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

I was looking for some information on a new helmet to replace my aging one, when I came across this during a search on Yahoo!

I skimmed this FAQ about bicycle helmets, and what I read was not what I expected. Basically, this FAQ by OCBC (see link below) claim that helmets do little to save lives and in fact may do more harm than good. The arguments they put out tend to fall into 3 categories: 1. The protection that a helmet gives only mitigates damage from a standing fall, rarely does it actually save a life, 2. Helmets are a poor substitute for teaching good skills and give a false sense of security, 3. Mandating helmets cause people to drop out of cycling, thus increasing disease from a more sedentary lifestyle.

Here's the link for your viewing pleasure...

ONTARIO COALITION for BETTER CYCLING
Bicycle Helmet FAQ
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html


The only part that I sort of agree on is point #2. It's human nature to go for a quick fix... not unlike people who don't wear seatbelts or get careless because they think their airbags will save them. And I do agree that good skills and a sharp eye are better preventative measures against cycling death than relying on a helmet.

The rest I don't buy. Especially their point dismissing helmets because they only mitigate minor damage rather than prevent death. Even if this is true, if a helmet can mean the difference between a concussion or a full blown fracture of my skull, I'll take the helmet. Sure, if I get hit by an 18-wheeler, my helmet won't mean much. But if it can save me from a disabling injury I can't recover from, even if it can't prevent certain death, I think it's worth it.

As for the last point: saying that helmets turn otherwise active people into couch potatoes (I'm exaggerating for effect here :D) seems dubious to me. Although I tend to object to mandatory helmet laws just on principle... however, mandatory organ donar cards for non-helmeted riders are a different matter ;)

So I put this FAQ and my humble opinions out here for others to comment. Yes, they do quote a lot of sources, but I am in no position to peer review their sources... being a researcher myself, I know how easy it is to find something out there that agrees with me, no matter out on the fringe the source might be.

What do you think?

-- R. Chan

Originally posted by rchan
Basically, this FAQ by OCBC claim that helmets do little to save lives and in fact may do more harm than good.

Maybe someone could tell me what it is about helmets that seems to upset people so much. I've always worn one and I intend to continue doing so. In fact, I would wear one even if there was a law actually banning helmets.


Originally posted by rchan
The arguments they put out tend to fall into 3 categories: 1. The protection that a helmet gives only mitigates damage from a standing fall, rarely does it actually save a life,

I'm sorry, but point 1 is just a load of codswallop. Forget about this study or that study, I prefer to look at real world evidence. The real world evidence I have is that a helmet saved my skull in a 40km/h crash in October 2001. Not quite what I'd call a 'standing fall'.

Now, if helmets are improperly used, they won't provide optimal protection. However, I don't see how this is different from any other invention.


Originally posted by rchan
2. Helmets are a poor substitute for teaching good skills and give a false sense of security,

Granted, there is no substitute for teaching good skills, and helmets should not be used in that way. However, even the best skills in the world can't prevent accidents. I see a helmet's role as minimising the damage to the head in such accidents. I don't believe they give a false sense of security. It might give me the confidence to ride to the best of my ability, but I won't attempt something wearing a helmet that I wouldn't attempt without one. I, for one, don't want to end up with a broken leg.

If people ride in a more reckless way simply because they are wearing a helmet, it's just a sign that they have other issues.


Originally posted by rchan
3. Mandating helmets cause people to drop out of cycling, thus increasing disease from a more sedentary lifestyle.

Before we blame helmets for this one, let's look at some of the other factors that cause people to drop out of cycling shall we?

1. The "cycling is dangerous" perception that is perpetuated by media organisations that give cycling accidents more coverage than they give accidents involving pedestrians or drivers. Every time a cyclist gets injured around here we have dozens of newspaper articles on the 'dangers of cycling' (just saw another this morning, and this without an incident to spark it, just a slow news day).

2. The type of advertising that many bicycle manufacturers/retailers persist with that stereotypes cyclists into just two groups (see my Advertising thread for my full opinion on this). I sense that the majority of cyclists belong to neither of these groups.

