Fifty Plus (50+) - Food for Thought

http://www.mondrian-script.org/cycling2001/CurseOrCure.pdf

If helmets are good for bicycling they are 50 times better for automobile occupants. So why don't you wear a helmet in your car?

Don't forget the Nomex suit, gloves & roll cage!

I would hit my head (with helmet on) so much on the inside roof of the car and on the frame getting in and out that I would damage myself while wearing the helmet, in addition to being totally unsafe due to limited head motion and lower visibility.

This would require a complete redesign of the car to be practical, especially for those of us with long trunks.

With proper air bags and cage and "crunch" construction, you can achieve about the same safety factor, IMHO.

The public would never buy it. Think of all the "helmet hair."

[EDIT]

(BTW, I used to wear a helmet when I drove a forest service fire truck. ANd, it did, in fact, save me from serious injury when the truck rolled. In fact, I got an award for wearing it. But that truck had high rooflines and high door entrances and no seat belts - about 1959.)

http://www.mondrian-script.org/cycling2001/CurseOrCure.pdf

If helmets are good for bicycling they are 50 times better for automobile occupants. So why don't you wear a helmet in your car?

Probably because it would go over like a fart in church. :eek:

Seriously though, this argument is like listening to two opposing views on gun control. Both sides inevitably show The Incontroversial Facts, citing statistics and trends. It comes down to emotion and no politician who likes his/her job will touch it. Ever hear a Harley pilot talk about helmet laws? Makes 'em go nuts!

I think you and I briefly touched on the subject before, and agree that there is no cure for a car/bike collision. All we can do is try to reduce the chances, i.e., neon, helmets, lights and all the other stuff that makes sense. Un-like the Lancelots I saw yesterday riding well into the road instead of the designated bike lane. They did not spread any warm fuzzies for the cause.

I love the ladies bike in the photo - possibly a Gazelle.

Figures lie and liars figure. Statistics can be manipulated to "prove" anything you want if you select carefully what statistics you want to display and which you want to omit.

The actuality of helmets is simpler: Assuming you're in a bike accident, is your head more likely to be damaged with or without a helmet?

Yes, if the accident is sufficiently severe, a helmet may not save you (in fact, nothing may). However, I opt to skew the odds in my favor to the extent reasonably possible. I wear my helmet. Your life - your choice...

http://www.mondrian-script.org/cycling2001/CurseOrCure.pdf

If helmets are good for bicycling they are 50 times better for automobile occupants. So why don't you wear a helmet in your car?

For the same reason I don't wear a seatbelt or have an airbag when I cycle. I use appropriate safety equipment for the activity being performed. I also don't wear a hard hat to bed but I'm sure someone would find a way to argue that as well, complete with statistics and examples.

Figures lie and liars figure. Statistics can be manipulated to "prove" anything you want if you select carefully what statistics you want to display and which you want to omit.

The actuality of helmets is simpler: Assuming you're in a bike accident, is your head more likely to be damaged with or without a helmet?

Yes, if the accident is sufficiently severe, a helmet may not be sufficient to save you (in fact, nothing may). However, I opt to skew the odds in my favor to the extent reasonably possible. I wear my helmet. Your life - your choice...

Best statement re:helmet wear that I've read! My reasoning exactly.

How about seat belts for bikes?

I would hit my head (with helmet on) so much on the inside roof of the car and on the frame getting in and out that I would damage myself while wearing the helmet, in addition to being totally unsafe due to limited head motion and lower visibility.

Is it just me or aren't those same excuses treated with contempt by those who believe in helmets for bicyclists?

Seriously though, this argument is like listening to two opposing views on gun control. Both sides inevitably show The Incontroversial Facts, citing statistics and trends.

Well, the trouble with that is that bicycling doesn't have two sides with equal statistics. In fact the only pro-helmet literature ends up being sponsored by the helmet industry and uses seriously flawed data or analysis.

It's pretty difficult to argue with the lack of change in head injury statistics in the last 15 years since helmets have been pressed as "The Final Solution".

Figures lie and liars figure. Statistics can be manipulated to "prove" anything you want if you select carefully what statistics you want to display and which you want to omit.

The actuality of helmets is simpler: Assuming you're in a bike accident, is your head more likely to be damaged with or without a helmet?

Yes, if the accident is sufficiently severe, a helmet may not be sufficient to save you (in fact, nothing may). However, I opt to skew the odds in my favor to the extent reasonably possible. I wear my helmet. Your life - your choice...

Assuming you're in an accident? You're 50 times more likely to be in an accident in an automobile and a significant portion of the population don't wear seatbelts and another significant portion are injured by air bags.

You have many, MANY times more chance of sustaining a head injury falling from a ladder than from bicycling. Do you wear a helmet on your ladder each and every time?

Child obesity is now present in something like 15% of all children under the age of 19! Childhood obesity is responsible for 50 percent of new cases of pediatric diabetes, sleep apnea, and asthma. And helmet laws have been directly responsible for a tremendous drop in child bicycling.

