Advocacy & Safety - Helmets - do the math!!

This is a rant I unleashed in an email to Velo News after seeing the 12th stage of the Giro yesterday and finding the leaders lidless!!

I had written about this and got the response that the UCI allows riders to remove helmets on mountain climbs of more than 5 km.

Here is MY response -

"So the thinking is that a fall on a mountain stage is some how less life threatening??

You would think that the UCI would do the math and make it a hard and fast rule.

The math is as follows -

It takes 10 lbs of pressure to fracture the human skull
A fall from a 52 cm bike where the skull maked direct contact in the fall results in 12 lbs. of pressure on the skull. A six year old can do the math!! That is 2 lbs. more force that needed to cause a skull fracture!!

That is why EVERY organized ride I have been on insists on helmets!!

Here in Baltimore we have the world famous R. Adams Crowley Shock Trauma Center (the first of its kind in the world). We treat a lot of head injuries here and the results of even a slight fracture can result in some rather devastating injories.

I reolize that I might be "preaching to the choir", but somehow the UCI (and the riders need to start thinking of safety). The other issue is setting a good example. Oh, forget that! This is the sport where perfomance enhancing drugs run rampent!! But seriously, if kids and budding local riders see the pros doing it then they are likely to want to emulate them. After a while helmets might become as cool as cycling caps (worn with the brim turned up of course)."

Cycling should be fun AND SAFE!!

Enough of my ranting!! Happy (and safe)Riding.

I guess the idea is that since the speed is so much less going up the hill that it is less dangerous. It seems to me that chances of falling onto ones head at such a slow speed is much lower.

At lower speed, helmets do not cool as efficiently as having a bare head. You have to understand the exertion that these people are putting out climbing mountain routes at top speed. On some mountains, overheating can be just as dangerous or more so than a fall. More than one cyclist has had to be rehydrated by IV at the mountain finish of a race.

Because racers are looking for performance, they put a larger emphasis on things like cooling and comfort than the average cyclists.

As for your "math," vary rarely does a slow fall result in direct contact of the head on the ground. Usually the hand or shoulder will contact the ground first.

You try climbing up a 27% grade like the Zoncolan and see if you want to take your helmet off.



This is the sport where perfomance enhancing drugs run rampent!!

I don't know about the rest of you but I believe that pro cycling has cleaned up it's act and may even be over zelous in it's anti doping campaign.

I also don't think that you need to worry much about european pro cyclists influencing kids. Even with the 4 time Tour Champ America gets about 4 hours of national Television coverage per year all during July showing the highlights of the weeks racing. IF your worried about kids saftey I would look in more X-Treme places for subject matter for rants and lay off pro cycling.

How many racers have ever injured their head by falling off their bikes on a climb? Do you have the numbers ?
They are more at risk of sprained shoulder and wrist from getting tangled up in the peleton on a flat section.
There have been fatalities on downhills, but when your head (travelling at 50mph) meets a concrete bollard, 1" of polystyrene is not going to save you.

I think they are big boys who can look after themselves.

be safe. stay at home on your couch.

if you want to wear a helmet, do it.

but demanding that others do it is........(some word that I would probably know if I hadn't hit my head so many times.)

Looks like I got under a lot of people's skin!!

Sorry if I offended, but brane damage is very serious and usually irreversable!! If your brain stops your dead!!

No, I am not staying home on my couch!! I ride about 300 miles a month year round and pland to continue doing it - WITH A HELMET THANK YOU!!

From looking at your profile, you may be working with placing patients with head injuries of any type in rehab facilities, obtaining disability etc. If you do, you definately see the long term social, medical and financial consequences of head injuries (wether due to stroke or accidents) that much of the public and even the medical community does not see. Like you, my visceral response is to wear a helmet but I think these guys are aware of the risks they are taking and are willing to forgo their personal safety for enhanced performance as Brian Ratcliff mentioned.
This is probably true of any professional sport, football is another that comes to mind in terms of steroid use which enhances their risk of certain cancers and heart disease.

