Advocacy & Safety - Helmets Harmful? I dunno...

Originally posted by closetbiker
Point #1 can be argued. Point #2 is unarguable. Prevention is the best form of safety. Point #3 I agree with. I live in an area with a mandatory helmet law and have seen a big drop in cycling. This past year police have stopped enforcing the law and I have seen cycling increase.

As I said before, point 1 is just plain codswallop. A helmet saved me in a non-standing fall last year. Would my skull have survived the bang on the road without a helmet? I'd rather not find out. Point 2 - yes prevention is the best cure, but is there anything wrong with taking on board some additional protection anyway?

As far as a drop in cycling is concerned, it's easy to get carried away with one-sided statistics. For example, has anyone bothered to check the statistics in areas with no helmet laws? Could it be that there's been a drop in cycling in these areas too? Would they try to blame that on helmets? Or are there just other factors causing this drop.

"As I said before, point 1 is just plain codswallop"

Well, I'm not so sure. I was first alarmed at how the helmets are tested:

Helmets are tested in the lab for straight line (linear) blows only. The maximum 2 metre (6'8") drop simulates a 20 km/h (14 mph) impact. Direct impacts over 20km/h can be expected to be lethal.

What bothered me about this is that I want the helmet to save my head when I hit something (like a car or post or curb) at a speed greater than 20 kmh.

Many repected professionals (that know far more about physics than I could possibly know) confirm my worst fears:

"One has to agree that in high speed impacts [a helmet] won't prevent death."

Dr. William Lucas, Toronto Coroner, September 1998

"... it is impossible to build a helmet that will offer significant impact protection"

Dr. George Shively, The Snell Memorial Foundation

"... helmets will mitigate the effects of falling off your bicycle and striking your head... If a cyclist is accelerated by a car, then the helmet will not work and will not prevent a severe or even fatal injury"

Dr. Michael Schwartz, neurosurgeon and member of Canadian Standards Association Committee establishing helmet standards

In situations of a fall they [helmets] are next to useless because they do not protect against diffused brain damage. The damage to the brain would still have occurred because it is the rattling inside the skull that caused the damage.

-- Chief Pathologist Clive Cooke,
Coroner's Court Testimony, Perth, Australia


There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use.

-- Conclusions of a survey of 15 years and 8 million cases of American cyclist injury/fatality incidents
by G.B Rodgers, Journal of Products Liability 1988, vol 11, pp. 307-317

I also have to (again) bring up the point of Europeans (and Asians) not wearing helmets. How could they continue to live while riding without helmets? In a study betwwen riders in Boston and Amsterdam, Boston cyclists wore helmets 32% of the time while Amsterdam cyclists wore helmets 0.1%. passenger car and bicycle deaths per million pop.
in the USA: 88
in the Netherlands: 58.1
Why is there fewer deaths with so many less helmets being worn?

but this is all away from my central idea, which is, why should cyclists wear helmets when swimmers don't wear life vests, or drivers or ladder climbers don't wear helmets?

From the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
website
(http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/# )

Risk of death for:
Heart disease = 1 in 397.
Motor vehicle accident = 1 in 6745.
Bicycle acident = 1 in 376,165.

It seems to me other activities should be looked at more carefully before cycling to try to prevent accidents occuring in them. Cycling helps us live longer and better with or without a helmet.


As I said before, cycling accidents are WAY overrated and cycling benefits are WAY underrated.

I have seen the statistic specifying that helmets offer protection up to 14mph and I often think about this as I fly down a hill trying to beat the posted speed limit. Also, I agree with you that all actions (or lack thereof) have risks and consequences. Your point about the risk of heart disease is relevant also.

I'm a neuropsychologist who works with both brain-injured and cardiac patients....so I have some strong opinions about this discussion.

The statement by the pathologist, Clive Cook, is misleading and irresponsible. I'm hardpressed to accept that he actually believes this. Yes, you might get what we call a mild contracoup injury (from brain jiggle) but this will not be as devastating as an open head injury (i.e., skull fracture.) That's indisputable. One has to think about his profession and how this influenced this statement. He's used to looking at the grey matter of cadavers -- not living, breathing people -- so he's missing the whole quality of life issue entirely. Even minor head injuries can be devastating because these affect not only your thinking and physical abilities but your emotions as well. Cardiac disease can create similar problems (stroke, lack of oxygen to the brain, etc.) but if I had to choose, I'd go with brain artery-clogging gunk over an open head injury from bouncing my head off the pavement.

Re. the lower rates in the Netherlands, you realize they have the best developed trail systems so it's different than US. This, like many of the factors influencing helmet statistics, need to be accounted for. IMO, the fundamental flaw in most of these studies is that they have not been scientific; that is, helmet wearing is defined as just that....not whether the helmet had a proper fit, was too old, positioned correctly, etc. They usually don't take into account the local traffic conditions, terrain, and other environments factors. WIthout control over these variables, you don't really know what contributed to mortality and injury. But then again, I don't think anyone would fund a study to control all of those variables and ask folks to then bang their head on the concrete to see if they'll croak!!!!!

It's good to discuss these issues....I think many folks believe a helmet is a stronger insurance policy against injury/mortality than it actually is. That said, I will keep wearing mine as long as I keep riding!

Best Regards

Mary Ann

Are we doing this AGAIN!! Geez! OK fine. Last time! Those with helmets: I hope we'll ride together someday. Those without helmets: I'll see you on the produce aisle.

Originally posted by closetbiker
but this is all away from my central idea, which is, why should cyclists wear helmets when swimmers don't wear life vests, or drivers or ladder climbers don't wear helmets?

Who cares? I mean, if they want to risk their lives unnecessarily it's their problem isn't it? My whole point was that a helmet saved my skull in a 40km/h crash in October 2001 (yes, caused by my own stupidity, but we've all done stupid things in the past), and as far as I'm concerned, this is a far better indication of their protection than all the studies in the world combined.


Originally posted by closetbiker
It seems to me other activities should be looked at more carefully before cycling to try to prevent accidents occuring in them. Cycling helps us live longer and better with or without a helmet.


As I said before, cycling accidents are WAY overrated and cycling benefits are WAY underrated.

Yes they are. However I fail to see what this has to do with the issue of whether or not helmets are beneficial to us. Personally, I think mandatory helmet laws are a symptom of this and not a cause. I'd also much prefer to have a law saying I have to wear a helmet than to have one saying I can't ride on this road or that road, which seems to be the alternative while this perception of danger exists.

As I said before, I am unconcerned about other activities that I do not partake in. My decision to wear a helmet is based exclusively on my own safety and not on legislation. If there was a law banning helmets I'd still wear one.