And the results of helmet promotion is a tremendous reduction in bicycling among the effected population.

Figures lie and liars figure. Statistics can be manipulated to "prove" anything you want if you select carefully what statistics you want to display and which you want to omit.

The actuality of helmets is simpler: Assuming you're in a bike accident, is your head more likely to be damaged with or without a helmet?

Yes, if the accident is sufficiently severe, a helmet may not be sufficient to save you (in fact, nothing may). However, I opt to skew the odds in my favor to the extent reasonably possible. I wear my helmet. Your life - your choice...

What can you say to that?

Assuming you're in a car accident where the chances of head injury are statistically 4 times as great as on a bicycle would you be better off wearing a helmet or not?

Assuming you're in a ladder accident in which you are perhaps 10 times more likely to suffer a head injury than on a bicycle would you be better off wearing a helmet or not?

Those seem like perfectly straight forward questions. Can you answer them?

How about seat belts for bikes?

Silly as that sounds it has ACTUALLY BEEN SUGGESTED!

And yet school buses don't have safety belts.

I would hit my head (with helmet on) so much on the inside roof of the car and on the frame getting in and out that I would damage myself while wearing the helmet, in addition to being totally unsafe due to limited head motion and lower visibility.

Response:


Is it just me or aren't those same excuses treated with contempt by those who believe in helmets for bicyclists?

Response:

Well, I haven't hit my head too many times on the door or roof of my bicycle. :D

The limited visibility in a car would be caused by my lack of head motion as my helmet squished against the inside roof of my car.

I will agree (I think) with you on the following:

1. The tremendous emphasis in the media and elsewhere on helmet use has changed what used to be seen as a great activity for kids (and others) into one where the perception (by moms, in particular) is that bicycling must be a terribly dangerous activity/sport.

2. If the money that was spent on helmets was spent, instead, on bicycle safety education for kids, we would save far more injuries and lives than helmets do.

But the above two things will never change, so it is really hopeless. We should really ban all helmet wars on forums. I have seen them again and again, and they never solve anything. They just create hard feelings.

One of the statistical anomalies that occurs in these analyses is that many analyses compare automobile vs. bicycle accident, injury and death rates per hour of exposure instead of comparing per miles traveled. When we compare "miles traveled" exposure, bicycling becomes equally or more dangerous than the automobile. I guess, if I consider the bicycle to be "purely recreational," then the hours of exposure rates is important, but if I use the bicycle in place of my car, then the miles traveled exposure accident rates would predominate.

Signing off of this helmet war! :p

Well, I haven't hit my head too many times on the door or roof of my bicycle. The limited visibility in a car would be caused by my lack of head motion as my helmet squished against the inside roof of my car.
Wouldn't you want to wear the helmet only inside the car? And why would you hit your head against the roof? I'm 6'4" tall with short legs for my size and I wear a Fedora all the time without hitting it on the roof of the car and my car is a Escort ZX-2.



I will agree (I think) with you on the following:

1. The tremendous emphasis in the media and elsewhere on helmet use has changed what used to be seen as a great activity for kids (and others) into one where the perception (by moms, in particular) is that bicycling must be a terribly dangerous activity/sport.

2. If the money that was spent on helmets was spent, instead, on bicycle safety education for kids, we would save far more injuries and lives than helmets do.

But the above two things will never change, so it is really hopeless. We should really ban all helmet wars on forums. I have seen them again and again, and they never solve anything. They just create hard feelings.

Signing off of this helmet war! :p

This isn't a helmet war. From the very beginning I've stressed that there are probably good reasons to wear a helmet. Nowhere good enough to pass laws to force on people's heads, but certainly enough that cautious people might want to use them.

This subject is my cheval de bataille for many reasons and all of them are quite opposite from what they're presented as by helmet promoters:

As you point out, bicycling is made out to be a very dangerous recreational activity which reduces the numbers of people who would otherwise participate. The effects of this has been estimated by Dr. Mayer Hillman to cost at least ten times more in reduced physical fitness and hence earlier onset of sedentary diseases than all of the cost of the all of the deaths due to bicycling were helmets actually as effective as they are advertised to be.

And of course they aren't. In FACT, there is no detectable changes in the numbers of deaths or serious injuries on bicycle due to helmets. This isn't to say that it isn't there - simply that the effect is so slight that we should simply disregard it in legitimate discussion.

A parent thinks when told that bicycling is SO dangerous that a child should be forced to wear a bicycle helmet, they simply don't buy their children bicycles.

When helmet laws were passed in California for minors I personally observed the results. I was just returning to cycling and had a route I'd ride after work each day that was 10 miles in length. It passed by three local schools - a grade school, jr. high and highschool. Outside the jr. high and the highschool there were hundreds of bicycles. The paths leading into the school buildings were lined with bike racks and overflowing so that there were bicycles leaned against the buildings and on the lawns.

The helmet law was passed about mid-year and then was to come into effect on January 1. For over a year I had noted this huge number of bicycles and was curious as to what would happen with the helmet law. Well, it couldn't have been more dramatic. Before Christmas vacation there were these hundreds of bicycles and after the new year there were about a half dozen bicycles. Those too soon disappeared. The bike racks were forlornly empty for a year and then were removed.