I know you mean well but I dislike your comment that "... this is the sport where performance enhancing drugs run rempent (sic)". Baseball won't even test for drugs, they say they don't need to. Yeah, right! And the testing in Basketball, Football and Hockey is a joke. And if you want to know what has been going on in Track & Field read Dr. Robert Voy's book 'Drugs Sports and Politics'. If you can find a copy. We won't get into tennis and golf. (they're so pure, the Williams sisters aren't on drugs, no, not al all. And when they drop dead suddenly one of these days it will be from 'natural' causes, just like Flojo did.) So, cool it with the derogatory comments on cycling.

As for helmets: I always ride with mine after having my life saved twice (at least) by having one on. But I respect the right of the pros to do what they think is best for them. Many sports are practised without adequate protection and you could probably make a good case that all motorists should also wear head protection. Will you also legislate anti-skid footing for all bath-tubs and showers? In the USA you seem to have much greater respect for individual liberties than here in Canada, where 'dogooders' want to legislate everything. Keep it that way my friend. (and hands off the Euro cycling pros)

I have had the pleasure of doing some climbing in the Alps and other parts of southern Europe, and anytime the road goes up I remove my helmet, so I understand this exception completely. Sometimes it feels like the brain will boil inside the helmet.

And remember that it is only allowed to remove the helmet on the finishing climb, so regardless of how big a climb they have in the middle of a stage they need to have the helmet on. I think this is a sensible compromise to get as many riders as possible to accept this new (and IMHO good) rule.

/Csson

OB1knobe
This woul have been a PM, but you don't accept them!

Yes, you might call me a do dooder! Look at my profile!!

Did I say that other sports are not guilty of abuse? NO! Does that make it right? NO!

Yes, in the US all tub manufacturors must have some sort of skid protection on their products to pass safety standards.

No, all drivers of cars do not need helmets - Only those who are stupid enough to ride convertables without a rollbar on public roads. You can't even walk onto a race track without one!!

I did not mean my comments to be derogatory (or taken as such), but without discussion there is little incentive to change! From the looks of the responses I got, I at least hit a nerve and if one person who rode today without a helmet puts one on, then the do gooder in me will be happy!! One less possible injured brain!!

I am new to cycling and I do it for my health and because I enjoy the way I feel as a result of doing it.

Sorry if I offended ANYONE!!

wlevey
I fully understand the risks and the protection that helmets give. I always wear one, but its a last resort, not a first.
Just as a matter of interest, what proportion of the head injury cases you see are due to cycling?

I see head injury stats on lots of websites but none that can be sensibly analysed. People cherry-pick the numbers to make the percentages big even though the absolute numbers are small. They bulk up casualty rates by including all minor injuries in "deaths and injuries caused by cycling".

I have been "killed or injured on a bike" at least 4 times.

Are cycling head injuries classed as sport, transport, or do they form part of the generic motor-car accident figures ?
Is there a source for non-biased data ?

Originally posted by MichaelW
wlevey
I see head injury stats on lots of websites but none that can be sensibly analysed. People cherry-pick the numbers to make the percentages big even though the absolute numbers are small.

The usual abuse of statistics is the other way around- large absolute numbers but insignificant percentage


They bulk up casualty rates by including all minor injuries in "deaths and injuries caused by cycling".

I have been "killed or injured on a bike" at least 4 times.

Are cycling head injuries classed as sport, transport, or do they form part of the generic motor-car accident figures ?
Is there a source for non-biased data ?

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/

the riders in this case are going UPHILL.

how fast can one pedal going uphill? i have no idea but I would imagine it would be slow.

you can hit your head and die if you trip while walking.
especially going down stairs.

why don't you wear a helmet AT ALL TIMES?

because you have enough confidence in your walking ability that you will NEVER trip and fall.

who would think that they would fall of their bike rolling at a slow speed?

When this safety BS first started I suggested that those of us that weren't interested shouldd gie the government $1000 to clean us up off the pavement (or wherever) be exempt from this insurance company driven BS and have to where this or that safety gizmo.

Also why do you care what I or any one but you do?

Joe

Originally posted by pnj
the riders in this case are going UPHILL. how fast can one pedal going uphill?

Well the incident that prompted the UCI to impose the mandatroy helmet rule was Kivalev's death in which he was going at a slow speed, uphill, fell and died from a head injury.


