chipcom 

The grim reaper returns.

nick burns

Wow, in 5 years here on these boards I've never once considered putting someone on ignore. Guess you should feel honored.

chipcom 

Give the man a cigar, he gets it...or would you rather have a beer?

Six jours

He figures his voice will carry better if he stands atop a pile of corpses.

Six jours

Ignore the rebuttals! It's easier than thinking!

nick burns

Good job! So long!

closetbiker

in the 6 years I've been on the boards, Zeuser is the only one on my ignore list.

I've put John on and taken him off a few times.

Zeuser is by far, easier to ignore than John.

ShooterK2

This is a very good point. However, using knee pads/elbow pads would almost certainly cause a person's ability to pedal and steer to be hindered. Possibly to the point of making it MORE dangerous, but maybe not. But certainly enough to cause one to tire much more quickly when riding. I just don't think you can say the same thing about the helmet. And besides, I've taken many a scrape/bruise/bump on my elbows and knees, and always been able to keep going. My head is a much more fragile part of my body, and I choose to protect it as much as possible.

Six jours

Professional Keirin riders wear elbow and shoulder pads, and pro downhillers wear what amounts to full body armor. Now they have even begun to wear neck braces with their full-face helmets, and they seem to go okay.

John C. Ratliff

Trombone,

I went ahead and downloaded the paper in question. Here's their purpose statement:
This was not predetermined, and used a database that was new to this type of analysis, the National Trauma Database for the years 2002 to 2006. They analyzed 11,589 injuries, and 289 deaths, and found that the economic impact is immense, over $3-Billion for 2003 alone in the USA. So there is a need, and a reason to look at this problem.

You state that "putting the risk into context" would have been nice; well they did that by using a different comparison, economic and the number of children killed. This is for a "recreational" activity. The adjusted odds ratio measured against the helmeted group for intracranial procedures at the hospital for the unhelmeted group was 3.41; for pressure monitor: craniotomy, 3.26 and skull, 1.82; for any procedure, 2.60; for a blood transfusion, 1.49; for ICU admission, 1.42. (I know Trombone understands these numbers, but for others, any number over 1.00 is a greater risk than the control group--in this case the helmeted ATV people.) So overall, they did a pretty good job. You have again jumped onto an abstract and ignored the data that they reported, looking only at their "agenda." But what if there were no agenda other than injury prevention?

Closetbiker,

I confess that you have been remarkably good in your responses in the recent past. So my only excuse is saying that you were jumping on people who wear helmets is that I was bringing my impressions from the past. I reviewed quite a few recent responses and could not find any out-of-line ones at all. Thanks for calling me on that one.

I will do a bit more of my own analysis, but will probably be tapering this off, as there are a lot of things happening, and I have some of my own research to do (occupational noise) and a paper to write. So you don't need to put me on the ignore list again. But sometime in the future, I'll return.

John

John C. Ratliff

I think that's pushing it a bit away from reality. Properly designed and worn, PPE will help.

John

Exit.

Irrelevant. Even if the level of protection is identical, your head is still more vital than your knee.

Why this is being turned into an argument, I've no idea. I've already stated that I don't wear a helmet either; it's just very obvious why helmets are considered more useful than kneepads.

martl

that is quite a weak reply and you possibly know it. Out of arguments?

closetbiker

but isn't your head more vital because of the brain within? That's the question.

This is an issue because the protection of the brain, and not the bone, is what's most important and where controversy lies.

nick burns

Ok, I'll spell it out since probably the only who understands my angle is closetbiker. So what if no one wears a helmet when they drive a car, paint a house or pick fruit. We are here talking about wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle. Other acitivities are irrelevent to the discussion, we need to stay focused.
It seems to me the same talking points are being replayed ad nauseum with absolutely no progress. One side brings case studies, the other side says they are flawed. There is absolutely no question a helmet will protect a bicycle rider from injury to the head. Even if it means just bumps, scrapes, cuts, or bruises. It could mean the difference from getting up and brushing yourself off, than having to stop your ride and make a trip to the emergency room for stiches. Many people are looking at a helmet to serve only that purpose. Yes there are gullible people out there who might think that they can sail through a windshield or into a tree and come out unfazed because of their helmet, but so what? There are people who think putting a Tornado Vortex into their car's air intake is going to give them better gas mileage. I think the average person should be given more credit that they understand no helmet will protect them from severe injury in a violent accident. Certainly anyone who rides motorcycles, skydives, or plays football understands that.
No one is forcing anyone to wear a helmet. If people tell you you should, who cares? I get jeered at in the neighborhoods I ride through on my commute very frequently, certainly not just for the fact that I'm wearing a helmet, but I'm sure it doesn't help. No one I see riding there ever wears one. No one. And frankly, I don't care if they do or don't. And I don't care if they mock me because I choose to wear one.
If your town, state, or country has a mantory helmet law, perhaps energies should be focused at the people who introduced the legislation in an attempt to convince them to overturn it.
Ok, I've had my fill of this thread. I'm sure this post will get lost in the course of the next 5000 posts, but have fun! It's been mildly entertaining.