All I said is point #1 is arguable. I believe I also said wearing a helmet is better than nothing. My personal disapointment with helmets is I think they could be made to a higher standard.

When Metal Cowgal says, "Re. the lower rates in the Netherlands, you realize they have the best developed trail systems so it's different than US. This, like many of the factors influencing helmet statistics, need to be accounted for." this is also part of my point. There is a way to reduce deaths (or injury) that are far more effective than just putting on helmets.

and I hope Chris wears his helmet while driving, otherwise he would be a little hypocritical, wouldn't he?

Originally posted by closetbiker
In Canada, motor vehicle occupants receive more head injuries than all other head injuries received by al other causes combined. The British Medical Association says more lives would be saved if occupants of motor vehicles wore helmets. We don't seem to think it's foolhardy to go helmetless when we drive.
Of course, I'm sure if someone proposed a helmet law for motorists, the automobile industry would scream, "That's ridiculous! If we forced people to wear helmets when driving, people wouldn't want to drive as much!"

Regardless of any laws or recommendations by any political body, I always wear a helmet!!

As I've said before on BF, I even wear a helmet when taking the bike for a test ride down my street after a minor adjustment. The only time I don't wear a helmet is on the trainer and that's kinda risky.

Originally posted by Raiyn
... Those without helmets: I'll see you on the produce aisle. The thing I fear most is to end up being fed and watered like some kinda potted plant :(
So, I'll take my chances with a helmet... even if it won't protect me in the event of being run over by a train while riding thru a pit full of alligators during a nuclear detonation. ;)

Originally posted by closetbiker

and I hope Chris wears his helmet while driving, otherwise he would be a little hypocritical, wouldn't he?

Since Chris L was referred to in third-person, Chris L is going to post the reply in third-person, too. :eek:

Chris L doesn't drive point blank, so he sees no need to worry about helmets in that situation. Chris L also doesn't see the point of worrying about being hypocritical, as Chris L values his own safety above being accused of hypocrisy.

Chris L does accept closetbiker's point about other methods of improving cycling safety other than helmets. However, Chris L is concerned that many of these methods are often designed by people who have no idea about what cycling safety actually requires, and hence a situation where cyclists are banned from this road or that road "for their own safety" and forced to use substandard facilities that are usually more dangerous than the road itself because of a fear of cars.

However, Chris L doesn't believe that any of this is going to change before tomorrow's ride, so as a consequence, Chris L will simply seek the best protection he can between now and then. This will involve cycling sensibly and wearing a helmet which, although it doesn't provide complete protection against every conceivable type of injury, still makes Chris L more comfortable than having no protection at all.

Some may think that Chris L is displaying a bad attitude, but Chris L is right on the money! :D

This is one of those subjects where strong opinions seem to be set. Disagreement is all right and learning from the reasons why others think differently help.

The original post asks if helemts are harmful and if I were to think about that i would still say that the perception of danger while cycling does give those who may be thinking twice about cycling one more reason not to ride. In this car centered culture this is just one more discouragement cyclists don't need. IMHO the more cyclists out on the road, the safer it will be for everyone who rides.

Speaking from my inadequate personal experience, years ago before everyone were wearing helmets, most comments from others about my commuting by bicycle were along the lines of, "I could nver have enough energy too ride my bike in" to now, the comments go something like, " I could never be brave enough to ride to work" So I think ya, the perception of cycling has changed to one that is dangerous. Meanwhile, my co-workers still drink, smoke, don't exercise and get into car accidents.

Originally posted by closetbiker
The original post asks if helemts are harmful and if I were to think about that i would still say that the perception of danger while cycling does give those who may be thinking twice about cycling one more reason not to ride. In this car centered culture this is just one more discouragement cyclists don't need. IMHO the more cyclists out on the road, the safer it will be for everyone who rides.

I believe helmets are a symptom of this 'perception of danger' rather than a cause. And to be honest, I'm not totally sure they are really all that much of a discouragement. It's not enough to simply say that "cycling rates are falling in areas with helmet laws" unless there is proof that this is definitely not the case in areas without helmet laws.

I tend to think cycling rates are falling everywhere because of this 'perception of danger' (among other reasons that I mentioned in my first post in this thread), largely caused by misinformation and scare mongering. Either way, the reason I wear a helmet is because I feel safer doing so. Personally, I'd be happier without helmet laws so police resources could be utilised elsewhere, but that doesn't affect my decision to wear one.


Originally posted by closetbiker
Speaking from my inadequate personal experience, years ago before everyone were wearing helmets, most comments from others about my commuting by bicycle were along the lines of, "I could nver have enough energy too ride my bike in" to now, the comments go something like, " I could never be brave enough to ride to work" So I think ya, the perception of cycling has changed to one that is dangerous. Meanwhile, my co-workers still drink, smoke, don't exercise and get into car accidents.

Yes it has, but I don't think it's because of helmets. Just take a look at some of the other things that have happened in cycling during that time. What about the recent craze in "footpath/sidewalk cycling"? What about the recent trend of urban planners to build off-road "bike paths"? Or banning cyclists from certain roads "for their own safety"? Surely these factors add to the perception of cycling as being "dangerous".

To be honest, I wonder how truthful some of your co-workers really are (the same as some of my co-workers). For some reason, people simply prefer not to say "I just don't particularly want to" which I suspect is the real reason a lot of people don't ride.

Originally posted by Grendel
Aw jeez... here we go again. :(

I might as well go get some popcorn and a comfy chair -- another marathon helmet thread ensues as the same people say the same things they said in the last 50 or so helmet threads.
And a month after I posted the above this thread is still going strong, I'm feeling somewhat prescient, and the person who started this mess isn't even partaking in the 'fun'. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Grendel
And a month after I posted the above this thread is still going strong, I'm feeling somewhat prescient, and the person who started this mess isn't even partaking in the 'fun'. :rolleyes:

Geez, has it really been that long? Well, I don't normally partake in helmet threads, but for some strange reason I'm enjoying this one.

Helmet discussions are important and deserve to be at the top of the list in a forum where the topic is cycling advocacy and safety. No poster here should be reluctant or embarrassed about stating or even re-stating their case just for the sake of “giving it a rest”.

There’s nothing wrong with having an ongoing discussion about an important topic.

"Helmet discussions are important and deserve to be at the top of the list in a forum where the topic is cycling advocacy and safety."

I agree. I think maybe one other unintended adverse effects of promoting helmets (over enforcing the rules of the road by police) aside from lower numbers of people who would get on the bike to ride an errand (and instead end up using the car) is the notion that to be considered a safe cyclist, one need only wear a helmet.

