As a helmet wearing cyclist do you also support helmet use in cars? [Archive] - Page 3

Zeuser

08-28-07, 11:19 AM

I just can't understand the logic where someone might think that nothing on their head is safer than something. Even if a helmet isn't 100% effective it still does work in some situations. Some head protection is better than none at all. You're not going to come out of a head on crash with a car any better without a helmet than with one. But there is the chance that you will stand a better chance in some situations with a helmet than without one.

If the helmet standards aren't good enough then that's fine, lets discuss on how to make them better. But that's no reason to discard helmet use just because they aren't safe enough.

Just look at auto racing, those mandatory leather helmets in F1 racing decades ago really didn't provide much protection. But they didn't dismiss helmets altogether because of that. Helmets for F1 cars improved steadily over the years and they will continue to improve. Same goes for bike helmets.

Another important factor is risk. It's far more risky to ride a bike than a car. Cars have crumple zones, airbags, side impact beams, bumpers and so on. And even then when you take those cars racing you're often required to wear a helmet because of the increased risk. Because of the much higher risks involved with cycling, helmets make a whole lot of sense. Even if they're not totally effective there's a chance your type of accident might be the type the bike helmet was designed for.

when it comes to your own safety, It's always better to err on the side of caution.

Helmet Head

08-28-07, 11:37 AM

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".

There is no question that in a helmeted head crash, some energy is absorbed by the destruction of the helmet. That's energy that is not being transferred to the head. How much dissipation of energy is that? Don't know. How often can it make a difference? Don't know. Might it make a difference for me some time in the future? Don't know, maybe. For me, maybe, coupled with practically no downside to wearing a helmet, is more than enough.

closetbiker

08-28-07, 11:56 AM

I just can't understand the logic where someone might think that nothing on their head is safer than something...

Another important factor is risk. It's far more risky to ride a bike than a car...

I just can't understand how it is that some just can't understand an argument or grasp some basic premises...and on an advocacy board at that.

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

ollo_ollo

08-28-07, 12:31 PM

I don't wear a helmet in my car but would have no objection to wearing one while driving. I guess I'm vain enough to not be a trail blazer to achieve such a small gain in safety. Can't even say it never occurred to me to wear one in the car because this came up years ago on the "Klick & Klack Car Talk" show on NPR.

A woman called in complaining her safety engineer husband wore a helmet while driving & insisted she and their children also wear helmets in the car. As I recall, K&K grudgingly conceded there was a small gain in safety, just made you look silly. I think they told her it didn't hurt to humor him. :) Don

tallard

08-28-07, 12:32 PM

Never ride with a helmet and think this poll is full of sheeat.

Many people discount this poll due to sheer 100% disbelief that any sort of head protection can help motorists. My point is simply this, no matter how dumb something is, some safety zealout will come up with an idea to make an activity purportedly safer:

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

It should come as no surprise if all this safety zealousness and misguidance lands us to common use of head protection in cars/trucks within a decade or so. Australian and English Canadian policy makers are notorious for being safety obsessed.

tallard

08-28-07, 12:35 PM

Keith99

08-28-07, 01:35 PM

I'm not going to read 6 pages to see if anyone else brought this up:

The only people I know who wear helmets in cas are race drivers, and only when racing (or training for racing). That is the only car activity where the return is worth the bother.

I do not support on street racing.

I will actively oppose helmet use in cars.

BarracksSi

08-28-07, 02:14 PM

:lol:
I miss NPR, I've left it aside lately...

Podcasts. :D Even Car Talk is now a free download, along with Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me and a bunch of others (including the "News From Lake Wobegon" segment of Prairie Home Companion).

noisebeam

08-28-07, 02:43 PM

I wouldn't agree to mandatory helmet use in car any more than I'd agree to mandatory helmet use while driving a bicycle.

I own a car, I always wear a helmet when cycling.

Al

Daily Commute

08-29-07, 03:01 AM

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.
No. Regardless of the brain injury issue, I know that my bike helmet has saved me from significant pain several times. There has never been a time when a car helmet would have saved me from pain while driving.

Saving me from pain, that's good enough for me. So I wear a helmet. But I don't fret over the choices other cyclists make.

closetbiker

08-29-07, 06:38 AM

personal anecdotes are one thing, what happens to people are another. 25 times more people come into hospital with head injuries than from bicycles. if you were an official, charged with trying to reduce head injury, what makes the most sense to do?

personally, I think it makes most sense to lower the collision rate rather than rely on faulty devices to acheive that goal

tallard

08-29-07, 08:06 AM

No!?!?!?!?!?!?. Regardless of the brain injury issue, I know that my bike helmet has saved me from significant pain several times. ... So I wear a helmet.