3. The general trend in society toward a more sedentary lifestyle. It's not only cycling that's suffering from this one. Take a look at a cross-section of other sports and see how many people are dropping out if you want more on this.

4. The determination with which urban planners build second class facilities for cyclists and expect cyclists to use them. Many of these are just plain dangerous and I expect they frighten many people away from cycling.


Originally posted by rchan

What do you think?


In conclusion, I think that there are many arguments both for and against helmet use. There are plenty of other FAQ's that would say helmets are wonderful, and plenty of others that say they are crap. I think you should make up your own mind. FWIW, I will continue to wear my helmet, regardless of what some guy on the www says about it. It's worked for me in the past and I see no reason to change.

I also think the 'helmets' argument has been done to death, and that unless somebody has something new to offer it in this thread, this will be my last post on the matter.

Gee, I did go on a little, didn't I? :eek:

Thier conclusions sound like rationalization rather than the result of "research".

In my view, a helmet is not a panacea, but it is very inexpensive insurance against injury from minor (and most common) cycling accidents some examples are: not unclipping quick enough, brain lapse on the railroad tracks, getting tangled in a dog leash, whacked in the head by a branch, or sliding on ice. Helmets are inexpensive, comfortable, and easy to use. I don't know why someone would choose not to wear one.

I believe that the govenment should not mandate helmet use (or the use of gloves or shoes for that matter). If the equation works out differently for you, then by all means wear a silly-hat, or a cycling cap, or nothing at all if you prefer.

Granted that I have not researched this intensively, my conclusions are based on my experience. Helmet use, for me, goes into the category of "gathering all available advantages to myself", which is a very practical approach on both roads and trails.

regards
Dan

It's as simple as this. I've gone down, hard, and cracked my helmet. Better my helmet than my head. Did it save my life? Maybe not, but I'm sure it saved me a lot of pain.

I've had friends touch wheels and fall at speed. Their helmets broke, too. Did it save their lives? I can't say, but I'm sure it saved them from worse injuries.

I have a friend who suffers from short term memory loss because he took fall on his head without helmet.

This is all anecdotal, I know. It doesn't constitute research or proof, but it convinces me. The research and proof are out there, too. So, I wear a helmet. I encourage everyone I know to wear a helmet. My club requires riders to wear helmets. I think everyone who rides a bike should wear a helmet.

I don't favor legislation mandating helmet-use, though. We have enough government interference in our lives. I do favor helmets however.

I've looked at the OCBC article. It is a good piece of skeptical writing. It makes some interesting points but for the most part it strikes me as specious. Helmets may not prevent every injury or save every life, but to say that they are dangerous is silly.

Originally posted by rchan
The arguments they put out tend to fall into 3 categories: 1. The protection that a helmet gives only mitigates damage from a standing fall, rarely does it actually save a life, 2. Helmets are a poor substitute for teaching good skills and give a false sense of security, 3. Mandating helmets cause people to drop out of cycling, thus increasing disease from a more sedentary lifestyle.

First of all, your research tells me that you are very interested in safety - and that's a good thing!

In terms of the 3 arguments regarding why wearing a helmet is less safe than not using a helmet, I can only go with #3. Yup - fat kills more people than non-helmet usage. That is without question. However, if you only consider the regular biker (generally not overweight), then you've excluded that demographic, and also excluded argument #3.

Having stated that, I still don't think that helmets should be required. That should be a personal choice.

Originally, I felt helmets should be choice but now I feel it is good that it is mandatory (for kids under 18).
Around here I see many kids riding bikes and most of them have helmets and simply take it for granted that they should be wearing one. I also know that they see me or other older cyclists wearing helmets and it is just positive reinforcment.
Besides that, helmets actually work. Sometimes you just fall- could be a silly spill or massive pileup. A HELMET CAN MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LAUGHING ABOUT IT OR HAVING YOUR MOM CHANGE YOUR DIAPERS AND SPOON FEED YOU. Just that fact alone should make everyone want to wear a helmet. Even if it is a 1 in 10,000 chance that the helmet would save you-- why wouldn't you wear one? People have much worse odds winning the lottery yet they pay up for tickets every day.