A newspaper article appeared in our local daily a year after our helmet law went into effect and the headline was, bicyclists safer now that more are wearing helmets. I don't know about how you feel about this but I think a cyclist is safer if he rides on the correct side of the road, follows traffic signs and has a light on after dark. Then, a helmet is a good form of supplementary protection. What I see here now is cyclists riding on the wrong side of the road, ignoring traffic signals, with no lights after dark BUT they are now wearing helmets. My feeling is the best form of protection is prevention. The public image of helmets is you would be safer with a helmet soit's not as important to follow all those rules of the road.

Speaking from experience, I can tell no difference in how a motorists treats me from when I didn't wear a helmet as to when I do wear a helmet.

I think education (so riders know to follow the rules of the road and motorists respect our right to the road) and enforcement of those traffic codes by the police will save lives and injuries. Unfortunatly, policing costs money and infringes on all those drivers (99% of the voting public) so I doubt weather that will occur soon. Maybe if more people rode bikes, enfocement of rules that motorists break would become a political priority and then the funding will come down to enforce the rules more effectivly.

Originally posted by closetbiker

I agree. I think maybe one other unintended adverse effects of promoting helmets (over enforcing the rules of the road by police) aside from lower numbers of people who would get on the bike to ride an errand (and instead end up using the car) is the notion that to be considered a safe cyclist, one need only wear a helmet.


Anyone who fails to adopt safe cycling practices simply because they are wearing a helmet has some serious issues that go beyond helmets as far as I'm concerned. I see plenty of people around here not wearing helmets and still doing stupid things, so I don't think anyone can blame helmets for that.

And I'm still not convinced that helmets prevent people from riding. I think most of the people you mentioned would simply prefer to use their car for it's perceived convenience. Yes, we would all like to see road rules enforced by police, but again I ask, would this necessarily happen without helmets. I think the main factor here is the fact that any government that issued a heap of speeding tickets would struggle in the next election.


Originally posted by closetbiker
I don't know about how you feel about this but I think a cyclist is safer if he rides on the correct side of the road, follows traffic signs and has a light on after dark. Then, a helmet is a good form of supplementary protection. What I see here now is cyclists riding on the wrong side of the road, ignoring traffic signals, with no lights after dark BUT they are now wearing helmets. The public image of helmets is you would be safer with a helmet so it's not as important to follow all those rules of the road.


As I said earlier, I see plenty of cyclists doing stupid things without bothering to wear a helmet too, so it's a moot point. To be honest I think the public image is "you don't need to follow the road rules" point blank. Getting rid of helmets is not going to change this.


Originally posted by closetbiker

Maybe if more people rode bikes, enfocement of rules that motorists break would become a political priority and then the funding will come down to enforce the rules more effectivly.

That may be true, but I'm not sure this is strictly a helmet issue. To be honest, I think the biggest factors driving people away from cycling come from within the cycling fraternity itself. I'm talking about the marketing of bikes which doesn't even mention the possibility of using it for transport, and stupid acts from so-called "advocacy" groups (such as critical mass) which make cyclists look like a fringe, lunatic element.

I think Chris L and I agree on many things.

In itself alone, wearing a helmet makes good sense in that it affords some protection that you wouldn’t have otherwise. We agree that the "cycling is dangerous" perception is perpetuated by media organisations. We also agree that prevention of accidents is important. I again have to relate when the many excuses people make for not cycling really amount to "I just don't particularly want to" is the real reason a lot of people don't ride.

We do have our obvious disagreements though.

When he says, “You'll find that there's been an overall drop in cycling numbers over the last 15 years in areas that don't have mandatory helmet laws as well as those that do.” I have to disagree. Studies done in the same area in pre and post mandatory helmet law implementation, clearly show a drop in the amount of cyclists on the road. Claim that there is a corresponding drop in a different area outside of the area studied is conjecture.

When I say, “why should cyclists wear helmets when drivers or ladder climbers don't wear helmets?” and Chris replies, “Who cares? I mean, if they want to risk their lives unnecessarily it's their problem isn't it? I am unconcerned about other activities that I do not partake in. My decision to wear a helmet is based exclusively on my own safety.”

Well this is the point I make. I’m going to assume Chris L walks and drives and climbs ladders and stairs. All of these activities are prone to head injury as well as cycling. There is much supporting evidence that each of these activities are MORE prone to head injuries than cycling. When Metal Cowgal says, “I work with head-injured folks” I’d have to ask, how exactly did these patients end up head injured? My guess would be from a car accident or a fall in the home or from a ladder.

Head injuries are devastating however they occur, so why say cyclists are silly not to wear a helmet but it’s perfectly fine to go helmetless when driving a car or climbing a ladder?

.The argument that we don't wear helmets doing other activities that may or may not be equally dangerous, does not make the descision not to wear a helmet when biking any more of an intelligent one.

OOps! I forgot one more point.

When Chris l says, "Anyone who fails to adopt safe cycling practices simply because they are wearing a helmet has some serious issues that go beyond helmets as far as I'm concerned." he misses the point. The point is, people have made the connection that they should wear a helmet. They have not made the connection to ride safely. I think , ride safe first. Wear a helmet second.

And, "The argument that we don't wear helmets doing other activities that may or may not be equally dangerous, does not make the descision not to wear a helmet when biking any more of an intelligent one."

Of course. But we will be saved more head injury patients if we did. How hard can it be to strap one on? My argument is not to be helmetless on a bike, it's to protect a likely occurance from destroying lives. Over 50% of all adult brain injuries result from motor vehicle collisions.

Originally posted by closetbiker
...But we will be saved more head injury patients if we did.

The answer is undeniable...Yes!

Originally posted by closetbiker
When he says, “You'll find that there's been an overall drop in cycling numbers over the last 15 years in areas that don't have mandatory helmet laws as well as those that do.” I have to disagree. Studies done in the same area in pre and post mandatory helmet law implementation, clearly show a drop in the amount of cyclists on the road. Claim that there is a corresponding drop in a different area outside of the area studied is conjecture.

I didn't say there was necessarily a corresponding drop in those areas. I just said that until we have concrete statistics and facts on this, we can't solely blame helmets for the drop in cycling that exists in the areas that do have helmets. At least, we can't make the concrete claim while there are so many other variables to consider (as discussed in previous arguments). However, I'd be very surprised of this drop wasn't mirrored across the board due to the other factors.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not totally in favour of mandatory helmet laws, albeit for different reasons. I just haven't seen enough evidence to definitively conclude they are responsible for as much as anti-helmet campaigners seem to think they are.