Zeuser

Because a bike is unstable.
It's not so much the high speed collision where i think a helmet is going to help, it probably won't. It's the slow speed falling off the bike where I know bike helmets work. And as we've seen this week, a light fall can indeed kill you.

My position has always been: Some protection is better than no protection at all!

martl

It is irrelevant when you want to discuss the value of a helmet in an abstract way. Then helmet>no helmet. agreed.

If you want to find out whether it is a matter of good sense to wear a helmet for safety, the question: "How dangerous is cycling compared to other ordinary activities" becomes a vital one.

martl

This is a nice example to explain the difference between things that *feel* dangerous and things that *are* dangerous.
You may feel more endangered on your unstable bike, but in fact, you got a better chance of knocking your head in when you ride your 2t airbag equipped SUV. Eerie, eh?
That kind of fall could have happened indoors. while walking. while taking stairs. Of course, it only makes bike and ski helmets to something sensible people wear, and people who tongue-in-cheek propose walking- car- and stairwalkig-helmets complete nutters.

Zeuser

yes, it could've happened while walking, taking the stairs and so on. But the reality is that she was on skis. Skis are plenty unstable. You rarely see any beginners *NOT* fall. They always fall when learning how to ski.

The point i'm making is that certain activities are riskier than others and as such mandate more protection for one self. Skiing is risker than walking and biking is probably just a bit less risky than skiing or maybe at par.

Biking is riskier because you're one two wheels, one behind the other, which is very unstable at low speeds. Most people fall off their bike at low speeds. High speed accidents do happen but helmet or no, the result is usually the same. but falling off the bike at low speeds, you'll far better survival chances with a helmet.

Richardson probably would've survived that fall on the bunny hill if she had worn a helmet.

One argument us pro-helmet guys always have is: it's better to look silly than to be dead.

My argument has always been: some protection is better than no protection. It's better to risk the chance that a helmet might work than not take that chance at all. or as it's more commonly said: "better safe than sorry"

pacificaslim

You're still talking about how biking "feels dangerous" to you, not actual statistics on whether it is indeed dangerous or not. There is no need for you to speculate. The statistics exist. And they show that it is much less dangerous than you seem to think.

So why keep making people think it is so dangerous that they need to wear protective equipment when you know the effect of that is to scare some people away from riding bikes (especially parents keeping their kids off bikes, who then grow up to be adults who don't bike but drive cars and therefore increase pollution, get fat, etc.)?

Six jours

Zeuser created a "My helmet saved my life" thread a while back. In it, he detailed a fall he had while straddling his bike and attempting to lower his kickstand with his foot.

So you should understand his POV: being anywhere near a bicycle is extremely dangerous for some folks. He just doesn't seem to understand that his experience is not universal.

I-Like-To-Bike

And your "argument" has always been to endlessly repeat tired old bromides that indicate you think mouthing/typing a cliché is a suitable replacement for rational thought or an intelligent answer.

Six jours

And how many of them die? Enough to warrant all of them wearing helmets? Enough to mandate all of them wearing helmets? And if so, wouldn't it make equal sense to mandate helmets for all activities with similar or worse fatality rates?

About 34 skiiers die each in America, which is about half the number of Americans killed by lightning. Whoever pointed out that humans are lousy at evaluating risks was right on.

pacificaslim

Ah, I see. I suppose I'm just at the other extreme. I'm in my 40s and have never hit my head in a bike crash. I've also ridden skateboards in pools, ramps, downhill, and skateparks for 30+ years and have never hit my head either. (i did finally break a bone though: broke my arm/elbow last year!). Of course I've probably jinxed myself now and will probably fall down the stairs tonight and crack my head open, ha!

John C. Ratliff

I'm now 63, and it wasn't until I was in my late 50s that I hit my head. Prior to that, I had two skirmishes with cars and had not hit my head. So you never know. You've got a ways to go though to be out of the woods. Still, I hope you haven't jinxed yourself

John