Advocacy & Safety - As a helmet wearing cyclist do you also support helmet use in cars?

Yeah, if you're unable to understand the science, just go ad hominem on the person that understands it.

Brilliant!

Thank you .. I rest my case on who your instructor was.:D

I wear my helmet when I ride any of my bicycles. Other than my loved ones, I don't give a flying &^$%# if anyone else does. I wear my helmet when I ride my motorcycle. Again, other than my loved ones I don't give a rat's %^$ if anyone else does.

It's their business and they should have the pleasure of paying higher insurance premiums for the freedom of minding their own affairs. :rolleyes:

Yeah, if you're unable to understand the science, just go ad hominem on the person that understands it.

Brilliant!
Coming from the King of ad hominem attacks, this is dizzying.

Ad hominem: "...replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking...the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

Wikipedia (the source of all wisdom and knowlege... :rolleyes: )

I wear my helmet when I ride any of my bicycles. Other than my loved ones, I don't give a flying &^$%# if anyone else does. I wear my helmet when I ride my motorcycle. Again, other than my loved ones I don't give a rat's %^$ if anyone else does.

It's their business and they should have the pleasure of paying higher insurance premiums for the freedom of minding their own affairs. :rolleyes:
The sign of genius is simplicity.

+1.

This response, from you is incredibly hypocritical.

It's also quite telling that once again you ignore the pointed questions that expose your lack of critical thinking skills/assumptions.


Here's another chance to redeem yourself:



:lol:

Go back and understand, "ad hominem." This is a perfect illustration of it.

I'm finished with your nonsense.

I don't have a car and I don't wear a helmet. sure let them wear them if they wan't to. No nanny state BS.

I understand it perfectly well and yes, you are a proven hypocrite. Apparently the truth hurts.

I understand it just as I understand that truthfully answering the question that I posed would expose the silliness of your assumption, hence your iunwillingness to reply.
Yes, I'm unwilling to reply.

Wait, no I'm not...

...yes, I am...

No...

:D

What exactly is preventing closetbiker from answering a simple question?

it was dinner (partly, the other part was providing incentive to look into something to try to understand it better).

I'm finished eating now, but still too busy to spoon feed something to someone who doesn't want to know the answer anyway

What exactly do you mean by that?

i think he's just trying to be cute, but on the surface of it, it seems he's shot himself in the foot over it.

I meant closetbiker has apparently hit his head many many times.

what an assumption (or a downright lie if OH306 did a simple search to find the many posts I've made saying just how many times I have) or once again, poor quips from a poor argument at someone elses expense to make oneself look good (but never does)

Cars have seatbelts and airbags. We don't.

So what's the difference between government pooling your health risk vs an Insurance Company pooling your health risk? So I must assume by your post that motorists receiving head injuries is part of the cost you're willing to bear.
I am well aware of the EMTALA law. I think hospitals should be obligated to screen for emergency medical conditions and to treat them. BUT, should we be also obligated to treat for non-emergent conditions or the chronic conditions resulting from errors in personal judgement?

The difference between government taxing me and the insurance companies charging me, is that I VOLUNTARILY choose the insurance company. The government MANDATES I pay.

Cars have seatbelts and airbags. We don't.

but MVAs produce anywhere from about 36% to 50% of traumatic head injury admissions to hospitals while cyclists account for about 2% (heck, victims of assault make up about 9% of head injury hospital admissions)

In my province commuter cyclists make up 2% of traffic but all (as in the other 95% of people on bikes - plus the 5% of commuter cyclists -) cyclists are involved in only 1% of traffic collisions

Check out this PDF file as analysis by DL Robinson about head injuries and helmets in Australia and New Zealand
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

and get a copy of Journal of Products Liability 1988, vol 11, pp. 307-317 for the conclusions of a survey of 15 years and 8 million cases of American cyclist injury/fatality incidents by G.B Rodgers finding that 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.

Don't muddle his mind with logic and fact Sam. He has his agenda and will manipulate all facts to make them fit.

Oh my, only poor facts are manipulatable.:rolleyes:

Check out this PDF file as analysis by DL Robinson about head injuries and helmets in Australia and New Zealand
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

and get a copy of Journal of Products Liability 1988, vol 11, pp. 307-317 for the conclusions of a survey of 15 years and 8 million cases of American cyclist injury/fatality incidents by G.B Rodgers finding that 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.

The studies you cite don't analyze the instance of head injuries in similar bicycle crashes, comparing helmet weareres to non helmet wearers, which I believe is the important comparison.

What we are debating is, given any crash, would wearing a helmet decrease the instance of head injury. Really, the data that would be instructive is to look at bicycle crashes where the cyclist hits his head and and then see if there is a statistical difference in head injuries between those wearing helmets and those not wearing helmets.