Originally posted by closetbiker

Well this is the point I make. I’m going to assume Chris L walks and drives and climbs ladders and stairs. All of these activities are prone to head injury as well as cycling. There is much supporting evidence that each of these activities are MORE prone to head injuries than cycling. When Metal Cowgal says, “I work with head-injured folks” I’d have to ask, how exactly did these patients end up head injured? My guess would be from a car accident or a fall in the home or from a ladder.

Again, I'll use personal experience here, because I think this is far more valid than all the 'controlled conditions' studies in the world combined. I have never hit my head with a significant blow while walking, climbing ladders or climbing Mt Barney for that matter. I did, however, deliver quite a sharp blow to my head in a cycling accident in 2001, and was glad to have the protection a helmet offered at that time.

As far as driving goes, well, I don't do it and never have, but in this country at least, drivers are mandated to wear seatbelts while driving. I'm sure some of them would argue (rightly or wrongly) that cyclists should be wearing some kind of harness, too. It should also be noted that drivers are encased in 500kg or whatever of steel. Perhaps that is considered to have a similar effect to wearing a helmet.


Originally posted by closetbiker
When Chris l says, "Anyone who fails to adopt safe cycling practices simply because they are wearing a helmet has some serious issues that go beyond helmets as far as I'm concerned." he misses the point. The point is, people have made the connection that they should wear a helmet. They have not made the connection to ride safely. I think , ride safe first. Wear a helmet second.

Yes, riding safely is more important than wearing a helmet. However, I see plenty of helmetless riders (we definitely don't have 100% compliance with the law here) adopting wrong way/footpath cycling and other stupid practices. I don't believe this fact has anything to do with helmets, I think it relates to the way people are taught to ride these days. For my full opinion on this, have a look at this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=11006&highlight=Werris+Creek) (I'm too lazy to type it out right now). I think it explains a lot of things.

Someone should rename this thread "72 ways to say the same thing" or "how to continuously kick each other in the balls"

We agree even more! "Yes, riding safely is more important than wearing a helmet." We have the same problem here with people riding bikes adopting wrong way/footpath cycling and other stupid practices and I too think it relates to the way people are taught to ride. They have been taught it is more important to ride wearing a helmet than to ride safely.

"I'll use personal experience here, because I think this is far more valid than all the 'controlled conditions'" My personal experience (and every single person I have known) is, in 28 years I have never hit my head while biking but I know of many who have hurt their head driving, being a pedestrian, slipping on ice and falling off a ladder. The "controlled conditions" were real life results of hospital admissions.

Cause of death"_ 1991 fatalities per 100,000 participants Source: health canada: Motor vehicle (4 wheel) use 10.51, Falls (all)7.29, Pedestrian_ _ 2.12, Cycling 1

# of fatalities per 1,000,000 exposure hrs. by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc:Living (all causea of death) 1.53, Passenger cars .47, Bicycling .26

In 1999/2000, there were 197,002 hospital injury admissions in Canada. More than half (54.4%) were caused by falls, followed by motor vehicle collisions (15.1%). Intentional injuries, which refers to homicides, assaults, suicides, or self-inflected injuries, accounted for 6.2% of hospital injury admissions.

As for this comment,"Someone should rename this thread "72 ways to say the same thing" or "how to continuously kick each other in the balls", I'd like to think the idea of putting the risks of cycling into context is not the same thing at all.

I respect everyone here for understanding my points and I think most comments have been productive and respectful.

Originally posted by closetbiker
"I'll use personal experience here, because I think this is far more valid than all the 'controlled conditions'" My personal experience (and every single person I have known) is, in 28 years I have never hit my head while biking but I know of many who have hurt their head driving, being a pedestrian, slipping on ice and falling off a ladder. The "controlled conditions" were real life results of hospital admissions.

OK, so where is this going? It's possible that I may have missed the point once again. Are you saying that cyclists should'nt wear helmets? Or that drivers should? We all know that cycling is a statistically safer activity than driving, but how does this react to the original premise of this thread (which, the way I read it is whether or not helmets are bad for cyclists).

As I said, I will continue to wear a helmet by choice because I value the protection it provides, the same reason I will continue to adopt what I consider to be safe cycling practices. I won't bother to wear a helmet while walking, because even if I do fall and hit my head, it's unlikely I'll do it at 40km/h.

As far as fatalities and hospital admissions go, were they all caused by head injuries? There are other things that can result from falls.

I'm saying it makes no more sense to wear a helmet on a bike as does to wear a helmet while walking or driving or doing any number of things. That the risks a cyclists face are no greater than many other things that we take for granted that nothing much dangerous is going to happen to us as we go about our daily activities.

How this relates to the original post is it distorts the reality of the way things are on bicycles. Asians and Europeans don't have this issue as they know the need for "crash hats" is a low priority.

Point#1 has been backed by some very repectable researchers. Point#2 is just common sense and Point #3 has been shown to be true.

The BMA comes out 4 square against a law because it would discourage casual riders. That's the local experience here in B.C. Regular riders are wearing them anyhow and casual riders have dropped the bikes and got into cars. We've had an increase in riders since the police decided to not persue helmetless riders.

All I know is I'd hate to get injured doing something I love as much as riding my bike. So I shall wear my helmet just in case!

These guys seem to be doing just fine.

...and so do these girls

I don't wear a helmet when riding my bike. I wear steel toes and shin pads when going to the bathroom at night.

A man died last week while walking on the street. He received a branche on his head.

I never wore a helmet when I was younger. Now, the doctor has put me on Coumadin (blood thinner) and warned me quite sternly that if I even bend over and bump my head hard on a kitchen counter I'm to go to the emergency room even if I think I'm okay. Apparently on this stuff you can get hemoraghing that applies deadly pressure to the brain without even realizing it.

So, I bought one of the silly-looking darned helmets :D

Hmmm, maybe I should wear it in the kitchen... :lol:

John

You need to go to: www.bhsi.org for more information on helmets and what they can do for you. This site will disprove your point #1; point #2 is a given, if your a moroon looking for an accident to happen then it's a good point but you can be the safest most alert skilled rider in the world and still get struck by some moroon looking for an accident and thus bang your head; and #3 is just pure stupitity, no one I have ever known or heard about ever stopped riding bikes because they had to wear a helmet, they stopped because they got lazy!

If your hit in the head by an 18 wheeler than the paramedics will like your helmet because it would contain the brain material and prevent a mess on the road and in their ambulance, thus the nickname "brainbucket"!

