Schools and helmets...

[MarkS]

There's a kid somewhere who hung himself because he was wearing a bike helmet while climbing a tree, which proves that wearing a helmet will not help prevent skull trauma in the event of a bicycle crash.

For what its worth, kids' helmets come with warnings that they are not to be worn while playing on playground equipment. Like anyone reads those warnings ...

[richardmasoner]

...but perfectly willing to let taxpayers eat the cost of their own irresponsibility.

So tell me, Kris, what is the social cost imposed on you by all of those lidless bike riders versus the cost imposed on me by the expense of obesity related diseases?

For example, let's say two helmetless children suffered serious brain injuries last year and -- just for arguments sake -- let's make the dubious assumption that a helmet would have actually mitigated the damage. Lifetime care for these two children will run about $3 million.

In an alternate reality, these two children didn't get hurt because of enforced mandatory helmet rules. The reason they didn't get hurt is because they and 60 other children didn't ride their bikes because of the rule. In 2002, costs due to obesity related diseases runs about $1400 per person. With 70% of the US population now overweight, that runs to about $3 million in 2002 dollars for health care due to obesity.

I work with children in a school program to encourage cycling and walking. The program does require helmet use for participation, and I've seen first hand the reality that children just won't ride a bike if they're required to wear a helmet. This tends to be more the case of lower-income and immigrant children. We provide helmets free of charge to them, but since they received it for nothing that's about the value they place on the object and they tend to lose or destroy the helmet. Besides that, I'm pretty sure there's a peer element among lower-income children that doesn't exist for higher income kids.

[TRaffic Jammer]

My kids, by law have to wear a helmet, whenever riding. They have no issues whatsoever in using one. When the little one goes skating with her school, same thing. Get em young and used to the idea, you might do some good. You give the helmets away....I can see the perceived value issue you speak of. Too bad the real valuable is inside each one of those childs' heads. Fat is going to be the bane of the next 100 years I think. How many stroke and heart attack victims do we keep alive on ventilators and such? I fear those obesity numbers might be a bit low.....but man are they going to climb.

[KrisPistofferson]

I'm bowing out of this thread and leave randya and closetbiker to debate with the credulous risk management illiterates and emotional Klass Kutups.See ya!
:)

[KrisPistofferson]

If your worried about tax dollars going to a few head injuries a year then you really need to look at where else tax dollars are being wasted **cough** Iraq **cough**Yeah, I've been against that since it's inception, too. But this thread's not about Iraq, bro.

[KrisPistofferson]

So tell me, Kris, what is the social cost imposed on you by all of those lidless bike riders versus the cost imposed on me by the expense of obesity related diseases?

I don't know. There seems to be an awful lot of folks who assume that any kid who wants to ride a bike to school, when confronted with having to purchase a helmet, will automatically end up munching Cheet-ohs on the couch and getting their feet chopped off from type 2 diabetes. That's a whole lot of presupposition.

[closetbiker]

From all that I've understood about cycling, it's better for everyone, not just the cyclist, if someone rides a bike (that BMA study pegged it at a 20 to 1 benefit to risk ratio).

The first priority should be to get more people on bikes, helmet or not, if we care about individuals and society.

[TRaffic Jammer]

My daughter was beggin me to take her bike from the basement so she and I could go ride. Middle of winter and she wants to ride. *sniff* so proud. This from my eight year old whom has already has a speed wobble crash under her belt.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

childhood accidents requiring what level of medical attention?

"Bike injuries" is a pretty vague term and hardly applicable to the points being made here.
Gentlemen, Gentlemen,

You are asking a question that is based on the assumption that the answerer gives a poop about evaluating risk using logical, proven, non emotional methods.

Fuggediboutit with fools who think that accidents are accidents and there is no difference in severity to be considered. Such people would equate a drowning with a skinned knee. Both are accidents. Period.

The technically illiterate jokers think that because properly designed helmets can be useful in reducing risk in specific high risk applications, that somehow those positive results can be extrapolated to poorly designed bicycle helmets, built to pass minimal (at best) standards, and that in addition are to be used in a low risk application-bicycling. Even more damning is their convoluted risk evaluation technique that is based on converting a low risk activity like bicycling into a high risk/forbidden activity by the process of not wearing a helmet.

[noisebeam]

Why is it that kids feel insecure socially wearing helmets? Peer pressure. But why the pressure when all the pro's of 'head risk injury prone' sports wear helmets? Kids going to the skate park gladly wear their helmets as well.

I know when we (me and my two brothers) got helmets as 12 year old or so (didn't have them before then) we thought they were awesome and pushed us to do even stupider things on (and off) bikes. ;) We managed to destroy three helmets in about half a year.

Al

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Like anyone reads those warnings ...

Warnings, Yes Must Comply.