Now the children are all driven to school. At the high school they've even started building PARKING LOTS for the kids!

So there's no helmet war save for those who are intent in making every person they see wear a helmet so that the helmet zealots don't feel out of place.

One of the statistical anomalies that occurs in these analyses is that many analyses compare automobile vs. bicycle accident, injury and death rates per hour of exposure instead of comparing per miles traveled. When we compare "miles traveled" exposure, bicycling becomes equally or more dangerous than the automobile. I guess, if I consider the bicycle to be "purely recreational," then the hours of exposure rates is important, but if I use the bicycle in place of my car, then the miles traveled exposure accident rates would predominate.

Uhh, can you explain to me why miles traveled should be used instead of exposure hours?

If you wish to reduce the statistic which is accidents per mile traveled you need only increase the speed of traffic and you find that this statistic falls. Does this REALLY make driving faster safer? My point is that this is a falacy designed ONLY to make bicycles look unsafe.

I am neither a helmet proponent nor critic, in fact I rode back when helmets were leather straps (like Russian tank crews wore) and only used in races.
30 y later - The helmet provides an unquestionable degree of head protection - according to the statistics you present the helmet law has in fact had more negative than positive repercusions. With all statistics aside would you let your kid go out on a ride without one?

Uhh, can you explain to me why miles traveled should be used instead of exposure hours?

Is it safer to drive my car to work or to ride my bike?

Quote: "This isn't a helmet war. From the very beginning I've stressed that there are probably good reasons to wear a helmet. Nowhere good enough to pass laws to force on people's heads, but certainly enough that cautious people might want to use them."

I agree completely.

With all statistics aside would you let your kid go out on a ride without one?

Abosolutely. But my four kids all wore helmets because it was part of the uniform of serious cyclists and not because they felt it to be a safety measure.

Two daughters rose to be 12th and 14th in the nation in their age classes in road racing and one of them got a silver medal at the Jr. Olympics TT.

One thing is plain - they had a great deal better judgement about bicycle safety than some gym teacher in 7th grade.

How about seat belts for bikes?

That's what CLIPLESS PEDALS ARE!!! :roflmao:

...the results of helmet promotion is a tremendous reduction in bicycling among the effected population.

Peace, cyclintom - I'm not trying to get you to wear a helmet (nor to get anyone else to). I choose to wear mine and said why. There are legit reasons to disagree with my position and I respect them. Your life - your choice.

...Assuming you're in a car accident where the chances of head injury are statistically 4 times as great as on a bicycle would you be better off wearing a helmet or not?

Yes, I'm probably safer wearing a helmet in a car too. That's why race car drivers wear them. The head injury statistics you quote, though, include a large number of cases where the driver was not wearing a seat belt and was ejected from the car head-first through the windshield. Since I ALWAYS use seat belts AND drive a car with a functioning air bag, I eschew a helmet in my car to increase my peripheral vision and my hearing acuity. Reasonable trade-offs, don't you think?


Assuming you're in a ladder accident in which you are perhaps 10 times more likely to suffer a head injury than on a bicycle would you be better off wearing a helmet or not?

I work in occupational safety where EVERYONE wears a hard hat while on ladders or elsewhere. Besides, I've never seen a statistic of 10x more head injuries in ladder accidents. You make that one up?


Those seem like perfectly straight forward questions. Can you answer them?

Seems like I just did. ;)

Yes, I'm probably safer wearing a helmet in a car too. That's why race car drivers wear them. The head injury statistics you quote, though, include a large number of cases where the driver was not wearing a seat belt and was ejected from the car head-first through the windshield. Since I ALWAYS use seat belts AND drive a car with a functioning air bag, I eschew a helmet in my car to increase my peripheral vision and my hearing acuity. Reasonable trade-offs, don't you think?

Look, according to highway safety statistics, 300,000 traumatic brain injuries occur to car occupants each year and some 10,000 of them are fatal injuries. Some 16,000 others end up permanently disabled to some extent. MOST of these injuries are to occupants of automobiles WHO ARE WEARING SEAT BELTS and IN CARS WITH AIR BAGS. The fact is that side impacts have always been the leading cause of injury and death in cars and NOT head-on collisions. And these are the sorts of accidents most likely to cause head injuries.

Each year there are 428,000 or so traumatic brain injuries including some 22,000 deaths from falls and a large portion of these falls are from ladders. OSHA has stated that "misusing ladders is the rule and not the exception in industrial accidents".

These figures are available from the CDC on the web.

Why assaults comprise some 11% of the 1.5 million traumatic brain in juries in the USA each year.

And bicycles? Even though bicycles are thought to be the most widely practiced sport in the USA with perhaps 1/2 of the population riding a bicycle at least once a year there are only some 500 deaths accountable to brain injuries and perhaps another 1,500 "serious head injuries" and practically all of them resolve to normal or only slight impairment. Only 2% of all fatal accidents involving motor vehicles involve bicycles as well. Compare that to some 16% which involve pedestrians.