But I do disagree with mandatory laws that require us (those of us 18 or over that is) to wear helmets or seatbelts. By 18 you should be old enough to make your own decisions about whether or not you want to protect your body from harm and the law needs to stay out of that. I wear seatbelts in my car and wear helmets when I ride but that doesn't mean I think everyone should. I also don't smoke, but I believe others should have the right to smoke if they want too-same thing; it boils down to our rights. It was the insurance industry that pushed those seatbelt and helmet laws because they were losing money on injury claims; funny, they didn't push to outlaw smoking, but maybe that's why cigerettes are almost $5 a pack-their trying to make it unaffordable to smoke.

I can say that I have had 2 accidents that if I had not been wearing a helmet at the time I would either be dead or writing to you like this:

Hy me niame is fros an me fel don an pump me hed.

I guess since 0.1% of the dutch wear helmets they're wrong too then...

there are 2 sides two every story, this is one of them

Originally posted by closetbiker
I guess since 0.1% of the dutch wear helmets they're wrong too then...
If I were riding in Holland I probably wouldn't wear a helmet even with being on Coumadin. Entirely different environment. There, bicycles are the rule rather than the exception and even when they have to share the road with automobiles they are doing so with drivers who are used to dealing with bikes and who are probably a lot more laid back than we are.

Granted, if a car hits you squarely at highway speeds your chances of survival are pretty close to nil no matter what you're wearing. But, if a driver just wings you, or you get pushed off the road by the turbulence of a truck passing inches away (happened to me two or three times when I was in my twenties), or you get doored, then a helmet might reduce or eliminate a head injury.

Now, if I were riding in Malaysia or a host of other Asian countries where helmet use is probably less than 1% I'd darn sure wear my helmet. There the drivers are worse than here in the US and the reason you don't see helmets is because life is cheap. I spent 6 weeks in Kuala Lumpur in '96 and was flabbergasted at the crazy things I saw on their roads (starting with driving on the wrong side of the road :lol: ).

Bottom line, if you don't want to wear a helmet that's fine. It's still a (mostly) free country and you're welcome to your preferences. But I can't understand the mentality behind trying to convince others not to wear helmets if they choose to do so. Who are you trying to convince, them, or yourself? ;)

John

Originally posted by RacerX
Someone should rename this thread "72 ways to say the same thing" or "how to continuously kick each other in the balls"

LOL:D :D :D
Doug

"I can't understand the mentality behind trying to convince others not to wear helmets if they choose to do so. Who are you trying to convince,them, or yourself?"

Read back, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. There is something being missed and I'm presenting it. :)

The BMA says the benefits of riding a bike (even helmetless)outweigh the risks by a factor of 20 to 1. The AMA says if you commute by bicycle to work (even helmetless)you're likely to have a 40% reduced mortality risk than someone who doesn't ride.

The way I see it, riding helmetless is not any more risky than walking around (on the street or in my house) helmetless.

If you feel better wearing one riding, great. I'd feel more secure wearing one in the car or in my bathroom or kitchen(all those slippry floors).

Originally posted by closetbiker
Read back, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.Do you even read what you write?

The way I see it, riding helmetless is not any more risky than walking around (on the street or in my house) helmetless.Oh poppycock! Do you walk around at over 30 miles an hour?

If you don't want to wear a helmet that's just great. But the idea that wearing helmets is harmful, or provides no protection, is pure horse hockey.

I'm opposed to helmet laws, but I can't understand why you don't want people to wear helmets. Put me down as not understanding the mentality. In some of your earlier posts, you made sense but your campaign to get others not to wear helmets is beyond my comprehension.

Not only I read what I write, I usually think before I write as well.

Go back and read that 3 times I've posted, I'm not saying that wearing a helmet doesn't make good sense. I also have said (twice) that my personal disapointment with helmets is that they are not built to higher standards.

I don't need to hit my head in the kitchen at 30 mph. Helmets are tested to be effective from a straight line, linear drop to 14 mph. A simple fall. The helmet could be expected to be effective in the kitchen. If I hit my head at 30 mph on the road, the sources I quoted earlier have an opinion on what would happen. Read back and see what they say.

My central point is what is the likely hood of needing a helmet in relation to other risks we take where we do not wear helmets? This information is well documented by hospital and police records. Cycling accidents are not the leading victims.

Originally posted by closetbiker
Not only I read what I write, I usually think before I write as well.

Go back and read that 3 times I've posted, I'm not saying that wearing a helmet doesn't make good sense. I also have said (twice) that my personal disapointment with helmets is that they are not built to higher standards.

I don't need to hit my head in the kitchen at 30 mph. Helmets are tested to be effective from a straight line, linear drop to 14 mph. A simple fall. The helmet could be expected to be effective in the kitchen. If I hit my head at 30 mph on the road, the sources I quoted earlier have an opinion on what would happen. Read back and see what they say.

My central point is what is the likely hood of needing a helmet in relation to other risks we take where we do not wear helmets? This information is well documented by hospital and police records. Cycling accidents are not the leading victims.

But if you asked any internet cyclist, they would be overly enthusiastic to tell you about how dangerous cycling is, how much blood and brains and gore is involved with riding a bike - and then they might wonder why their wives won't let them take their daughter out in a bicycle trailer (even with a helmet, we surmise)!

It seems to me that those who simply ride their bikes and don't go around constantly linking 'cycling' and 'head injury' together like is usually done in the media are the true advocates.

Now, finally having read this thread (after countless other helmet threads), I have to wonder at a few things.

Why is it that those people who demonstrate the least understanding of the testing protocols and physical limitations of helmets and who have not even considered their statistical effect in the field are those who are most likely to want to force others to wear them? Why is the idea of weighing relative risk in determining what levels of safety gear to utilitze for a given situation so foreign to most internet cyclists? Why is it that when I start to look at cyclists around here (Toronto) that the level of helmet wearage is a far lower percentage than on the internet?

What is it that attracts ignorant busybodies to the internet anyway?

Originally posted by closetbiker
Go back and read that 3 times I've posted, I'm not saying that wearing a helmet doesn't make good sense. I can read. And I can tell when people are being condescending, too.

You make comments like "If you feel better wearing one riding, great."

You post pictures of helmetless riders. Above one you write, "These guys seem to be doing just fine.", and above the other, "...and so do these girls". As if the pictures are even relevant. They're about as relevant as someone else posting pictures of a fractured skull.

If you aren't advocating not wearing a helmet, why the pictures with those comments?

You can question the way helmets are tested all you want. If they keep someone from cracking their skull one time out of ten, then it's good enough that I'm not going to try to disuade people from wearing one, but that's what you're doing, no matter how you try to paint it.