[TRaffic Jammer]

Do not remove this tag off the new mattress. lol
I have a helmet pet peeve in that kids and their parents who wear the helmet so far back on their heads that if they face planted you could roll them over and use the helmet to scoop up their faces. Some parents get it and say thanks overs are just incredulous that I dare speak to them about about anything regard them or their child's safety. This also tends to include sadly the kids in the little seat behind mom or dad.

[KrisPistofferson]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen,

You are asking a question that is based on the assumption that the answerer gives a poop about evaluating risk using logical, proven, non emotional methods.
Do you mean "logical" as in bicycle helmets do not keep kids safer in bicycle crashes because some kid, somewhere hung himself by the straps while climbing a tree, or "logical" as in bicycle helmets turn kids fat? You've made both assertions, and I am thoroughly confused. Welcome back, by the way!
:beer:

[JohnBrooking]

Or perhaps safety equipment consequences in humorous format for those who can't evaluate risk withouit emotional ranting.
Sorry to go a bit off-topic, but the cartoons reminded me of a situation in my own office. Our cubes have bookshelves with tops, and our local safety nazi, er, administrator decided that nothing should be put on top of the bookshelves, lest it fall off. I had been in the habit of putting my helmet up there, so I was asked not to do so, lest it fall off and hit me in the head! :)

[TRaffic Jammer]

Mine sits atop my computer...... A fracture caused a helmet....that's classic

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Do you mean "logical" as in bicycle helmets do not keep kids safer in bicycle crashes because some kid, somewhere hung himself by the straps while climbing a tree, or "logical" as in bicycle helmets turn kids fat? You've made both assertions, and I am thoroughly confused. Welcome back, by the way!
:beer:
You are confused. The helmet straps issue dealt with unanticipated negative effects from ill considered mandatory application of "safety" equipment. Such as reduction in bicyle usage and the overall ill effects on the public health.


If that is too confusing - Think Tris (2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate, the flame retardant chemical that was mandated for use in kids' pajamas in the 1970s which was banned by the CPSC in 1977 after it was found to cause kidney cancer when absorbed through the skin or inhaled.


As far as logic from a bicycling advocacy viewpoint, divorced from emotional ranting try:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3910

[JohnBrooking]

When I was in grade school the police used to come in and set up a course and we would all get our bicycle license. We never wore helmets even during the test :D
There's an idea. Not the necessarily the helmet part, but this: Allow children to ride their bike to school if and only if they successfully complete a safety course. Students completing the course would get a tag to mount to their bike, and any bikes without tags would be confiscated (to find out who the kid is).

Reasons to like this idea: Provides a certain amount of CYA for the school, while allowing kids to ride, addresses the need for safety training that we all (?) agree is more important than helmet wearing, and provides an incentive for kids to take the training.

Reasons to shoot this idea down: First step on the slippery slope to licensing bicycles, will inevitably discourage a certain number of kids who don't want to bother taking the course, kids could play practical jokes an other kids by removing their bike's tag.

[Roody]

OMG. Helmets cause cancer!

[Keith99]

OMG. Helmets cause cancer!

Not Mine!

And my aluminium liner keeps the aliens out of my head.

[Roody]

What about ....

1. Kids under 12 must wear helmets to school. These are the clumsiest kids with the softer heads, so they should definitely wear them. If they get used to wearing them at this young age, they might keep it up. Also, they're too young to decide for themselves, so we should decide for them.

2. Kids 12 to 16 -- Helmets are optional, safety course or bike rodeo is required. They are given a free helmet as their heads get bigger. Helmet design is cooler and celebrities like Lance promote them.

3. Kids over 16 -- Helmets mandatory when they drive a car, optional on a bike.

2. Kids

[I-Like-To-Bike]

OMG. Helmets cause cancer!
I believe you really are that dense, and so obtuse as to believe that really is the argument. Nothing posted by you on this thread indicates otherwise. Un-dang-believable.This is the thought process that bicycling advocacy has to overcome if it isn't to be viewed as the agenda of assorted crackpots, counter culure wierdos, and loose wing nuts.

[Roody]

I believe you really are that dense, and so obtuse as to believe that really is the argument. Nothing posted by you on this thread indicates otherwise. Un-dang-believable.This is the thought process that bicycling advocacy has to overcome if it isn't to be viewed as the agenda of assorted crackpots, counter culure wierdos, and loose wing nuts.
This comes close to an insult! :D

How dare you imply that my nuts are loose?!

[randya]

OK, time to lock this thread up! ;) :eek: ;) :D

[KrisPistofferson]

Past time. ;)

[slagjumper]

For anti helmet folks--

Kids skulls are thiner so there is some good justification for at least kids wearing helmets.

[TRaffic Jammer]

Look at the NHL and it's helmet policies....grandfathering in the regs..... Look at the benches now and the younger pros are wearing visors too, something you would NEVER see 10 years ago.