And there are other matters to consider - although head injuries are accounted for as the "primary" cause of death in some 60% of the bicycle fatalities virtually all of these cases have multiple fatal injuries. ER Doctors tend to write in the "primary" cause of death in these cases as head injury since that is most obvious. However, since some 90%+ of all bicycle related fatalities involve motor vehicle collisions there are other fatal injuries that simply aren't listed. The results of this is that the tables showing fatal injuries to bicyclists tend to be misleading.

31% of all automobile deaths are caused by head injuries and almost ALL of them would be prevented by a simple helmet essentially identical to a bicycle safety helmet.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html

"CAUSE OF DEATH PERCENT
(1) Hemorrhage 41.6%
(2) Cerebral injury 30.5%
(3) Combined injury 15.2%
(4) Spinal injury 5.5%
(5) Crush asphyxia 4.9%
(6) Chest injury 2.1%"

Since there's approximately 50,000 deaths a year that means that wearing a bicycle helmet in a car would cause the saving of some 15,000 lives a year.

And yet people here are discussing how important a safety helmet is on a bicyclist despite hard evidence that they do essentially no good.



I work in occupational safety where EVERYONE wears a hard hat while on ladders or elsewhere. Besides, I've never seen a statistic of 10x more head injuries in ladder accidents. You make that one up?

Whoops, screwed up the cause of "fall". Actually you have about twice the lifetime chance of dying on your bicycle as dying in a fall from a ladder. It is in "other unspecified falls" that you have a 10x greater chance of dying. http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Of course these odds are a little misleading because they are based on the numbers of people estimated to be involved in the sort of work that leads to these accidents vs the numbers of deaths yearly. In other words they are purely statistical and don't account for experience or carelessness etc. of individuals.

Nevertheless you'll see that they estimate that your lifetime chance of dying in a motor vehicle accident is some 21 times that of dying in a bicycle accident. I suppose one has to wonder why anyone would be so obsessed with "SAFETY" helmets on bicycles and not in cars.

This is precisely the sort of thing I wanted to bring out when I titled this thread. Please THINK about what you're doing and why.

If you feel safe enough to ride about in your automobile without resorting to wearing body armor and crash helmets then you should feel just as safe to ride about on your bicycle just as everyone did up until the mid-70's.

Now, as I stated, there are good reasons to wear a helmet - even the most experienced rider can fall for any number of reasons and knock his head against the ground causing injuries from lacerations, scrapes or even concussions. If you wish to wear body armor to prevent these injuries that's completely sane and logical.

What isn't sane and logical is using the false notion that people are in "danger" without helmets to try to coerce others to wear helmets. And that is what people in the USA have an ugly habit of doing.

While we're at it check out the lifetime odds of dying on your bicycle compared to ANY OTHER NON-TRANSPORTATIONAL INJURIES! It shows that you have 7600% more chance of dying from some other accident!

The underlying truth here is simple - bicycling is not just an extremely efficient and effective means of transportation, recreation and exercise, but that minor injuries aside it is an extremely SAFE form of recreational activity.

And that's the message we should be carrying to people - not "ALWAYS WEAR A HELMET OR YOUR BRAIN WILL BE SMASHED ON YOUR FIRST RIDE".

...What isn't sane and logical is...to try to coerce others to wear helmets...

We are in agreement 100%. Although I choose to wear a helmet when I bicycle, I'm against forcing others to do the same. It is their choice.

AS long as they have the financial means to pay for a lifetime of care with a seriously disabling head injury , I dont care if they ride naked ! ( Digital Gee excepted...:))My helmet saved my life twice this year...first when the golf ball hit me..and again when I smashed it on the fall. Too bad they didnt have something for my collar bone.

AS long as they have the financial means to pay for a lifetime of care...

Your arguement cuts to the core of what cyclintom wants to discuss: Because something is a good idea, does society have the right to make it mandatory?

Obviously, society does make some "good ideas" mandatory. Seat belt use in automobiles is mandatory in most states, as is helmet use for mototcyclists in most.

The question is, where should that authority end? Should we outlaw skateboarding, snowboarding, scuba diving, and sky diving because they are risky? At what point does a free society's responsibility for the ultimate medical welfare of its citizens outweigh the citizens' right to make personal choices?

These are questions that won't be solved on an internet forum. We can weigh in with our opinions and justifications of comparative risk (as cyclintom does), but in the end, the citizens as a group define what is acceptable and what is not.

One problem with that concept is that the average citizen has a poor understanding of what risk is. The average citizen, consequentally, has a poor concept of acceptable vs. unacceptable risk. Until education can replace superstition, we'll have to live with a series of bad (or at least questionable) decisions from our society.

. Too bad they didnt have something for my collar bone.


They do.

AS long as they have the financial means to pay for a lifetime of care with a seriously disabling head injury , I dont care if they ride naked ! ( Digital Gee excepted...:))My helmet saved my life twice this year...first when the golf ball hit me..and again when I smashed it on the fall. Too bad they didnt have something for my collar bone.