As for the article:
It is really pathetic the lengths people will go to instead of simply saying, "I want freedom of choice to wear a helmet or not." I can at least respect honesty. The arguments as listed in that article border on ******** and I HATE crap shoveled and bow-tied in the guise of actual research.

I live in a country where there is free medical care for all citizens. If you want to ride your bike without a hemet then sign a waiver saying you will pay for your own medical care. A simple fall without a hemet can disable you for life. I don't want to have to pay for your lack of common sense.

Originally posted by stokell
I live in a country where there is free medical care for all citizens. If you want to ride your bike without a hemet then sign a waiver saying you will pay for your own medical care. A simple fall without a hemet can disable you for life. I don't want to have to pay for your lack of common sense.

Unfortunately, I live in the land of personal injury lawyers. :(

Originally posted by stokell
I live in a country where there is free medical care for all citizens. If you want to ride your bike without a hemet then sign a waiver saying you will pay for your own medical care. A simple fall without a hemet can disable you for life. I don't want to have to pay for your lack of common sense.

we don't have free medical care here of course unless you are incapacitated and can not work so if you can gaurentee that you can pay somebody to take care of you for your remaining years go ahead but our hospitals are full of people with head injuries and what not that cannot afford their care and then it does come out of our tax dollars

Originally posted by stokell
I live in a country where there is free medical care for all citizens. If you want to ride your bike without a hemet then sign a waiver saying you will pay for your own medical care. A simple fall without a hemet can disable you for life. I don't want to have to pay for your lack of common sense.

Great idea! While we are at it why don't we just ban cycling all together. May as well throw in skiing, hockey, or any other sport you can get injured playing. Imagine all the money our health care system will save!

Perhaps we should make people who eat fast food sign a waiver saying they forfeit their medical coverage as well. Why stop there? Anyone who goes outside should have to pay an extra premium because of all the polluted air they breath.

:rolleyes:

Seriously, let us not bring economics into the equation here. Once you do, there is no going back.

PS - I wear a helmet every time I ride.

Originally posted by bac
First of all, your research tells me that you are very interested in safety - and that's a good thing!

Oh, I'm already sold on helmets. It's just that every few years, even when you don't think it can get better, some clever company comes out with something new. I was just looking for facts about better ventilated (sp?) helmets since spring and summer is just around the corner. I though the FAQ was about the latest technology, so you can imagine my confusion when I was first reading it.

I'm also getting paranoid because statistically I am overdue for an accident. I won't give details for fear of jinxing myself, but let's just say I've been very very lucky so far.

-- R. Chan

Originally posted by KrisA
Perhaps we should make people who eat fast food sign a waiver saying they forfeit their medical coverage as well. Why stop there? Anyone who goes outside should have to pay an extra premium because of all the polluted air they breath.

:rolleyes:

Seriously, let us not bring economics into the equation here. Once you do, there is no going back.

PS - I wear a helmet every time I ride.

I think a monster has been created.

However I must point out, at least in the USA, insurance companies already charge a premium for higher risk behavior or conditions. I get charged more car insurance for just living in an urban area. Housing insurance in California has skyrocketed due to increased claims of mold damage (which I think is a load of bull). Life insurance companies will charge more if you fall into a group more likely to die in the short term (i.e. OLD). Medical insurance companies won't cover pre-existing conditions... if not drop you altogether if you dare to make a claim.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 'waiver' is the next logical step for insurance companies to reduce claims.

Hmmmm... I better remember to fill out my organ donor card. I already carry a driver's license and medical insurance card with me when I ride; gotta make sure they don't dump me if they don't know who I am. Just hope that the donor card doesn't discourage treatment :eek:

-- R. Chan

I've said this before, "Been hit 3 times, all 3 times crashing was unavoidable, all 3 times the drivers were at fault, all 3 times I had damage to my helmet, all 3 times I had no damage to my head, all 3 times I walked away, all 3 times I immediately went and bought another helmet!"