Significant pain... I bang my head oh maybe once a month at home, and it usually causes lots of pain, sometimes lasting an entire day, and in 31 years of cycling nearly 365 days I've hurt my head ONCE. OH MY GOD I BETTER WEAR A HELMET AT HOME, THAT WOULD SAVE ME SO MUCH PAIN, and curses... We addressed that in another thread

Cycling caused you to bang your head several times... we addressed that in another thread as well :p

Zeuser

08-29-07, 08:31 AM

Try this: Stand 3ft in front of a brick wall. Wear a bike helmet. Advance at any pace you want and hit the wall head on. Then repeat the exercise without any head protection at all.

Which one felt the best? Which one didn't cause blood loss?

Thought so. :rolleyes:

And you can argue all you want about how it's an unrealistic test but truth is you could be confronted with a similar situation while riding a bike and the result will be nearly the same.

It's really a no brainer.

noisebeam

08-29-07, 08:37 AM

Try this: Stand 3ft in front of a brick wall. Wear a bike helmet. Advance at any pace you want and hit the wall head on.

Reminds me of when I was a kid. My brothers (3yrs. younger) and I were given helmets in the late 70s early 80s by out parents. We thought they were so excellent. We were also into medieval stuff, jousting, armor, swords, the rack, etc. So what did we do? We rode towards each with plastic swords and long poles and tried to knock each other off the bike, often intentionally head butting each other with those new fangled helmets. After a month or so we had destroyed them.

Al

maddmaxx

08-29-07, 08:38 AM

You would have to factor the lack of visability for John Q average driver in crowded traffic against the possible saving of head injuries. One might cause more accidents and thus defeat the value of the other. At first glance it looks to me as if this is a variation of the "if some is good, more is better" arguement.

Zeuser

08-29-07, 08:49 AM

My helmet has more visibility than your naked head. It's got a rearview mirror on it! LOL!

Honestly, I've never noticed a lack of visibility with a bike helmet. At least not where it counts. The area where visibility is diminished is looking up because of the visor. But I rarely look up with or without a helmet.

maddmaxx

08-29-07, 09:01 AM

To be of useful protection in an automobile crash, the helmet will more resemble those used by race car drivers that those used on a bicycle. They will need significantly more protection against penetrating objects then bicycle helmets. That will do a lot to decrease your vision while wearing one.

As to visibality over bare head........we are talking about wearing helmets in cars here aren't we???

Six jours

08-29-07, 02:44 PM

Try this: Stand 3ft in front of a brick wall. Wear a bike helmet. Advance at any pace you want and hit the wall head on.

He's tried this argument several times on various threads and gotten it rammed back down his throat repeatedly. You'd think this would have been a learning experience. The irony of it is that he will soon be accusing his interlocutors of having brain damage. Lol.

tt1106

08-29-07, 02:51 PM

Wear a helmet when cycling, don't wear one driving, but would if required(although, I can't see why it would be, the most catastrophic injuries in auto accidents are caused by ejections, hence seatbelts). Enjoy wind in hair, but have met a substantial number of people who now eat through straws that tell me they wish they had worn a helmet.

noisebeam

08-29-07, 02:58 PM

Wouldn't a five point harness and true roll cage be better (more effective) than a helmet in a car?
Al

Six jours

08-29-07, 03:01 PM

...the most catastrophic injuries in auto accidents are caused by ejections, hence seatbelts...
Cite, please. My understanding is that head injury is a contributing cause of death in approximately 30% of automobile accidents. I've never seen any statistics on ejections. They were rare in my experience as a paramedic, but then I lived and worked in a mandatory seatbelt state...

Enjoy wind in hair, but have met a substantial number of people who now eat through straws that tell me they wish they had worn a helmet.

Really? I raced back in the pre-helmet days and knew one guy to incur severe head injuries while riding. I've known quite a bit more since everyone started wearing helmets. This is mere personal anecdote, but it does lead me to believe that peopleare either overestimating the effectiveness of helmets, underestimating the resilience of the human brain and skull, or simply falling off of their bikes a lot more than they used to.