There are crashes that are so great that wearing a helmet will not prevent a head injury (although I think it is beyond argument that a helmet lessens the head injury), but what we need to look at are the non-catastrophic accidents, where the impact to the head is an impact the helmet is designed to protect against, and then look at similar accidents to see if those not wearing helmets suffer greater injuries than those wearing helmets.

Without having any studies to back my position, I don't see how anyone can argue that if you bonk your head on the pavement while not wearing a helmet, you are not going to suffer any more serious injuries than someone who bonks his head just as hard off the pavement, but is wearing a helmet.

you can check out ICBC.com go to library, research and traffic collision reports.

In those reports is information that shows head injuries to helmeted cyclists and head injuries to non-helmeted cyclists and the differences between them.

There is about less than a 10% difference between the 2

A big problem is the defining factor of what rates as an injury (let alone the severity of the injury). A bloody nose, scraped chin or chipped tooth rates as a head injury and is counted.

and actually, I think those studies do analyze the instance of head injuries in similar bicycle crashes, comparing helmet weareres to non helmet wearers.

:lol:

Go back and understand, "ad hominem." This is a perfect illustration of it.

I'm finished with your nonsense.

Just put him on the ignore list. I can't even read his BS but seeing your replies makes me think he's still up to the same crap which made me ignore him.

So do like I did and really be finished with his nonsense; put him on your ignore list. Trust me, you won't be missing anything valuable.

My military experience has convinced me of the value of helmets in various circumstances. I don't sleep in one though on the off chance I might fall out of bed. I also am of the opinion that helmets offer limited protection when collisions are of high velocity or when the mass involved is great. As an adult in this jurisdiction, I am under no legal obligation to wear one. I wear a helmet while cycling because my personal assessment of the risk to me warrants wearing one. I have no quarrel with anyone whose risk assessment differs from mine.

My military experience has convinced me of the value of helmets in various circumstances. I don't sleep in one though on the off chance I might fall out of bed. I also am of the opinion that helmets offer limited protection when collisions are of high velocity or when the mass involved is great. As an adult in this jurisdiction, I am under no legal obligation to wear one. I wear a helmet while cycling because my personal assessment of the risk to me warrants wearing one. I have no quarrel with anyone whose risk assessment differs from mine.

I was in the army as well. I also understood the value of a helmet, especially when traveling in an M-113. But I also knew that if a Rusky (this was during the cold war) shot at my head with an AK-47 the helmet had little chances of stopping a supersonic 7.62mm piece of copper.

There's a big difference between merely replying with more hypocritical nonsense ("I'm finished.. ") and actually answering the question that was posed.
I hear you knockin', but you can't come in.

You have a great deal of difficulty with the truth, as well as being a self-acknowledged criminal.
"Ooooh...criminal!"

(To the sound of Homer Simpson's, "Mmmmm...doughnuts!")

I don't have a car and I don't wear a helmet. sure let them wear them if they wan't to. No nanny state BS.
+100

The difference between government taxing me and the insurance companies charging me, is that I VOLUNTARILY choose the insurance company. The government MANDATES I pay.
You're right, of course. No government nannies, here.

You can choose not to have health insurance.

Of course, that would be a seriously bad choice.

I guess insurance companies are not what we would call, "Nannies." They are more like businessmen. When it comes to your health, it's purely a business transaction.

I'm amazed at how often some bike riders hit their heads...

Yeah. Like the guy on the helmet thread who has a "collection" of helmets "split down the middle". If he's serious about making cycling safer he'll wear a vest warning his fellow riders to stay the hell away from him.

Anyway, I mostly just wanted to point out that you guys are, yet again, at each other's throats. Nice place you've got here. LMAO.

The studies you cite don't analyze the instance of head injuries in similar bicycle crashes, comparing helmet weareres to non helmet wearers, which I believe is the important comparison.

What we are debating is, given any crash, would wearing a helmet decrease the instance of head injury. Really, the data that would be instructive is to look at bicycle crashes where the cyclist hits his head and and then see if there is a statistical difference in head injuries between those wearing helmets and those not wearing helmets.


Trouble is that that data doesn't seem to exist. Were I Bill Gates, I'd sponsor such a study. But I'm not, he hasn't, so here we are.

What we do have have is data from areas where helmet use is mandatory, and that data tends to suggest that increased helmet use hasn't impacted the overall rates of death and serious injury. We can also look at that most accurate predictor of risk: your wallet. Insurance rates in areas where helmet use is mandatory appear to be completely unaffected.

Without having any studies to back my position, I don't see how anyone can argue that if you bonk your head on the pavement while not wearing a helmet, you are not going to suffer any more serious injuries than someone who bonks his head just as hard off the pavement, but is wearing a helmet.
Well, depends on your definition of "serious injuries". I don't doubt that helmets provide good protection against lacerations and contusions, but then so do arm and kneepads and I don't exactly see the arm and kneepad nazis hard at work here. The question is whether helmets are effective at preventing serious brain trauma and death, and so far, the answer appears to be "Doesn't look like it".