Originally posted by wlevey
the UCI allows riders to remove helmets on mountain climbs of more than 5 km.

Ah Ha! There's the loophole! I'll bet that loophole allows the riders to decend on the same stage lidless as well. Now there's an effective :rolleyes: rule. I don't see a huge change in habits as not all, but lots, of riders do wear them on some stages.

A while ago in the General Disscusion forum under, Helmet use in pro peloton, I said, "The heat argument is interesting. If everyone wore one, the handicap would be the same. What about mountain stages? They start out with them on but take them off for the climb (because they are too hot, so they say) and don't put them on for the decent (even though many pro's manage to put newspapers under their jerseys)."

Later, in the General Disscusion forum (again) under, UCI will make helmets mandatory, I said, "The UCI does have a history of flip flopping on all kinds of issues. It will be interesting if the opposition of the riders has changed since the last time they implemented a helmet rule. I don't think more riders are wearing helmets more often when they usually complain about wearing them. Wouldn't it be a change to see them struggling up those mountains in the July heat with helmets on?"

I guess they won't be struggling up those mountains in the July heat with helmets on!


:D

For my two cents ... want it or not ...

In 1984 I read an article written by a neurosurgeon about the head trauma he had seen directly related to cycling injuries. I don't remember who wrote it, or where I read it. I have never forgotten the vivid impact it had on me.

My choice is a no brainer ... I've never ridden without a helmet since, not once. I like living, and riding, and am willing to put up with the heat and sweat in my eyes to not be dead, or drooling in front of my kids in a wheel chair. I refuse to ride with anyone who does not where a helmet ... it's o.k. for others not to wear one. I won't be riding with them.

I believe in freedom of choice, and I choose to wear a helmut, and not ride with those that don't. Simple.

Also, I always wear my seatbelts while driving or riding in a vehicle, and so does anyone in the vehicle with me.

Choice is the way it should be ... I've made mine.

Enjoy the ride ... ... ...

Wow! :eek: Responses sure have slowed down on this topic!

Previous posts under "Helmet use in pro peloton" and "UCI will make helmets mandatory" produced 112 replies!

Weather the rule is good/bad or right/wrong I would think the loophole worked into the rule would have angered more than a few. Maybe the UCI rules are a whole different can of worms.

:confused:

yes, but the European pro, are climbing hills at 32 KPH, that is not slow, they cann really get seriuosly hurt, if ever they crashed.

I think the point of enforcing helmets for pro cyclists is to make helmets fashionable for young riders. Removing helmets for long climbs will increase their speed and comfort with little increase in risk, but if helmets were enforced they would all be disadvantaged to the same extent so the relative race results for the riders would not be changed.

2 points:
Pro's climb hills fast, they aren't doing 10kph/6mph more like +25kph/15mph.

The heat argument is a red herring. In the the Tour Down Under helmets are mandatory for the whole stage. This year they raced in 44ºC/111F with their lids on. It never gets this hot in Europe.

CHEERS.

Mark

Mark,

Thanks for the Support!! I was beginning to think that I was some sort of Pariah!!

Bill

Originally posted by wlevey
This is a rant I unleashed in an email to Velo News after seeing the 12th stage of the Giro yesterday and finding the leaders lidless!!

I had written about this and got the response that the UCI allows riders to remove helmets on mountain climbs of more than 5 km.

Here is MY response -

"So the thinking is that a fall on a mountain stage is some how less life threatening??

You would think that the UCI would do the math and make it a hard and fast rule.

The math is as follows -

It takes 10 lbs of pressure to fracture the human skull
A fall from a 52 cm bike where the skull maked direct contact in the fall results in 12 lbs. of pressure on the skull. A six year old can do the math!! That is 2 lbs. more force that needed to cause a skull fracture!!

That is why EVERY organized ride I have been on insists on helmets!!

Here in Baltimore we have the world famous R. Adams Crowley Shock Trauma Center (the first of its kind in the world). We treat a lot of head injuries here and the results of even a slight fracture can result in some rather devastating injories.