I do find your posting interesting and I have a few questions:

1) How often do you suppose people are killed by golf balls?

2) How often are people killed falling off of their bikes?

3) Why is it that you propose that the golf course and/or the specific golfer didn't bear responsibility for your injuries and assign them instead to yourself and then onto anyone that happens to ride a bicycle?

4) How many bicyclists do you think are wards of the state after their head injuries?

It would appear from your postings that you believe that people bear no responsibility for their own actions and that the state has the responsibility to provide every protection possible for its citizenry.

Are you also for laws mandating the wearing of four point seat belts and crash helmets in automobiles?

...It would appear from your postings that you believe that people bear no responsibility for their own actions and that the state has the responsibility to provide every protection possible for its citizenry...

Cyclintom, you've drawn exactly the opposite conclusion from what the poster clearly said! The poster you responded to said that those who choose to take risk should be responsible for the consequences of their own choices!. How you got to "no responsibility" from that, I'll never know.

You also seem compelled to throw into your posts a plethora of irrelavant-to-the-point-of-being-non-sequitur information about pursuits other than bicycle riding. Your contention seems to be that because these other activities carry more risk than bicycling, either the other activities should be more regulated or that bicycling should be less. These arguments are spurious. Bicycling is a thing in itself (and the sole topic of these forums). Please confine your posts to the topic at hand (bicycling).

Again, helmet "wars" lead only to hard feeling, never change anyone's mind, and should be banned from all forums.

I must have read 30 "helmet/no helmet/forced helmet/optional helmet" types of threads over the years.

No one, repeat, no one ever changed their mind or their thinking as a result of the discussion - at least that they admitted to in the threads.

Again, helmet "wars" lead only to hard feeling, never change anyone's mind, and should be banned from all forums...

Agreed. I resign from this thread.

I haven't seen anything that indicates helmets would be of much value for a driver who's properly belted in, particularly in a car with air bags. At low speeds you're already adequately protected by the car and its "crush space," and high speed crashes are rare enough and the impact severe enough that a bike helmet, while it certainly would save some lives, would be worth the hassle.
Plus people just won't DO it. They won't even fasten seat belts or learn to drive, beyond just aiming the car between the lines most of the time. If they didn't take innocent victims with them so often, I could argue that we'd be interfering with natural selection.

I must have read 30 "helmet/no helmet/forced helmet/optional helmet" types of threads over the years.

I'll bet you've read more than that; I know I have! :D

As a result of this thread, I am thoroughly convinced. :D

I'll bet you've read more than that; I know I have! :D

Yes, probably

Typical scenario:

Person(s) A has a previously formed opinion about the value or lack of value or required or not required use of helmets, and then goes searching valiantly through the internet and whatever to find every single argument, "fact" or "statistic" in favor of or supposedly supporting his/her position.

Person(s) B - has the opposite viewpoint and also goes searching everywhere for any argument, "facts" or "statistics" that supposedly support Person B's thesis.

Then, eventually, after deriding each other's fact sources and arguments it gets into some sort of disguised name calling and then degenerates further and further, until it becomes personal.

In the meantime, nothing is gained except, perhaps, using some previously unused bandwidth on the internet!

But, I will have to admit, this is the first helmet thread I've read where golf balls were cited as an argument! That's a new one. :D

As a result of this thread, I am thoroughly convinced. :D

For once I agree with someone on a helmet thread!

Cyclintom, you've drawn exactly the opposite conclusion from what the poster clearly said! The poster you responded to said that those who choose to take risk should be responsible for the consequences of their own choices!. How you got to "no responsibility" from that, I'll never know.)
Maybe you missed it but the exact quote is: "AS long as they have the financial means to pay for a lifetime of care with a seriously disabling head injury , I dont care if they ride naked!"

I interpret that as saying that UNLESS people have such money in their possession they should refrain from riding a bicycle without a helmet. Are you disagreeing with that reading? If so, why?

I mean, entirely aside from the fact that he stated that he was almost killed by a golf ball, he believes that he as a rider was responsible for the non-injury and that neither the golfer nor the golf course had any responsibility at all.

http://emj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/19/6/576 It looks like 6 GB children suffered head injuries from golf balls and apparently they were only lacerations. However Chuck5.2_in_CA believes that his helmet saved his life from that golf ball that attacked him on his bike. Moreover, the resulting FALL from his apparent surprise at being accosted by a vicious head non-injury apparently would have been fatal as well



You also seem compelled to throw into your posts a plethora of irrelavant-to-the-point-of-being-non-sequitur information about pursuits other than bicycle riding. Your contention seems to be that because these other activities carry more risk than bicycling, either the other activities should be more regulated or that bicycling should be less. These arguments are spurious. Bicycling is a thing in itself (and the sole topic of these forums). Please confine your posts to the topic at hand (bicycling).
And you seem to want to avoid pointing out that bicycling is so safe that you can expect to ride many millions of miles before having even a 50% chance of a serious head injury? I wonder why that idea is so provocative to you?