L8R

One stat they forgot to mention is how, when speeding down a single track, a branch might go through the vents twisting your head around and braking your neck.:p


I have hit my head many times with out and with a helmet. I much prefer to do it with a helmet now:D
I always wear a helmet when I ride these days. It is not the fear of death that I wear one but the pain of a serious head injury that does not kill me.

About the manditory helmet law. For the younger riders it is a good idea but the problem I see is not that they do not wear the helmet but they wear it improperly. Most of the young kids around here that wear helmets never buckle them. I always see them crashing and most of the time the helmet is off their head before they even hit the ground.

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.

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.

No, it will be shorter this time. I'm staying out of this one!

Originally posted by bikerider
No, it will be shorter this time. I'm staying out of this one!

Too late, boyfriend!

:p

When I landed a jump and caught my wheel in a rut last month I then ran head-first into a tree. It did everything but knock me out. Cracked my Giro Eclipse and scrapped my face. But, I was riding again in about three minutes. If I had been without a helmet I feel sure they would have had to carry me out of the woods rather than my having another two hours of fun. Don't really care what this/these articles say. Experience doesn't allow me to ride without a helmet on or off road. In fact, I just bought three new Eclipse helmets for $60 on eBay. Saved $240. Just don't get the new colors. And now I have brain buckets for the future.

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.

This is actualy the first helmet thread I have posted in so I for one am not repeating my self:p

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.

Please humor me. Since I am new here, I have missed the last 50 or so helmet threads. So this is new to me.

Originally posted by rchan
Please humor me. Since I am new here, I have missed the last 50 or so helmet threads. So this is new to me.
Try using the search function -- you'll find quite a lot of information (and opinion, and flaming disagreements) on the subject.

I work with head-injured folks and you've probably already guessed that I ALWAYS wear a helmet. The other issue that hasn't been addressed in the discussion is the PROPER fit of the helmet. Improper fit has, undoubtedly, has contributed to some of the variability in the research. The lack of consistency of this variable makes some of the studies less than "scientific." In my view, helmets only have value when they fit (and are worn) properly.

Originally posted by Metal Cowgal
I work with head-injured folks and you've probably already guessed that I ALWAYS wear a helmet. The other issue that hasn't been addressed in the discussion is the PROPER fit of the helmet. Improper fit has, undoubtedly, has contributed to some of the variability in the research. The lack of consistency of this variable makes some of the studies less than "scientific." In my view, helmets only have value when they fit (and are worn) properly.

Yes, that's what I meant earlier when I suggested the studies weren't totally accurate because they didn't consider improper use of helmets. Of course, improper use also includes wearing the helmet on the handle-bars rather than on one's head as many teenagers do around here.

Oh, dear! I've posted again. Alright, I'll start my 500 lines now.

I must not respond to a foam & plastic post.
I must not respond to a foam & plastic post.
I must not...

The once I fell directly upon a curve- direct blow to the left temple. I clearly recall the crack runnig about an inch long towards the skull upon the helmet..
I had a headache with, imagine the headhache w/o.. No helmet, no ride- that is my policy.

">>>>>>Mandating helmets cause people to drop out of cycling, thus increasing disease from a more sedentary lifestyle."<<<<

I could care less if people drop out of cycling because due to laws mandating helmet use. These people DO NOT belong on streets with cars, buses and trucks and they are the reason why bicycling is considered a dangerous activity. I'm sick and tired of reading article after article in the New York Post on some bicycle rider who was killed and wasn't wearing a helmet.

Originally posted by rchan
....Basically, this FAQ by the OCBC (see link below) claim that helmets do little to save lives.... The arguments they put out tend to fall into 3 categories: 1. The protection that a helmet gives only mitigates damage from a standing fall, rarely does it actually save a life, 2. Helmets are a poor substitute for teaching good skills and give a false sense of security, 3. Mandating helmets cause people to drop out of cycling, thus increasing disease from a more sedentary lifestyle.

Here's the link for your viewing pleasure...

ONTARIO COALITION for BETTER CYCLING
Bicycle Helmet FAQ
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html .....