I reolize that I might be "preaching to the choir", but somehow the UCI (and the riders need to start thinking of safety). The other issue is setting a good example. Oh, forget that! This is the sport where perfomance enhancing drugs run rampent!! But seriously, if kids and budding local riders see the pros doing it then they are likely to want to emulate them. After a while helmets might become as cool as cycling caps (worn with the brim turned up of course)."

Cycling should be fun AND SAFE!!

Enough of my ranting!! Happy (and safe)Riding.


wlevey, I am behind you all the way, helmets hould be worn whenever you are riding, no matter how fast, or how far you may be going, I wear my helmet whenever I ride, even if it is 2 blocks.

Originally posted by Crazy Cyclist
wlevey, I am behind you all the way, helmets hould be worn whenever you are riding, no matter how fast, or how far you may be going, I wear my helmet whenever I ride, even if it is 2 blocks.

As do I, although my view on legisating it is somewhat different (nothing to do with "personal rights" or any of that rubbish - just to see police resources better allocated). Like Dutchy, I've been known to ride in some pretty warm conditions (47 degrees C on one particular day) - and I'm nowhere near as fit as the pro riders. I really don't see how the heat can be a factor in this.

Originally posted by Chris L
I really don't see how the heat can be a factor in this.

I don't see it as an excuse as well. There's something else going on here with the UCI. They say helmets are mandatory but they don't have to use them half the time. Talk about wishy-washy.

Originally posted by closetbiker
I don't see it as an excuse as well. There's something else going on here with the UCI. They say helmets are mandatory but they don't have to use them half the time. Talk about wishy-washy.

They may have plans to introduce it full-time, even if they haven't officially announced them yet. In the case of the UCI, they're just worried about too many people getting upset in the short term. Once a few of the pros start to get over it and get on with life, we may see proposals to have the helmets worn all the time.

Okay I am not going to use statistics here lets do some math together. Now most of you non helmet wearers say that why should you be told to wear a helmet you are not hurting anyone. Well lets say you are peddling down the road one day and you hit an oil slick which sends you crashing down on to the pavement, and you impact at the frontal lobe region of your head, if you are lucky you will die without waking up now of course that won't hurt anybody but you, that is unless you have family and Friends who care about you then they get to live with your loss for the rest of their lives. Okay so now lets say you are unlucky and you end up in one of the head trauma units staring off into space and drooling for the better part of the day. Now when all this happened to you lets say you were as lucky as me and I am totally covered by insurance through my work place and being benevolent they may carry my insurance for a couple of months just to see if I snap out of it after that they say nope, then my family which by the way has been paying the 10% medical costs that the insurance doesn't cover, might pick up the insurance tab for the 18 months that Cobra allows so now not only are they paying the 10% they are footing the bill for the insurance as well, now when that runs out hmmm no insurance they either have to pay the bill or us lucky tax payers end up footing the bill. and even worse yet you family will come in once a week to wipe the drool from your face and pray that one day you will wake up out of it (odds are you won't don't need a link to know that one) and after awhile that will turn into once a month then special holidays and all the time they have to endure the pain of looking at your spaced out drooling face wishing that you had died in that accident it would of been better off for all concerned. So I say yeah go ahead ride around without a helmet , but don't use the BS that you will be the only victim unless of course you have no family or friends and even this sarcastic a$$hole has a couple of those, and remember to leave a trust fund big enough to cover your life time expenses so we taxpayers don't have to pick up the tab.

Yes, well that's all well and good but we're talking about the UCI here and why they would write such a large loophole into a rule that effectively renders that rule worthless for a good part the time.

And, although from your center of the universe that maybe the popular point of view, from another galaxy, far, far away, (across the pond) there may be another point of view that is a little different (based on years of experience where cycling is not practiced by a tiny percentage of the population but by the majority of the population).

Originally posted by closetbiker
Ah Ha! There's the loophole! I'll bet that loophole allows the riders to decend on the same stage lidless as well.


Originally posted by Csson
Remember that it is only allowed to remove the helmet on the finishing climb, so regardless of how big a climb they have in the middle of a stage they need to have the helmet on.

I also believe that this is the first step towards having helmets mandatory all the time. It's wiser to take it one step at a time, than to cause an uproar like they (UCI) did the last time they tried making helmets mandatory.