Why would bicycling be somehow so dangerous that a person engaging in it be considered stupid and irresponsible for riding without body armor, but pedestrians who stand a much higher chance of suffering serious or fatal head injuries be somehow exempt from the same theory? When studies have stated that safety helmets providing no more protection than a bicycle crash helmet could save up to 15,000 lives per year in automobiles why do you suggest that the statistically irrelevant bicycle helmet is somehow MORE relevant?

Please explain to me why you believe that individuals are subservient to the state and responsible for avoiding expenses to that state, to which they pay a large part of their income to support? Are you suggesting that somehow the 50% of my income which the state has taken from me for almost 40 years gives me no right to be injured?

Oh, wait, maybe you and Chuck5.2_in_CA believe that somehow it is YOUR taxes and not mine which would pay for me? Do you believe that a person who purchases insurance from the same company as you and then legitimately collects on it is stealing money from you?

I'm afraid that it is you who are mixing subjects here. This is not a socialist state and your taxes do not pay my way, mine pay my own way. Bicycle helmets are statistically irrelevant at preventing serious or fatal injuries and people who promote the use of helmets are being illogical and silly unless they're equally anxious to put them on the heads of pedestrians and auto occupants where they would have AT LEAST as much effectiveness.

Again, helmet "wars" lead only to hard feeling, never change anyone's mind, and should be banned from all forums.
OK, then here's proving you wrong. I was the safety director of the American Federation of Motorcyclists, a motorcycle road racing organization in the late 60's and early 70's.

I thoroughly believed the literature from Bell Helmets but since it was my position, I actually went out and studied the subject of safety helmets. What I discovered shocked and dismayed me. (Let's remember the words of Dr. Shively, the director of the Snell Memorial Foundation and one of the world's foremost experts on safety helmets, "... it is impossible to build a helmet that will offer significant impact protection")

I spoke to Dr. Shively himself on a couple of occasions and he was an honorable man and one who had no ego tied up in someone else's commercial business ventures. He was interested in safety first and foremost and he would let the chips fly where they would in the interests of safety.

Motorcycle crash helmets were being promoted as completely effective. So effective were they that Bell Helmets were advised by their legal staff that it was only a matter of time before someone's family sued them out of business because motorcycle deaths were so common and helmets offered essentially no protection.

Bell had no other business and asked if bicycle helmets (incidently a much larger business in the long run) would be a safer legal option. They were advised that bicycle accidents were rare and serious bicycle accidents generally involved motor vehicles which normally carry insurance, so it was a far safer bet.

I stopped riding and racing motorcycles in the mid-70's and forgot about helmets. When I started riding bicycles in the late-80's I assumed that although helmets were ineffective for motorcycles that they'd be OK on bicycles.

But being an engineer I actually looked into it. And was again shocked and dismayed at what I found.

And here is the gist of it - a crash helmet was designed to absorb the relatively mild impacts of a racing car driver's head striking the inside of his vehicle while wearing a four point harness and racing on a track. These accidents are generally single vehicle accidents without collision with a solid and fixed object.

EVERY OTHER use of a helmet is ineffective for anything other than very mild loadings. For instance, a fall from your bicycle seat to the road below while stopped - and striking in a manner in which your hands or shoulders or other body part doesn't absorb part of the energy in that fall - can kill you.

This is a feature of the 10% of serious or fatal accidents that do not involve motor vehicles. A rider falls off of his bike and strikes his head on the curb or goes over the bars head first or in any other manner in which the helmet is required to absorb MORE than the 11 lbs falling less than 7 feet of the Snell B-95 standard.

From the Snell B-95 Standard:

E4.3 Test Impacts

Each sample will be subjected to no more than four test impacts. Test impact sites shall be on or above the test line. Rivets, vents and any other helmet feature within this region shall be valid test sites. Similarly, no allowance shall be made for the cut of the helmet either between the fore and rear planes or at the rear centerline; no matter how closely the edge of the helmet encroaches on the test line. However, if a test impact is sited closer than 120 mm to any previous test impact site on that sample, that impact shall be declared invalid.

There is no restriction regarding test anvil selection except that each anvil shall be used at least once for each helmet sample tested. The impact energies for each test impact are as follows:

a. For each impact against the flat anvil, the impact energy shall be 110 J for certification testing and 100 J for all other testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 2.2+ meter drop of a 5 kg headform and supporting assembly.

b. For each impact against the hemispherical anvil, the impact energy shall be 72 J for certification testing and 65 J for all other testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 1.3+ meter drop of a 5 kg headform and supporting assembly.

c. For each impact against the kerbstone anvil, the impact energy shall be 72 J for certification testing and 65 J for all other testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 1.3+ meter drop of a 5 kg headform and supporting assembly.

d. If the impact energy for any test impact exceeds the energy specified by more than 3%, that impact shall be declared invalid.

Let's put this in normal everyday terms - if you fall and your head falls 4'3" (the height of a man quite bent over on a bicycle) and your head hits a curb AFTER your shoulder so that the weight of your body doesn't add to the mass of the head strike you have maxed out the protection capacity of your helmet.