Of course, the most obvious answer seems to me to be "I wear a helmet while cycling because my personal assessment of the risk to me warrants wearing one. I have no quarrel with anyone whose risk assessment differs from mine". Why we need to put any further effort into the debate is somewhat mystifying to me.

Courage for your head!

Did you steal that from me or are you a fellow genius?

That line from Bell struck me as foolish from the start. I don't want brave cyclists riding next to me, especially when that bravery has its source in six ounces of styrofoam.

I guess "Maybe you guys should try not crashing, for a change" doesn't quite have the same ring to it, as far as ad copy goes.

I have owned and driven 3 race cars and 2 motorcycles in my life. I crashed one car and two bikes. I was required by law and the rules to wear a helmet. On my motorcycle I am certain the helmet saved my life in the crash.
I have heard that a helmet in a car would cut fatalities by 20-35%. I am never in favor of the government mandating that people save themselves but since the government and general public doesnt seem to mind the laws then it makes no sense NOT to have a law requiring helmet use in cars.
I once drove from LA - San Lious Obisbo in my car wearing my helmet, lol. I passed a CHP car and he didnt pull me over. I dont even know if it is legal to wear a helmet in a car now.

I have owned and driven 3 race cars and 2 motorcycles in my life. I crashed one car and two bikes. I was required by law and the rules to wear a helmet. On my motorcycle I am certain the helmet saved my life in the crash.
I have heard that a helmet in a car would cut fatalities by 20-35%. I am never in favor of the government mandating that people save themselves but since the government and general public doesnt seem to mind the laws then it makes no sense NOT to have a law requiring helmet use in cars.
I once drove from LA - San Lious Obisbo in my car wearing my helmet, lol. I passed a CHP car and he didnt pull me over. I dont even know if it is legal to wear a helmet in a car now.

So did you vote, I'm curious cuz I've been watching it pretty closely and didn't see the numbers change...
:)

I am well aware of the EMTALA law. I think hospitals should be obligated to screen for emergency medical conditions and to treat them. BUT, should we be also obligated to treat for non-emergent conditions or the chronic conditions resulting from errors in personal judgement?

The difference between government taxing me and the insurance companies charging me, is that I VOLUNTARILY choose the insurance company. The government MANDATES I pay.

May I ask how many years you have "chosen" to NOT pay for health insurance?

but MVAs produce anywhere from about 36% to 50% of traumatic head injury admissions to hospitals while cyclists account for about 2% (heck, victims of assault make up about 9% of head injury hospital admissions)

In my province commuter cyclists make up 2% of traffic but all (as in the other 95% of people on bikes - plus the 5% of commuter cyclists -) cyclists are involved in only 1% of traffic collisions

AND...
the U.S. seatbelt use rate is currently 75% http://www.preventioninstitute.org/traffic_seatbelt.html

YET...
only 63% of people killed in accidents are not wearing seat belts http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/seat_belts.html

Now if seatbelt use was near 100%, then 63% fatality to non wearers would be something. But with only 75% being wearers, that measly nearly 40% of fatalities wearing seatbelts seems, well,..., would appear to demonstrate there being plenty of residual risk reason to protect one's head with a helmet... :D

...What we do have have is data from areas where helmet use is mandatory, and that data tends to suggest that increased helmet use hasn't impacted the overall rates of death and serious injury. We can also look at that most accurate predictor of risk: your wallet. Insurance rates in areas where helmet use is mandatory appear to be completely unaffected... I don't doubt that helmets provide good protection against lacerations and contusions, but then so do arm and kneepads and I don't exactly see the arm and kneepad nazis hard at work here. The question is whether helmets are effective at preventing serious brain trauma and death, and so far, the answer appears to be "Doesn't look like it"...Of course, the most obvious answer seems to me to be "I wear a helmet while cycling because my personal assessment of the risk to me warrants wearing one. I have no quarrel with anyone whose risk assessment differs from mine". Why we need to put any further effort into the debate is somewhat mystifying to me.

+1

I'd also add that one of the benefits of being older is seeing things in perspective.

In the mid 70s' I thought the Bell BIker was possibly going to make things much better for cyclists. While the inovations, improvements and promotions of the helmet certainly has advanced over time, there really has been little change in the problems that the helmet was hoped to improve on.

That's not to say they're without merit, just that what most feel they were able to do, they haven't done.

Yes, a veritable sociopath, albeit extremely cowardly, based upon his posts.
Maybe I'm wasting my words, but your habit of passing judgement on total strangers will profit you absolutely nothing. You can't draw on that bank account in life. It's empty.