/Csson

The way I read the rule it says that they are only allowed to take off the helmet on a finishing climb of more than 5 kilometers. The finish line has to be on or before the top of the climb. There is no where that I can see that says they are allowed to do any descending without a helmet.

Originally posted by closetbiker
Yes, well that's all well and good but we're talking about the UCI here and why they would write such a large loophole into a rule that effectively renders that rule worthless for a good part the time.

And, although from your center of the universe that maybe the popular point of view, from another galaxy, far, far away, (across the pond) there may be another point of view that is a little different (based on years of experience where cycling is not practiced by a tiny percentage of the population but by the majority of the population).

I know this is about UCI but several have used it to express their disdain for helmets and my take is from years and years of experiance also I just wanted to point out how selfish the view of you being the only victim really is thats all I am not going to make you wear one so relax okay me thinks I might of hit a nerve or something.

Originally posted by ngateguy
me thinks I might of hit a nerve or something.

Nah, my nerves have all been burned away from all the flack I get for presenting a different point of view!:D

Originally posted by MichaelW
I fully understand the risks and the protection that helmets give. I always wear one, but its a last resort, not a first.That's a very good summary of the way I feel.

A helmet is a piece of safety equipment that, hopefully, you will never need. I can honestly say that a helmet has never saved me from a head injury. The one time I hit my head on the pavement was long before it became popular to advocate helmet use and, like just about everybody else back then, I wasn't wearing one. The concussion I got was actually not close to being the most serious of my injuries. I was lucky.

But I digress. I wear a helmet and I really don't give a rat's behind if others do or not, although ngateguy makes a good point that if someone cracks their skull on the pavement it affects a lot of people other than just themselves. But still, I think adults should have the right to crack their skull on the pavement if they want.

Some may question if the risk justifies wearing a helmet. That's a legitimate question, but the suggestion that helmets don't save lives falls in a category I call popycock and horse-hockey. You can quote all the statistics you want. The statistics are severly limited, and one thing the statistics won't show you is how many cyclists fall and hit their heads and aren't injured because they are wearing a helmet.

It is incredibly simple and inexpensive to put on a helmet and there's no reasonable reason not to do it except maybe vanity or stubborness. (being from Missouri, famous for it's mules, I know a little about stubborness ;)) In the twenty or so years I've been wearing a helmet, I've never hit my head on the pavement but I will continue to do it because it is so incredibly simple and, some day, it may just save me from a serious injury.


Originally posted by closetbiker
Nah, my nerves have all been burned away from all the flack I get for presenting a different point of view!:D As someone who has given you a little flack, I don't think you got flack for presenting a different point of view. You got flack because you seemed to be advising others not to wear a helmet, and seemed to be criticising, even ridiculing, those who choose to wear a helmet.

I'm all for choice and I'm not for mandatory helmet laws. That said, I'm sure helmets save lives and prevent serious injury. I will continue to wear one and I hope others wear them, too.

As far as the UCI goes, it's a sports governing body. As such, if it's like most other sports governing bodies I know of, it's run by the lowest class of bureaucrats in existence. If they're just incompetent and not corrupt, it's a blessing. (wanna talk about the IOC, the USOC, FIFA, etc :D - ah, but that's another story) If the the UCI's rules are two-faced and contradictory, it's par for the course.

Originally posted by closetbiker
Nah, my nerves have all been burned away from all the flack I get for presenting a different point of view!:D ..

I can relate I used to spend too much time on the politic forum :beer:

I understand where you are coming from, Wlevey. It bothers me that most people I see riding around here in Portland aren't wearing a helmet. To play the devil's advocate, though, you are talking about a competitive sport, and risking your life is part of many competitive sports. Good or bad, athletes will continue to choose efficiency over safety when competing.

Originally posted by JRA
As someone who has given you a little flack, I don't think you got flack for presenting a different point of view. You got flack because you seemed to be advising others not to wear a helmet, and seemed to be criticising, even ridiculing, those who choose to wear a helmet.

You've said that before and I've replied,

"I'm on no campaign, just my humble opinion, I agree with many of the arguments for wearing helmets and said so, we can certainly agree to disagree, it would seem if you don't agree with these copy and pastes, you have a disagreement with those people (BMA, Dr. Shively and the Journal of Products Liability)who I copied and pasted, Please, I'm not being condesending, that's too bad you read it that way."