If you go over the bars and land squarely on your head the helmet is essentially worthless. If you fall sideways sitting up and you turn so that your head strikes first thereby adding the mass of your neck and body to the blow you are sunk.

The fact is that under MOST conditions in which a helmet would be expected to offer some service it simply is so inadequate that promoting helmet use is contrary to common sense since it leads people to falsely assume that helmets are more effective that they truely are and causes a form of risk compensation that actually increases many people's chances of injury or death.

How many people have you seen over the years that claimed that a helmet saved their lives? This despite the fact that there are the same numbers of deaths and injuries each year? Are we to assume that all of a sudden the possible deaths and injuries took a sharp increase that was mitigated ONLY because Bell Sports magically began making helmets at the same time this increase in danger began?

The fact is that most people do not strike their heads squarely. The human reaction system is designed to protect the head and face and in most cases works. You put out your hands or turn your boy in mid-air or whatever other gymnastic is required to keep from making a direct impact on your face or head.

Personally I have crashed motorcycles hundreds of times in some 10 years of off-road riding and racing. I have crashed on my bicycles a couple of dozen times mostly off road but some on road. In every one of these falls I have hit my head twice. Once when sliding down a race track at 80 mph and I ALLOWED my head to touch the ground since it was "safely" inside of a helmet and the helmets was getting heavy. The other time I went over the bars in a paceline accident, did a complete flip and the very back of the helmet touched the ground making the slightest of dents in the foam liner. The same sort of helmet damage that so many people proclaim as having saved their lives.

My point is that I believed in helmets. So did Franks Krygowski and so did Ken Kifer. But we looked into the engineering positions behind helmets and discovered the fraud involved NOT by the Snell Memorial Foundation and generally not by the actual commercial interests who know better than to make patently false claims about their products but by so-called "safety" organizations.

I am not sure what the hell is behind the idea that somehow we need to follow the advice of Big Brother or be condemned to hell but that IS the mani message from the helmet supporters.

Again, helmet "wars" lead only to hard feeling, never change anyone's mind, and should be banned from all forums.


OK, then here's proving you wrong


I actually went out and studied the subject of safety helmets.


I spoke to Dr. Shively himself


But being an engineer I actually looked into it.
and many other similar statements by cyclintom

Sorry, your proved me right, not wrong. it wasn't a "helmet war" that proved or disproved or changed your mind or whatever, it was your own research.

Again, helmet wars are non-productive and change no minds. It is individual research such as yours that is more likely to change someone's mind.

So, Fox, you appear to be saying that your mind is made up and you have no intentions of learning anything on the chance that you might be wrong in your original assumptions?

What do you suppose made me go out and learn about helmets?

I am a complete "For Helmet" person. I know that I have had several accidents that have wrecked a helmet, and the worst I have had as an after effect is a headache. The rest of the body and clothing has been cut and torn, but Still usable.

But then- I have yet to know of anyone killed by a head injury on a bike. Several reported in National and regional papers, but then it was never reported if they were wearing a helmet. They died of "Multiple injuries" or "received severe Head Injuries", but there has never been the highlight of as to whether they were wearing a helmet or not

What I do know is that within my small cicle of riding companions, we have a significent number of helmet changes in a year after falls. If a helmet can be damaged by a relatively minor fall, then all of us are going to keep using helmets, keep replacing helmets when they get damaged, and hopefully stay away from the hospitals and doctors for as long as possible.

Society does tend to look over our shoulders, breathing down the neck...sometimes overbearingly so, sometimes because the majority in fact do know better. No one of adult and discerning age is required to wear a helmet. You can proudly assert your individuality and freedom by cycling in your bald head. Of course such sometimes arrogance may be paid for by loved ones who will be changing your bedpan, or staring at your vacant chair. But then it was your risk...while others shared the consequence.

Anecdotal: I watched a friend endo going downhill. Skidded on his head. Crushed the top of his helmet but not his head...only a mild concussion and a hell of a headache. Scary to watch, worse to experience. His wife now barely tolerates his bike but loves his new helmet.

So, Fox, you appear to be saying that your mind is made up and you have no intentions of learning anything on the chance that you might be wrong in your original assumptions?

What do you suppose made me go out and learn about helmets?

Not being you, there is no way I would know. Why don't you tell us.

But, I really don't care about the issue. In my view of life and priorities, the issue is way down at the bottom of my list. I mean WAY down.

I am going to wear my helmet, I don't in the slightest care whether or not you nor anyone else (except my wife) wears a helmet, and I think the issue is highly overblown and can't imagine spending the amount of effort that you, Frank, Ken and others have put into it.

What is the big deal? I simply don't understand it.

I spend my energy and time on efforts to improve laws, funding and conditions for those with disabilities - which I think is a much more beneficial use of my time for society than worrying about helmets.



No one of adult and discerning age is required to wear a helmet.