ARGUMENT 1
The real problem is that there is little statistically-valid data to prove things either way. There are 40 mph accidents where a rider without helmet was almost able to walk away, and there are some low-speed accidents where a rider (helmetted or not) won't walk away. The only way to get real data would be to reproduce accidents with and without helmet and compare the results... which I guess no one wants to go through! Crash tests with dummies on bikes -- like they are required to do with cars -- would be a good way to get reliable data in real-life situations.

ARGUMENT 2
It's a problem, I suspect with some kids with a natural neck-breaking tendency. But the real problem, I think, comes from "safety concerned" agencies who write their 10 rules for safe cycling, only insisting on "wear your helmet" and "watch out for traffic", and forgetting about real traffic rules.

ARGUMENT 3
From what I read, such data was observed in Australia (and maybe in New Zealand). I have seen contradictory data for British Columbia. Whether it is related to madatory helmets or it is simply a co-incidence, I have no idea. To put in in the North American context, one could observe the number of adult cyclists in the 1970s bike boom and the number of adult cyclists in the mid or late 1980s (after the boom, but before helmets were popular), and there was a large drop indeed in the number of cyclists!

Originally posted by mgagnonlv

ARGUMENT 3
From what I read, such data was observed in Australia (and maybe in New Zealand). I have seen contradictory data for British Columbia. Whether it is related to madatory helmets or it is simply a co-incidence, I have no idea.

More than likely it was just a coincidence. 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. Personally, I think there are other factors at work here (I won't bother outlining those a second time in this thread).

In fact, given the number of intervening variables that need to be considered, the validity of virtually any statistics in existence in any facet of life can be questioned.


Originally posted by Dahon.Steve
I could care less if people drop out of cycling because due to laws mandating helmet use. These people DO NOT belong on streets with cars, buses and trucks and they are the reason why bicycling is considered a dangerous activity.

I disagree. I believe there are two main reasons that bicycling is considered a 'dangerous activity' and neither of them relate to helmets in any way.

1. The fact that on average, a cycling death takes up as much newspaper space as about 100 motoring deaths. I've lost count of the number of times where one newspaper or another around here has used an article on the 'dangers of cycling' to simply take up space. They aren't even reporting anything that actually happened, they're just filling space on a slow news day. This volume of coverage tends to have an effect on people's perceptions. I'm still waiting for a 'dangers of driving' article in regard to the hundreds of people killed each year on car crashes.

2. The whole stupid idea of "bigger is better"/"don't go to the letterbox in anything less than a tank" that so contaminates modern culture. For some reason many people seem to think that being as big as you can will make you safer than avoiding confrontations (never mind the fact that the other guy is also trying to be as big as he can). I get people telling me all the time that riding is dangerous because I'm going to come off second best in the 'inevitable' confrontation with a car. And I don't ride anywhere without a helmet.

Originally posted by DanFromDetroit
Thier conclusions sound like rationalization rather than the result of "research".... That sums it up nicely, Dan.
Out here in Washington state, we have a few vocal numbskulls ;) in an organization called ABATE, that campaign for the repeal of mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. I ride motorcycles and I wear a helmet because it's saved my skull once and might well do it again.

On the other hand, there might be a case for not requiring/advising helmet use... some Darwinian idea about encouraging the process of natural selection...

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.
just re-post the pic. of the roadracer laying in a pool of his own blood, that was quite convincing , when ever im tempted to leave it at home i think of that pic. tho its mandatory here, i dont go along with that, should be a personal choice , exept for kids, like smoking;)

Want to know if helmets work? Try this.

1) Put helmet on head
2) Tighten straps
3) Face a brick wall
4) Slam head into wall.

Now remove the damaged helmet and repeat steps 3 and 4.

Remember to call an ambulance before trying phase two of this experiment.:D

Helmets are mandatory here, with virtually 100% compliance. So we have no choice either way.

CHEERS.

Mark

Originally posted by Dutchy
Helmets are mandatory here, with virtually 100% compliance. So we have no choice either way.


I agree with most of your post, but 100% compliance? Not a chance up here!