So it seems you see it as I'm criticising, even ridiculing, those who choose to wear a helmet, but I've written then, as now, that that's not the case. I'm just giving a different point of view.

Originally posted by closetbiker
So it seems you see it as I'm criticising, even ridiculing, those who choose to wear a helmet, but I've written then, as now, that that's not the case.You have indeed said that. You have also made posts that seemed to suggest that no reasonable person would choose to wear a helmet.

Originally posted by closetbiker
"... it would seem if you don't agree with these copy and pastes, you have a disagreement with those people (BMA, Dr. Shively and the Journal of Products Liability)who I copied and pasted, ... I don't necessarily disagree with these people, and I never said that I did. What I most certainly disagree with is your interpretation of what it all means. You are great at quoting statistics, which is fine but, when it comes to interpreting statistics, no offense, but I don't think you have a clue.

That said, I don't think you and I disagree all that much. I just don't think it responsible to advocate not wearing a helmet, which is what you seem to advocate.

If I indeed did post my criticising, even ridiculing, those who choose to wear a helmet, I'd like to see it. Show me.

If you don't think it responsible to advocate not wearing a helmet, which is what I seem to advocate, show where I've said, don't wear a helmet, it's not responsible.

Originally posted by JRA
[B]"... it would seem if you don't agree with these copy and pastes, you have a disagreement
with those people (BMA, Dr. Shively and the Journal of Products Liability)who I copied and
pasted, ...

I don't necessarily disagree people, and I never said that I did. What I most certainly disagree with is your interpretation of what it all means. /B]

Well then, how would you interpet this direct quote and how would you say I interpreted it in what way other than what it said?

"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"

Originally posted by closetbiker
Well then, how would you interpet this direct quote and how would you say I interpreted it in what way other than what it said?

"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"

do I need to point out that the report you are quoting is 15 years old, helmets were still not being used that much back then you should try to find one more up to date. Which also means the data used in it is even older it usually takes time to put something like that together.

Closetbike since you are so into statistics check out this website

http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

note the amount of bike deaths that has decreased in the last 20 years and that helmet wear went up from 18% in 1991 to 50% in 1998 using your logic than helmets are definitely doing there job and saving peoples lives also note that 56% of cycling deaths are in the 20 + age group the ones that have "more" experience riding I think you should find this interesting reading and please read the whole thing not just the parts you like it should be an eye opener. when you use a product liability report that is 15 years old you are forgetting that the design and engineering of the product has improved so much since then it is not fair to use out of date statistics. So if you don't want to be a helmet go ahead , but don't try to convince others by giving them FALSE statistics. Also keep in mind to do your own percentages on some of the categories that went up and notice that since more people are cycling now than then the actual numbers may be higher but the percentages are lower.

Originally posted by closetbiker
Well then, how would you interpet this direct quote...I interpret it as what it is - a questionable conclusion from a single study which, taken by itself is fairly meaningless. Finding one study that comes to the conclusion you want doesn't mean it's true. Repeating it numerous times doesn't make it true.

Here's a quote from a different study:

Helmets decreased the risk of head injury by 69 percent, brain injury by 65 percent, and severe brain injury by 74 percent.
Circumstances and Severity of Bicycle Injuries (http://www.smf.org/articles/report.html)
1996 Snell Memorial Foundation

Repeating that doesn't make it true, either. It helps to look at the volume of evidence, not quotes taken out of context.

The topic has already been discussed in the Helmets Harmful? I dunno... (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=20743) thread, which is 14 pages long. If anyone is interested, they can read that thread. There's no need to copy and paste that thread into this one. I stand by what I said there. What you posted in that thread got the respect it deserved.

Originally posted by JRA
It helps to look at the volume of evidence, not quotes taken out of context.

The topic has already been discussed in the Helmets Harmful? I dunno... (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=20743) thread, which is 14 pages long. If anyone is interested, they can read that thread. There's no need to copy and paste that thread into this one. I stand by what I said there. What you posted in that thread got the respect it deserved.

Yep, I agree. A lot of this has been gone over so check that out. Check out "Helmet Use" too.