My central point is what is the likely hood of needing a helmet in relation to other risks we take where we do not wear helmets? At first I thought that your central point was that there shouldn't be helmet laws, and I agree with that. But your recent posts seem to be arguing against the voluntary use of helmets. It blows your whole argument.

This information is well documented by hospital and police records. Cycling accidents are not the leading victims. Do cyclist have to be the leading victims for you to advocate wearing a helmet?

Maybe if enough cyclists stop wearing helmets our numbers will go up.

There's a whole lot more to cycling safety than wearing a helmet, but that doesn't mean that wearing one is a bad idea.

" I can tell when people are being condescending, too."

Please, I'm not being condesending. I'm replying. If your question is, "If you aren't advocating not wearing a helmet, why the pictures with those comments?" The answer is far more people in the world ride without than with and there seem to be no adverse effects when they don't.

I agree with "If they keep someone from cracking their skull one time out of ten, then it's good enough" and that is why I wish the helmets to be tested to a higher standard AND why people should wear them when they are likely to need them. Like, when driving (as suggested by the BMA.)For every life of a cyclist saved by a helmet, we could save 50 drivers lives, yet I've never (outside of motorsport) seen a driver wear a helmet.

"There's a whole lot more to cycling safety than wearing a helmet, but that doesn't mean that wearing one is a bad idea." - Gee, this sounds just like what I posted a couple posts back.


"I'm not going to try to disuade people from wearing one, but that's what you're doing, no matter how you try to paint it." - That's too bad you read it that way, I felt my idea was pretty clearly stated.

Originally posted by bikerider
But if you asked any internet cyclist, they would be overly enthusiastic to tell you about how dangerous cycling is, how much blood and brains and gore is involved with riding a bike - and then they might wonder why their wives won't let them take their daughter out in a bicycle trailer (even with a helmet, we surmise)!

Personally, I don't rave on about how 'dangerous' cycling is, in fact, I tend to state the opposite more often than not (do a search of my posts if you want proof of that). However, I have merely suggested that when I ride I would rather have the additional protection of a helmet than not have it. How is this talking about blood and brains?


Originally posted by bikerider

Why is it that those people who demonstrate the least understanding of the testing protocols and physical limitations of helmets and who have not even considered their statistical effect in the field are those who are most likely to want to force others to wear them?

Perhaps it's because, having survived a 40km/h crash courtesy of a helmet (which seems to be in total defiance of the studies provided in this thread), I tend to value real world evidence as opposed to controlled laboratory studies. I also don't recall trying to force anybody to wear a helmet, in fact, I seem to recall
being opposed to mandatory helmet laws.

Why is it that the anti-helmet brigade have so much trouble with people wearing helmets by choice? What is it about helmets that seems to upset people so much that they come out with bogus studies like the ones presented in this thread that totally fail to bear scrutiny in the real world? Why the paranoia?


Originally posted by bikerider

What is it that attracts ignorant busybodies to the internet anyway?

I too would like an answer to that question. Probably the same thing that attracts everybody else to the internet.

Chris (hey, that's my name too), with all due respect, if the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it. Yes, I was generalizing for hyperbolic effect but I really do believe that a majority of internet cyclists seem to adore broadcasting just how dangerous an activity cycling is. You have made this point several times in this thread, so it was obviously not directed at you.

This exaggeration is the fundamental lie upon which not only helmet law legislation, but also things like bike paths are built. I see cyclists relating stories of friction with their family and friends frequently and I see it occasionally in my own life too. I seem to recall you writing about how your family would prefer you rode in a car (or was it a bus?) to visit them rather than ride your bike because of how dangerous it is.

I don't think that my 'blood and brains comment' was unreasonable:

(Note: ChrisL did not write the following four comments)


just re-post the pic. of the roadracer laying in a pool of his own blood, that was quite convincing


If your hit in the head by an 18 wheeler than the paramedics will like your helmet because it would contain the brain material and prevent a mess on the road and in their ambulance, thus the nickname "brainbucket"!


when I realized how close I came to being a vegetable or worse yet a statistic. I have seen first hand what serious brian damage can do to a vibrant human being. And I hope that those who don't wear a helmet are reading this because I know for a fact without the helmet thats what I would of been.


but if I had to choose, I'd go with brain artery-clogging gunk over an open head injury from bouncing my head off the pavement. - This is from a person who says they are a medical doctor who, I surmise, lives in a place where huge numbers of the overwhelmingly healthy population must be dropping dead when they ride bicycles without helmets. Whereas in the world in which I live, motorist head injuries outnumber cycling H.I. by about 50:1, most of the rest are simple falls and most medical problems are the result of an increasingly unhealthy lifestyle. In fact, cycling is sometimes considered to be part of the cure rather than the disease!

I guess that this is my 'pet peeve' because I have to deal with this BS in real life with people. Helmets only seem to be a big deal with cyclists, and then only with serious(tm) cyclists on the internet. The same lack of public opposition to helmet laws will rear up again when there are laws proposed to finally get bikes off of the road 'where they don't belong'...'because it's unsafe for them'. As closetbiker said "I'd say that those who don't ride bikes don't have a problem enforcing rules that don't effect[sic]those that don't ride bikes." It is the same with many (not all) people regarding helmet wearage or anything else, despite claims to the contrary.


Originally posted by Chris L
Why is it that the anti-helmet brigade have so much trouble with people wearing helmets by choice?

Come on. I can't recall anyone in real life or on the internet ever suggesting that there should be a law preventing people from wearing helmets (while bicycling - supposedly it is illegal to drive a car on public streets with a helmet on in Ontario - how's that for irony). This is a classic straw man put forth in helmet arguments. However, there are already laws in many jurisdictions (including British Columbia and most Australian states and even here in Ontario for minors only) compelling people to wear them. Now really, who exactly is trying to force others to do as they say?


What is it about helmets that seems to upset people so much that they come out with bogus studies like the ones presented in this thread that totally fail to bear scrutiny in the real world? Why the paranoia?

Well, the subject of helmet laws seems to divide people along the same lines as an argument about gun laws. The polar opposite to that (rather silly) site might well be the equally silly site of the pretentious "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute", behind which lurks a single person with an equally biased agenda. As usual, the truth would tend to lie somewhere in the middle. There is only ever one side portrayed in the mass media, however. The figure which comes up will invariably be 85% (or sometimes 88%). Those who have read the study abstract and got the gist of the countless arguments about it will realize that there is a serious lack of credibility in the mass media (what else is new?).

The argument about helmet laws boils down to people's innermost beliefs about personal freedom or lack thereof. Some people adore freedom enough to let others live as they choose as long as they aren't harming anyone, even if they disapprove of the behaviour in question; others want to have varying degrees of say in the behaviours of others, even if it doesn't affect them or anyone else.