Actually, in some jurisdictions, there are mandatory helmet laws for adults. (http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm) This is the true BIG fear of the anti-helmet crowd, IMHO. There are also mandatory requirements in some countries or parts of countries other than the USA.




The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups because we believe they are needed to raise awareness that helmets save lives, in the same way that seatbelt laws and smoke detector requirements were used to inform the public that those safety devices were necessary.




but then it was never reported if they were wearing a helmet. They died of "Multiple injuries" or "received severe Head Injuries", but there has never been the highlight of as to whether they were wearing a helmet or not

Interesting. Around here, that is generally mentioned in the second sentence of the news article. Something like:

"Joe Blow was killed when his bicycle was hit by a bus at 3rd and Elm today. Authorities reported that he was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident."

The automatic implication being that if he had been wearing a helmet, he would now be fine!

Now Dnvr, you don't think that I hold you in contempt do you? I'm trying to point out that helmets like most other things that people use for no good reasons are connected to something other than rational thought.

As for the importance of the subject of bicycle helmets I posted earler:

When helmet laws were passed in California for minors I personally observed the results. I was just returning to cycling and had a route I'd ride after work each day that was 10 miles in length. It passed by three local schools - a grade school, jr. high and highschool. Outside the jr. high and the highschool there were hundreds of bicycles. The paths leading into the school buildings were lined with bike racks and overflowing so that there were bicycles leaned against the buildings and on the lawns.

The helmet law was passed about mid-year and then was to come into effect on January 1. For over a year I had noted this huge number of bicycles and was curious as to what would happen with the helmet law. Well, it couldn't have been more dramatic. Before Christmas vacation there were these hundreds of bicycles and after the new year there were about a half dozen bicycles. Those too soon disappeared. The bike racks were forlornly empty for a year and then were removed.

Now the children are all driven to school. At the high school they've even started building PARKING LOTS for the kids!

Don't you see the importance of that?

Now Dnvr, you don't think that I hold you in contempt do you? I'm trying to point out that helmets like most other things that people use for no good reasons are connected to something other than rational thought.

I doubt that is news to anyone. Humankind is a mixture of rational thought, irrational thought, physical, emotional and spiritual (and certainly some other things). To believe that only one of these aspects governs our actions would be foolish. Just think about "love." Nothing rational there (except perhaps for engineers? :D )

And if you are successful in getting kids back on bikes as they traverse to school, more power to you. As I understand it, the logic is:

1. Get rid of any requirements for helmets.
2. Then kids will ride bikes to school.

Good luck.

This thread is making my head hurt. By the way I am suing the golf course ! I couldnt catch the !@#$^&**()!@!!! golfer as I was busy taking business cards from passing PI attorneys....

Silly as that sounds it has ACTUALLY BEEN SUGGESTED!

And yet school buses don't have safety belts.

Its just like you to come up with a really good observation cyclintom! No argument here, I have never understood why school buses don't have seat belts. Good Point

Its just like you to come up with a really good observation cyclintom! No argument here, I have never understood why school buses don't have seat belts. Good Point

And I have never understood why bicycles don't have seat belts.

If helmets are good in cars, then seat belts ought to be good on bikes! :D :) :D

Here's why school buses don't (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=school+buses+no+seat+belts+why)

Now Dnvr, you don't think that I hold you in contempt do you? I'm trying to point out that helmets like most other things that people use for no good reasons are connected to something other than rational thought.

As for the importance of the subject of bicycle helmets I posted earler:

When helmet laws were passed in California for minors I personally observed the results. I was just returning to cycling and had a route I'd ride after work each day that was 10 miles in length. It passed by three local schools - a grade school, jr. high and highschool. Outside the jr. high and the highschool there were hundreds of bicycles. The paths leading into the school buildings were lined with bike racks and overflowing so that there were bicycles leaned against the buildings and on the lawns.

The helmet law was passed about mid-year and then was to come into effect on January 1. For over a year I had noted this huge number of bicycles and was curious as to what would happen with the helmet law. Well, it couldn't have been more dramatic. Before Christmas vacation there were these hundreds of bicycles and after the new year there were about a half dozen bicycles. Those too soon disappeared. The bike racks were forlornly empty for a year and then were removed.

Now the children are all driven to school. At the high school they've even started building PARKING LOTS for the kids!

Don't you see the importance of that?


I'm curious to know why the helmet requirement discouraged everyone from biking, if that is what happened. Also how then all the parents were prevailed on by this to drive their kids to school instead ofd simply making sure they had helmets & telling them to ride.

I've read that cycling overall has declined
as a % of the population, but is this demonstrably traceable to helmet laws? Seat belt laws don't seem to have reduced the # of motor vehicles on the road.

And I have never understood why bicycles don't have seat belts.

If helmets are good in cars, then seat belts ought to be good on bikes! :D :) :D

Here's why school buses don't (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=school+buses+no+seat+belts+why)

Well, gee Dnvr, let's use the helmet promoter logic - if it saves just ONE life aren't seat belts on school buses worth it? If you are in an accident would the kids be safer with or without seat belts?