Using Chris L's example, I don't see getting into anything unless there is something new involved. The UCI rule (and discovery of the loophole) was new. The acusation was new. This isn't.

I responded to a different claim which was I seemed to be advising others not to wear a helmet, and seemed to be criticising, even ridiculing, those who choose to wear a helmet which was false and readable on that post (as well as others). Asked for an example of a post of what was claimed. Still waiting.

Originally posted by closetbiker
And, although from your center of the universe that maybe the popular point of view, from another galaxy, far, far away, (across the pond) there may be another point of view that is a little different (based on years of experience where cycling is not practiced by a tiny percentage of the population but by the majority of the population).

Seeing that my "center of the univerise" is of course humor then followed by your "years of experiance" comment I can presume that you consider your self on a much higher level than me. And you do not even know me so since you asked I do find the above comments belittling and highly critical with no basis of proof. now its your turn Have you read my post on your statitics that you keep bantering about and have you checked out the link I included? Or are you chosing to ignore it because you cannot comment on it?

Originally posted by ngateguy
Seeing that my "center of the univerise" is of course humor then followed by your "years of experiance" comment I can presume that you consider your self on a much higher level than me.

Nope, we're all just getting by each day as best we can. I'm not trying to belittle anyone, sorry if you read it that way. I was refering to the years of experience of those who ride each day on the other side of the "pond" (both Europe and Asia)


Originally posted by ngateguy Have you read my post on your statitics that you keep bantering about and have you checked out the link I included?

Yep, I've read that several times in the past. As we've mentioned in the "Stats" thread by JRA,

" Once again, closetbiker, thanks for all the statistics. You amuse me. Where I differ from you is in the interpretation of what those figures mean."

to which I replied,

"Yup, that's why I said (as I've said before), I understand when people say that stats can be manipulated. We all look at things different because we all are different."

Also on "Stats" Pete Clark said,

"Stats can have hidden variables. Because in the cyclist group, you have a large group of children, inexperienced, untrained, etc. Cyclists are a completely unregulated group, whereas motorists aren't. This changes the meaning of the statistics that lump all "cyclists" together.

One might speculate that, if you studied only experienced vehicular cyclists, the number of deaths would much lower, making cycling several times safer than driving."

to which I replied,

" For sure! Like I've posted before, I've read the case reports of cyclists deaths for a 10 year period and, most all without exception, the most basic, common sense behavior was being ignored by the cyclist."

Pete also brings up another variable on "Hard question"

supcom said,

"In the average mile of bicycling you will have more opportunities for a collision with an automobile than does an automobile travelling down the same stretch of road. Remember that the bicycle will be overtaken more often by automobiles travelling in the same direction than a motorize vehicle."

Pete replied,

"Your supposition is that overtaking vehicles present a greater danger of a collision with the cyclist than any other type of collision. Overwhelmingly, the highest danger of collision exists at intersections."

So as I said before, I understand when people say that stats can be manipulated. We all look at things different because we all are

But I can counter with a study found at this page:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html

which shows that, yes, the amount of bike deaths that has decreased in the last 20 years and that helmet wear went up from 18% in 1991 to 50% in 1998, but what isn't mentioned and what is mentioned on the magma page is traffic fatalities overall have decreased. Even among those not wearing helmets.

"During the first 13 years of the period covered (1975 - 1987), pedestrian fatalities averaged 757 per annum and cyclists 128 per annum. During the following period (1988 - 2001), fatalities dropped to an average of 448 per annum for pedestrians and 79 per annum for cyclists. In comparing the period averages pedestrian deaths decreased by 41% but cyclist deaths decreased at a slower rate by 38%. During the second period helmet use among the cycling population in Canada grew from virtually zero to well over 30% by 1995 and, with a continuing upward trend owing to government promotion and legislation, likely in the range of 40% to 50% by 1997 "


Originally posted by ngateguy are you chosing to ignore it because you cannot comment on it?

Nope, just didn't want to inflame anything worse than I have to!

