't Glib and Brainless Retort Forums either.

HTH!

trombone

I'm still not convinced that it is a 'reasonable assumption'. Indeed, the whole point of research is that one avoids assumptions. The conclusion in the abstract you quote smacks of a research who started out with that assumption in mind. I haven't read the study, of course, but i suspect that is does not, for example, put the risks being taken by unhelmeted ATV riders in context (for example, comparing it with other activities, or looking at the effect of different styles of riding - is ATV racing particularly dangerous, for example?).

Here's an example of how study design can be used to reinforce a pre-determined conclusion. Lets' take the fixie analogy i used earlier.

If I wanted to demonstrate that fixie riding was more dangerous than a regular bike, I would design a study as follows:
- compile a list of ways in which fixie riding has more risks (like my one above)
- gather data on, for example, outcomes after throwing a chain, indicating:
- the % of times it has been a factor in a crash on a fixie
- the % of times it has been a factor in a crash on a regular bike
These data would indicate that throwing a chain was (much?) more likely to cause an accident on a fixie. I could then calculate the number of crashes that would have been prevented if fixie riders instead rode regular bikes. This would then lead me to the inescapable conclusion that banning fixies would lead to a reduction in these types of accidents, and therefore that enforceable policy interventions are warranted to reduce these risks.
You can imagine the headline:
' Research shows that a range of simple and common mechanical problems, eg a bike 'throwing the chain' are x times more likely to lead to an accident than on a regular bike. Reducing the number of fixed gear bicycles being ridden would therefore reduce injury and death rates by y, so enforceable policy interventions should be considered.'


You see the problem? it's back to my original point. Demonstrating that activity A is more dangerous than activity B isn't terribly helpful. Eating seafood is more dangerous than eating potatoes, for example, so perhaps we should ban seafood. Unless the overall risk level is put in context it's dangerous to make 'reasonable assumptions'.

nick burns

I see. Keeping the discussion to bicycling on a forum for bicycling is considered brainless. Gotcha.

Six jours

Well, you cut out the glib, anyway. Keep up the good work!