It might provide a temporary uplift for you, but like a nicotine hit from a cigarette, it doesn't last long.

lol - I picked the first option! But I probably will wait for a more comfortable helmet option (the top of my head hits the ceiling when I wear my bicycle helmet or hockey helmet in the car, and I'm short).

I can't vote for any option because none of them apply.

(edit -- by the time I finished this post, I realized that I agree with one option in regards to street use; so that's how I voted)

It's habit for me to bike with a helmet now (don't care if anyone doesn't like it), and I have a car helmet for when I go autocrossing.

Part of the reason for the car helmet is that it's required; you can't run without one. It also holds a rating that makes it legal for pretty much any road racing organization (designed for multiple impacts, like hitting the door frame over and over, rather than one major impact as in motorcycle riding), so when I get the chance to do a trackday, I'll be set.

A HANS device is kinda neither here nor there in my application; a padded neck collar would probably do just fine. I'm not at the point where I can do wheel-to-wheel racing. That's when roll cages are required so that your car doesn't fold in half if it's hit by a few other cars. When you have a roll cage, you need a full harness to keep yourself from hitting the bars of the cage; and when you have a full harness, you're subject to more severe forces than a standard 3-point seatbelt would create, so your head is more likely to whip around with dangerous speed. That's when a HANS device can be a lifesaver.

But anyway...

I wouldn't drive my car on the street with a helmet. I can't hear or see as well, and helmet-to-airbag studies tend to favor not wearing a helmet, especially a full-face model. Bicycle helmets are no good for the car, either, IMO.

You left out the most important category:

Own several automobiles, Never ride with a helmet and think this poll is full of sheeat.

I was in the army as well. I also understood the value of a helmet, especially when traveling in an M-113. But I also knew that if a Rusky (this was during the cold war) shot at my head with an AK-47 the helmet had little chances of stopping a supersonic 7.62mm piece of copper.

copper jacketed lead.

The new helmets will stop a bullet but you can't use them to shave in! And you still have the blow your head off concussion problem in a blast situation.

You left out the most important category:

Own several automobiles, Never ride with a helmet and think this poll is full of sheeat.

Never ride with helmet I purposefully left out, for pretty much the reasons you mention :p

As the number of respondents to the poll grows, the trend that is developing is that car owners are more against car helmets than non owners. I feel this indicates that the citizens most inconvenienced by a supposed safety measure are the ones most against it, no matter what statistics say about the actual danger. Food for thought...

There was some article I read (couldn't pull it up on google. can anyone else cite a reference?) about how the UK government started advocating walking helmets, and instead of wearing helmets people quit walking so much. Maybe I dreamed it. Anyway, what a great idea! Make driving SEEM as dangerous as it actually IS, and people might quit doing it so much. On the other hand, walking is not dangerous, and helmets made people quit doing it (or do it less.) so it might work.

I seem to remember somethig like that too, except I think it was a sarcastic article

from wikipedias entry on bicycle helmets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

Ordinary cycling is not demonstrably more dangerous than walking or driving,[67] yet no country promotes helmets for either of these modes (although there was an experiment in Japan with walking helmets for children, which demonstrated no measurable benefit)... a study in the UK found that the proportion of cyclist injuries which are head injuries is essentially the same as the proportion for pedestrians at 30.0% vs. 30.1%.

The whole article is worth reading. For those who question wikis' reliability, I saw Micheal Shermer on the Daily Show this week and he mentioned that recently it was found as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.

Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

copper jacketed lead.

The new helmets will stop a bullet but you can't use them to shave in! And you still have the blow your head off concussion problem in a blast situation.

You can't shave with the new helmets? Damn... that sucks! So what do you use to carry the hot water now?

<- has been out of the army for far too long. ;)

Hot water? Just let it sit for a while, the desert will heat it up (since "all" wars seem to be fought in the desert these days ;) ).

I would have absolutely no problem with wearing a helmet in a car.

We must be running out of legitimate areas of discussion around here.

Caruso

Oh, I don't know. You could say that if one group is no different than another, wouldn't it seem out of sorts if one group was viewed a "different" without merit and treated differently because of prejudice (sentence passed before proper examination of the circumstances)?

I don't think it would make much of a difference if drivers did wear helmets because the majority of brain injuries they suffer are the result of the forces I've previously decribed in earlier posts on different threads on the same topic, but I don't think there's much wrong with pointing out that cyclists are in the same boat as many others.

If advocacy means to speak up in support of a cause (in our case, cycling) isn't it incumbent on us to set the record straight if some people have the facts wrong?

I can't wear a helmet in my car.

How would I drink coffee and talk on my cell phone?

...and don't forget about the hair. Lots of effort and cash go towards it and can't get it messed up.

Oh, and don't the majority believe they drive better than everyone else, so there's no need for it?

I can't wear a helmet in my car.

How would I drink coffee and talk on my cell phone?

exactly