:)

Originally posted by closetbiker
But I can counter with a study found at this page:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html

which shows that, yes, the amount of bike deaths that has decreased in the last 20 years and that helmet wear went up from 18% in 1991 to 50% in 1998, but what isn't mentioned and what is mentioned on the magma page is traffic fatalities overall have decreased. Even among those not wearing helmets.

Even then there are hidden variables. How about the blatantly unsafe cycling practices (helmets notwithstanding) that are taught to children and adults these days (as mentioned in other threads) that people are actually expected to follow. I'd say there's been a dramatic increase in these over the last decade or so, and I'd also say that these would have caused quite a few deaths. Again, the statistics are inconclusive.

I also find it hard to believe that overall traffic fatalities have decreased at all.

Originally posted by Chris L
Even then there are hidden variables, the statistics are inconclusive.

I also find it hard to believe that overall traffic fatalities have decreased at all.

I guess the bottom line for stats are if you fully understand the methodology of the study and if you trust the organizations motives putting it out. I trust the British Medical Association when it says benefits to risks are 20 to 1 in favor of cycling because they have a stake in the countries overall health and Britain has a long history of utilitain cycling. In contrast our provincial coronor put out a study of cycling deaths that had an agenda for promoting upcoming legislation for an all ages mandatory helmet law. They also are concerned with sudden deaths, not the long term benefits of improved cario health that would extend lives that could be shortened by sedentary lifestyle. The provincal auto insurer (ICBC) produced a study on auto/cyclist accidents using the same info as the coronor. The coronor said head and lower leg injuries topped the list of results with these happening 28% of the time. ICBC's report showed the top of the list of results of car/bike accidents was no injury at 24%, next was lower leg injuries at 21%. Way down the list were head injuries at 7%. So the coronor was correct if you combine lower leg and head injuries, but the results were obviously bent for a purpose. No mentioning of the actual % of head injuries and % of lower leg injuries or that the most common outcome in a car/bike accident was no injury or being in a car/bike accident happened less that 30% of all reported cycle accidents. Most bike accidents were cyclists falling over on their own.

I also know around here traffic accidents have dramatically decreased over the years.

Education of drivers has increased, enforcement has increased (still not enough IMHO) and infrustructre has been vastly improved. The things that I saw in the 60's and 70's I would never see today and the roads, signing and special features built into the community weren't even dreamed of 25 years ago. In spite of a massive increase in traffic over the last 25 years, accident claims have been down.

Originally posted by MichaelW

There have been fatalities on downhills, but when your head (travelling at 50mph) meets a concrete bollard, 1" of polystyrene is not going to save you.



I have worked with brain injured people for two years now. Some of them survived horrific accidents thanks to the helmets. Compared to the more severely brain injured clients, who were not wearing helmets....there is quite a significant difference.

There are all kinds of factors involved in accidents and the degree of head injury sustained.

In one case, this woman had just gotten on her bike, hadn't yet fastened on her helmet and somehow lost balance. She fell and smacked her head on the ground.

Her brain injury was pretty bad. She is only 25, could not return to med school and lives with her parents 2 years after the accident because she is not able to take care of her basic needs.

While I don't like to push helmets on anyone, I just wanted to point out that when you see brain injuries day after day that could be prevented, it's hard not to flinch when you read helmet related discussions sometimes.

Justen

Originally posted by OB1knobe
than here in Canada, where 'dogooders' want to legislate everything. Keep it that way my friend. (and hands off the Euro cycling pros)

Yep..here in B.C. helmet use is legislated and the police do give out tickets for it.
While I see the principle involved, I think the police are sometimes a little over zealous in their enforcement sometimes.

i.e. I was taking a break from riding my bike in Surrey one day so was sitting on my bike on a sidewalk. I had taken my helmet off to get a bit of cool air. Only a few minutes later, two RCMP bike cops roll up and ask me if I am aware of the helmet law. I said yes, and pointed to my helmet. He said "well, it needs to be on your head for you to avoid the ticket !!"
After some debate with them, they eventually decided not to give me one but they did give me a warning and told me I would get a ticket next time.

I think this is total BS. I can understand them giving me a ticket if I am cycling but I wasn't even on the road, I had one foot on the ground and had just been looking in the window of the store.

Justen

I'm a helmet supporter, but I have a problem with being told I have to wear one, or there being a rule about it.