Don't forget Adelaide's nickname lately has been the Nanny State, in reference to our use of the law. Tickets are issued for non helmet wearing.
It seems we have a law for everything that could possibly be seen as remotely dangerous. Even jetty jumping, is getting a bad rap at the moment b/c one kid ended up in hospital. If there isn't a law to ban something, it is probably in the pipe line.

Off topic: A kid got beaten up at a skate park in the city at 10am, and the solution is to put security guards at the park and increase the amount of lighting. WTF it happened during daylight hours!

CHEERS.

Mark

Point taken.

One of my pet hates is seeing someone riding a bike with their helmet dangling from the handlebars - if they don't want to wear it why don't they just leave the f***ing thing at home!

Originally posted by Falchoon
One of my pet hates is seeing someone riding a bike with their helmet dangling from the handlebars - if they don't want to wear it why don't they just leave the f***ing thing at home!

Apparently their logic is that if they see a cop they'll put it on. Seems to me that they'd have to be quick. However, I'm with you, I don't see why they'd waste money on a helmet not to wear it.

I:
1) always wear a helmet while cycling;
2) insist that my sons (now 13 and 18) do likewise;
3) ride as though I were NOT wearing the helmet;
4) oppose mandatory helmet laws.

The one cogent argument against helmets is the some folks ride less cautiously with a helmet than without (risk-compensatory behaviour). For the rest of us, a helmet is cheap insurance against some forms of head injury.

Bicycling magazine reported on a study by Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto of N thousand bike injuries that there had been a 45% reduction in head injuries since bike helmets were made mandatory for children. There was no change for other types of bike related injuries, which indicated that the reduction in head injuries was not due to a reduction in biking.

I choose to wear one. I don't feel right on a bike without one- it makes me feel like a proper cyclist as opposed to someone who rides a bike.

However, I acknowledge that it will only protect me to a limited extent and that if I get creamed by a truck won't make much of a difference.

I remember when I got my armoured leathers for my motorbike there was a disclaimer that, while they were protective equipment, they would not prevent injury from "massive penetrating wounds". Gee Thanks.

My pet hate is seeing a parent and child together, the child wearing a helmet, the parent not. Message?

The only time I'm on a bike with out a helmet is if I'm just checking adjustments late at night in the back parking lot. (usually around two or three in the morning on a weekday)

Just wearing a helmet is only a small step. What's really needed is to control the mad drivers out there and to train all road users, including cyclists, how to be safe. We also need safe road surfaces, free from potholes, etc.

(Did I mention speed limits?)

I can personally vouch for helmets as one saved my head from cracking open. I got a nice concussion after crashing a jump I attempted. The back of the helmet had a large crack in it and all I could think was my god that could have been my head.

Yesterday on my commute in to work I was traveling west bound on N 56th st in North Seattle I was one block west of Latona when I went down I was doing somewhere around 15 mph my tire got caught in a gap in the pavement while I was trying to go around one of our little traffic circles (I hate those things stops signs are cheaper) any way I was thrown over the handle bars and impacted the pavement face first the helmet taking the brunt of the impact I heard the crunch the impact knocked my goggles off. the impact was at the very front of the helmet, if I had not been wearing it that would of been my forehead. I might of survived but not without serious damage, as it was with helmet on my head took a serious jolt. So for what could of been a life ending or very serious injuries accident I walked away a little rattled, swollen nose with 2 small lacerations a sore wrist small amount of road rash on the knee and a slight limp in the leg, a chipped tooth and about 4 hours of groggy head. No permanent damage, I worked yesterday, light duty and back in full swing today. Oh yeah and only a slight headache. Looking at my helmet last night I saw just how it worked the foam shattered around the impact zone it took the brunt of the shock and spread it out so by the time it got to my head it was minimal. So personally I am tired of hearing about people who say they don't work or that they are a good enough rider and any research that suggests that helmets don't work are flawed. I definitely forgot the cardinal rule of cycling Keep the rubber side down. And the rule if you can't remember that don't forgot to tuck in roll.