Most internet cyclists claim to be against MHL's but they really enjoy hurling invectives over the internet at those who choose to not wear them or even suggest that helmets might not be quite as effective as some claim. Sure, I might enjoy calling gay people '******s' and also claim to be opposed to laws against sodomy but I think others would have fair ground to question my credibility and sincerity.

From where I stand, letting people themselves determine the necessity and level of safety gear for the activity which they choose to do just doesn't seem like such a horrid notion. When the Tory government is defeated here in Ontario, a MHL will quickly be pushed through by the "Liberals". Somebody really wants these laws in place.

I ride every day and don't consider cycling dangerous. I rode for over 20 years without a helmet. That doesn't really prove anything, one way or another.

I oppose helmet laws. I also oppose taking a campaign against helmet laws, and making it a campaign against helmets.

Originally posted by closetbiker
The way I see it, riding helmetless is not any more risky than walking around (on the street or in my house) helmetless.That's just a ridiculous statement.

It's also ridiculous that someone got the idea that helmets might be "dangerous" from reading a website that claims to have FAQs about helmets. Nonetheless, the title of this thread seems to be asking if helmets are dangerous. Somebody is sending out the wrong message. They should label those FAQs "Half-truths at best".

I'm not on a campaign to get people to wear helmets. But I am opposed to a campaign to get people not to wear them. And that's what I'm seeing - here, and on that joke of a website that started this whole thread.

Originally posted by bikerider
This exaggeration is the fundamental lie upon which not only helmet law legislation, but also things like bike paths are built. I see cyclists relating stories of friction with their family and friends frequently and I see it occasionally in my own life too. I seem to recall you writing about how your family would prefer you rode in a car (or was it a bus?) to visit them rather than ride your bike because of how dangerous it is.

Well, my family seem to have changed their mind now, and my work collegues (before my company officially went down the crapper last week) have stopped relating the 'dangers of cycling'. It's amazing what riding without being killed can do for people's perceptions, but I digress.

Personally, I believe helmet laws are a symptom rather than a cause here. Yes, there is a perception of danger about cycling, but I think that would be there whether or not we had helmets. I believe a lot of people confuse the two when looking at declining cycling numbers - maybe it's the 'dangerous' perception and not the helmets that are the cause (or maybe people simply don't wish to ride but would rather say something else to be PC in a conversation).


Originally posted by bikerider

Whereas in the world in which I live, motorist head injuries outnumber cycling H.I. by about 50:1, most of the rest are simple falls and most medical problems are the result of an increasingly unhealthy lifestyle. In fact, cycling is sometimes considered to be part of the cure rather than the disease!

I agree that driving is more dangerous than cycling. However, I don't see how this relates to the original question posed in this thread. I thought rchan was asking our opinions on whether helmets were beneficial for cyclists. To be honest, I think helmets are beneficial. I don't support helmet laws as such because I think there are better things for the police to do.

The comment about driving having higher head injury rates or fatality rates than cycling would seem to belong to one of the (many) threads about cars vs bikes. As someone who doesn't drive, I really don't care whether they wear helmets or not.



Originally posted by bikerider
Helmets only seem to be a big deal with cyclists, and then only with serious(tm) cyclists on the internet.

Yes, I know. Motorcyclists in this country also have a mandatory helmet law, yet it doesn't seem to worry them (and they have a much higher compliance rate than cyclists do).


Originally posted by bikerider
The same lack of public opposition to helmet laws will rear up again when there are laws proposed to finally get bikes off of the road 'where they don't belong'...'because it's unsafe for them'.

Again, I don't think you can blame helmets for this, and I don't believe it makes helmets any less safe for cyclists. The thing we really need to address is this perception of cycling being 'dangerous'. There are plenty of cycling 'advocacy' groups who don't even mention helmets that cause problems here. Perhaps we should be putting our efforts into dealing with them rather than arguing about helmets.


Originally posted by bikerider
Come on. I can't recall anyone in real life or on the internet ever suggesting that there should be a law preventing people from wearing helmets <snip> However, there are already laws in many jurisdictions (including British Columbia and most Australian states and even here in Ontario for minors only) compelling people to wear them. Now really, who exactly is trying to force others to do as they say?

I wasn't referring to legislation specifically (which isn't totally effective if the number of helmetless riders around here is any indication), but I was referring to many of the negative comments published about helmets which have no basis in fact, and seem to exist for no reason other than scaring people away from wearing them.

The site at the start of this thread is just the tip of the iceberg. You should see some of the other things I've read on the Internet about them. Some even laughingly suggest that helmets make you more likely to have an accident in the first place (I don't see any connection). If these people wish to campaign against helmet laws, that's up to them, but why try to scare others away from making a choice?


Originally posted by bikerider

As usual, the truth would tend to lie somewhere in the middle. There is only ever one side portrayed in the mass media, however. The figure which comes up will invariably be 88% or 89%. Those who have read the study abstract and got the gist of the countless arguments about it will realize that there is a serious lack of credibility in the mass media (what else is new?).

Living in Australia, I know the media lacks credibility better than most. But again, I will argue that helmets aren't our biggest problem. Despite our MHL around here, we have a lot of helmetless riders, yet no mention of this is made at all when the local newpapers are on one of their slow-news-day "cycling is dangerous" campaigns.


Originally posted by bikerider

Most internet cyclists claim to be against MHL's but they really enjoy hurling invectives over the internet at those who choose to not wear them or even suggest that helmets might not be quite as effective as some claim.

Well, many of these studies questioning the effectiveness of helmets seem to be directly opposed to my experience of the situation. I guess it depends whether you value controlled laboratory conditions or real world conditions. I know which I'm more likely to encounter on a ride.

Originally posted by JRA
The way I see it, riding helmetless is not any more risky than walking around (on the street or in my house) helmetless. -

That's just a ridiculous statement.


Sorry, but for Canada, the age-adjusted hospital injury admission rate was 61.9 per 10,000 population in 1999/2000 and CIHI’s report shows that the rate varies by age as well as cause of injury. Falls had the highest rate at 32.3 per 10,000 population, although the rate was almost five times higher among seniors aged 65 years and older, at 154.8 per 10,000 population. The leading injury from falls were head injuries. Cause of death (1991 fatalities per 100,000 participants) from the source: health canada, Falls 7.29, and from Cycling, 1.

Originally posted by Chris L
Well, my family seem to have changed their mind now, and my work collegues (before my company officially went down the crapper last week) have stopped relating the 'dangers of cycling'. It's amazing what riding without being killed can do for people's perceptions, but I digress.