Nate

Glad you're okay!!!! I work with folks who have had head injuries. Sounds like you would have gotten a serious konk to the frontal lobes of your brain had you not been wearing the styro-plastic. It wouldn't have been pretty, my friend.

So glad you escaped relatively unscaithed.

M.C.

Originally posted by Metal Cowgal
Sounds like you would have gotten a serious konk to the frontal lobes of your brain had you not been wearing the styro-plastic. It wouldn't have been pretty, my friend.

So glad you escaped relatively unscaithed.

M.C.

Yep you are so right the impact was right square in the middle of my forehead and I remember thinking this is it. was I ever happy when the dust settled that I was awake needless to say yesterday was a very sobering day for me 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. So today I smile and say thanks to God that he gave me the wisdom to wear a helmet and of course to Bell Helmets for making such a fine product. Oh yeah I did ride home last night I had to get right back on it again it was slower than normal but definitely sweeter than normal.

Helmets aren't harmful. If your helmet is uncomfortable, or restricts your view, then you've either got the wrong helmet or you don't know how to put it on.

The ONTARIO COALITION for BETTER CYCLING may be a wonderful organization otherwise, but the idiocy on display in their so-called "Bicycle Helmet FAQ" places them directly in the lunatic fringe.

It's true that helmets aren't a panacea. But the claim that helmet's don't save lives is a total crock! I only hope that the idiots who wrote that FAQ never slam their heads on the concrete without a helmet. (Although it would be a sort of poetic justice.)

I don't favor mandatory helmet laws, simply because I think that, in a free society, adults should be free to be as stupid as they want. On the other hand, if someone wants to sue someone else for their serious head injury which was made more serious because they weren't wearing a helmet, I would hope that the court would take the victims's own stupidity in to account.

In other words, if you ride without a helmet, you assume the risk.

99% of the time I wear a helmet when I ride. On the rare occasions that I ride without a helmet, it is a calculated risk.

Sure, there's a lot more to bicycle safety than just wearing a helmet, but that doesn't mean that wearing a helmet is a bad idea. The ONTARIO COALITION for BETTER CYCLING should be ashamed of their so-called Helmet FAQ. It's a bunch of horse hockey.

Originally posted by JRA


I don't favor mandatory helmet laws, simply because I think that, in a free society, adults should be free to be as stupid as they want. On the other hand, if someone wants to sue someone else for their serious head injury which was made more serious because they weren't wearing a helmet, I would hope that the court would take the victims's own stupidity in to account.

In other words, if you ride without a helmet, you assume the risk.

I really do not like laws either but when somebody does go out and ride without a helmet then gets seriously injured so they can no longer work and need long term medical care. A majority of the time the cost of that comes from the taxpayers pocket since most people are not independently wealthy and can not afford to pay for long term care or live without some kind of public assistance. How many of you gainfully employed people are among the "3 paychecks from being homeless" crowd So I think mandatory helmet laws are a savings to the public not an added extra cost or infringement of ones rights bike ridding like car driving is not a right it is a privilege and should be treated as such so with privilege comes responsibility and since we cannot count on everybody being responsible we need the laws.

I just don't get why cycling head injuries are put out of context with other things we do that can result in head injuries. Not riding and getting heart disease is worse than riding without a helmet. Not riding your bike and having an accident in a car can kill multiple numbers of people. Simple falls result in more hospitalizations than any other cause.

Cycling is healthy and Europeans prove we can ride without helmets and live long, healthy lives.

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.

A helmet has saved my head from major injury, minor injury, and something somewhere between.

In some places there are helmet laws to "protect us," but I've never seen a law banning tobacco, except to minors.

It's the Golden Rule in effect again: those that have the gold make the rules.

" In some places there are helmet laws to "protect us," but I've never seen a law banning tobacco, except to minors. It's the Golden Rule in effect again: those that have the gold make the rules."

I'd say that those who don't ride bikes don't have a problem enforcing rules that don't effect those that don't ride bikes.

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.

I'm not saying that wearing a helmet when riding a bike doesn't make good sense. I'm just asking to put all risks into proper context