Yet closetbiker's analogous argument - that the overwhelming majority of the world gets along just fine without helmets (and has done so for many decades) - falls on deaf ears.


I agree that driving is more dangerous than cycling. However, I don't see how this relates to the original question posed in this thread. I thought rchan was asking our opinions on whether helmets were beneficial for cyclists.

?? That paragraph was a comment on what I had just quoted from a doctor who hates statistics at least as much as you! I have not quoted rchan nor responded directly to his/her posts, I was responding to the posts of others.


To be honest, I think helmets are beneficial. I don't support helmet laws as such because I think there are better things for the police to do.

Then you have no idealogical objection, I gather. This is very different from being opposed to them, no?


The comment about driving having higher head injury rates or fatality rates than cycling would seem to belong to one of the (many) threads about cars vs bikes. As someone who doesn't drive, I really don't care whether they wear helmets or not.

So why would you care whether cyclists wear helmets or not if, in fact, you do?

I don't hold a license either but I don't see anything wrong with looking at relative risks when evaluating safety gear. Only when discussing this at a cycling site would this behaviour appear to be illogical.


Yes, I know. Motorcyclists in this country also have a mandatory helmet law, yet it doesn't seem to worry them (and they have a much higher compliance rate than cyclists do).

I detect sarcasm! A funny thing is that most people believe that full-faced motorcycle helmets have greater blunt force impact protection than bicycle helmets. Those are the helmets they wear to do something fast and dangerous!

Since you brought up motorcyclists,

http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0503/041.html

[Referring to complacency and MHL's]


Again, I don't think you can blame helmets for this, and I don't believe it makes helmets any less safe for cyclists.

Obviously I can't blame inanimate objects. The law doesn't change the amount of physical protection that it provides but it certainly has the power to raise the user's faith in the level of protection to a level which the helmet cannot realistically provide.


The thing we really need to address is this perception of cycling being 'dangerous'. There are plenty of cycling 'advocacy' groups who don't even mention helmets that cause problems here. Perhaps we should be putting our efforts into dealing with them rather than arguing about helmets.

I can think of no group taking a more hostile approach to cycling in general than cyclists themselves, 'advocates' in particular.


I wasn't referring to legislation specifically (which isn't totally effective if the number of helmetless riders around here is any indication), but I was referring to many of the negative comments published about helmets which have no basis in fact, and seem to exist for no reason other than scaring people away from wearing them.

Are people really being scared off of wearing helmets?


The site at the start of this thread is just the tip of the
iceberg. You should see some of the other things I've read on the Internet about them. Some even laughingly suggest that helmets make you more likely to have an accident in the first place (I don't see any connection).

What they are basing this on is what is called 'risk compensation'. People tend to take more risks when they feel that they are protected. You may consider it voodoo but it has been studied and documented credibly IMO. Whether it applies to bicycle helmets in any meaningful way is debatable (as usual) but when I hear someone relate how they feel 'naked' or 'vulnerable' without their helmet or how when they forgot their helmet they had to ride home 'very cautiously', the notion of risk compensation enters my mind.

As an experiment, you might try going out for a ride without your helmet and see how you feel and how you ride. You might be surprised.


If these people wish to campaign against helmet laws, that's up to them, but why try to scare others away from making a choice?

People have to make the choice anyway by default. The problem is that MHL's and the level of helmet protection are invariably going to be intertwined when the arguing starts. I think that there is a compelling enough argument against MHL's on the basis of personal freedom but when someone says 'but helmets have been shown to prevent 85% of head injuries amongst cyclists' then the statistical and physics arguments start flying around and nobody is swayed by anything.

I don't think too much of the helmet "FAQ" site.

I do think that it is reasonable for someone to correct clearly mistaken assumptions, especially regarding the testing of helmets. This info is available on the web and can be understood with high school physics. I still wonder why those who are the most adamant that all cyclists wear helmets are the ones who have spent the least amount of time learning anything about them.


Living in Australia, I know the media lacks credibility better than most. But again, I will argue that helmets aren't our biggest problem. Despite our MHL around here, we have a lot of helmetless riders, yet no mention of this is made at all when the local newpapers are on one of their slow-news-day "cycling is dangerous" campaigns.

Not to be smart, but despite all the arguing helmets aren't a problem at all. Mine just sits there quietly until I bother it to put it on my head! I don't mean to demonize them nor people who wear them. I simply prefer to wear it some of the time and not wear it some of the time. From talking to minor BMXers and MTB riders, it seems that enforcement is practically non-existent (like most laws). So when they push a law through here for adults I will be breaking the law sometimes but nobody will really care except when and if they have the occasional cash grab blitz. What a system!


Well, many of these studies questioning the effectiveness of helmets seem to be directly opposed to my experience of the situation. I guess it depends whether you value controlled laboratory conditions or real world conditions. I know which I'm more likely to encounter on a ride.

Yes, it's easy to lie with statistics. To put it coldly, your single event is just that - a statistic. With a sample of 1. It might carry a lot of weight for you but it is meaningless unless put in perspective. People who are about to die in airplane hurtling to the ground probably don't care that making thier trip in a commercial airliner was safer than driving. Certainly this is a good enough reason for you to wear a helmet but not enough to compell everyone to wear one.

It's true that to achieve a given safety rating, helmets are tested in controlled laboratory conditions. I can't possibly think of a better way.

This belies the fact that many studies have been performed by looking at the general cycling public. In fact, many of the better controlled (IMO), long term studies have come from Australia and New Zealand. Of course, a lot of argument has ensued but one thing is clear: the 85% reduction figure (which is frequently reported in the media and whenever a MHL is pushed) has never been close to being reached. At the very least, it suggests that introducing a law based on a flawed figure is rather silly and since helmets are plentiful, very well marketed and even cheap, perhaps it might be better to let people figure things out for themselves.

Originally posted by closetbiker
[B]Sorry, but for Canada, the age-adjusted hospital injury admission rate was 61.9 per 10,000 population in 1999/2000...[/.b]You're giving us hospital admission rates? Gimme a break! It's meaningless without giving us time spent walking vs. time spent cycling. How many of those people over 65 are cyclists?

The statement that there's no more reason to wear a helmet when cycling than when walking around your kitchen is ridiculous. The conclusion is absurd no matter how many irrelevant statistics you cite. Statistics are only as good as the people who interpret them, and I now seriously question your ability to interpret statistics.

You know a lot of things that aren't true.

I totally disagree with your campaign to convince people that there's no reason to wear helmets. I hope no one listens.