Hickeydog

08-29-07, 03:14 PM

Wouldn't a five point harness and true roll cage be better (more effective) than a helmet in a car?
Al

not a bad idea at all. of course, what would also help would be finding the "Idiot" gene along with a way to turn it off.

noisebeam

08-29-07, 03:18 PM

A seatblet is a three point harness.
.

That's strange, after posting my 'typo' I edited and corrected it, minutes before you quoted and responded. Yes I meant five point, I know the difference and have ridden in several trucks with true roll bars and five pt. harnesses, although most don't use the crotch harness, so its four point.

Al

Zeuser

08-29-07, 03:25 PM

That's strange, after posting my 'typo' I edited and corrected it, minutes before you quoted and responded. Yes I meant five point, I know the difference and have ridden in several trucks with true roll bars and five pt. harnesses, although most don't use the crotch harness, so its four point.

Al

Actually, a standard car seatbelt system and 3 point harness are very different.

This is a 3 point safety harness:

http://www.scoobymods.com/mods/impreza/images/seatbeltharness12.jpg

Both shoulder straps are anchored at the same point which is why it's called a "3 point". Anchor points are: Left side of seat, right side of seat and one in the back... that's 3 "points".

noisebeam

08-29-07, 03:37 PM

Actually, a standard car seatbelt system and 3 point harness are very different.

This is a 3 point safety harness:

http://www.scoobymods.com/mods/impreza/images/seatbeltharness12.jpg

Both shoulder straps are anchored at the same point which is why it's called a "3 point". Anchor points are: Left side of seat, right side of seat and one in the back... that's 3 "points".

The ones in the trucks I've ridden in look like that, except the webbing is much wider (almost twice as wide) and there is a crotch strap too. All the straps are connected in one giant buckle.

I really dont' know the technical terms or details.

Al

noisebeam

08-29-07, 03:48 PM

Those are either five or six point harness, depending upon whether the anti-sub belt (crotch belt) is attached at one or two points.

OK, so would these and true roll cages be better than current safety features plus helmet. I have no idea.
I wonder how air bags would fit it pro/con as well.

One thing very likely is that even if safer for occupants, it would make conditions on average worse for other road users as I would guess there would be an increase in aggressive and careless driving, with that sense of protection.

Al

cadillacmike68

08-29-07, 08:23 PM

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. ;)

Why, we go to the Haliburton / KBR contractor shower facility of course :D

cadillacmike68

08-29-07, 08:29 PM

Significant pain... I bang my head oh maybe once a month at home, and it usually causes lots of pain, sometimes lasting an entire day, and in 31 years of cycling nearly 365 days I've hurt my head ONCE. OH MY GOD I BETTER WEAR A HELMET AT HOME, THAT WOULD SAVE ME SO MUCH PAIN, and curses... We addressed that in another thread

Cycling caused you to bang your head several times... we addressed that in another thread as well :p

Exactly - I've caused m more injury to my head in my own kitchen in the last 10 years than 30+ years of cycling.

So am i going to wear a helmet in the kitchen ?? No - you people need to get real.

tallard

08-29-07, 08:45 PM

Wouldn't a five point harness and true roll cage be better (more effective) than a helmet in a car?
Al

Quite possibly...

Zeuser

08-30-07, 07:01 AM

Wouldn't a five point harness and true roll cage be better (more effective) than a helmet in a car?
Al

Most cars with five point harnesses and roll cages require helmets anyway. There's a reason you see foam inserts on roll cages, you get banged around quite a bit in those cars. It's ironic that the safer roll cage actually makes wearing a helmet mandatory.

BarracksSi

08-30-07, 02:14 PM

Most cars with five point harnesses and roll cages require helmets anyway. There's a reason you see foam inserts on roll cages, you get banged around quite a bit in those cars. It's ironic that the safer roll cage actually makes wearing a helmet mandatory.

Right. (+1)

(I actually posted this earlier, but this isn't a copy & paste)

The reason for a roll cage is to keep the passenger cell intact when the car rolls a few times and gets hit by a few other cars. If the car folds in half, the driver is pretty much done for no matter what they're wearing.

While the caged car is being tossed around, the driver's body needs to be kept in one place, which is the reason for strong seats (usually not metal, since they can fold) and 5-point harnesses.

Then, since the head has more of a chance to flop around, a helmet is required to prevent more serious injury when the head hits part of the roll cage. Helmets rated for auto racing are designed to withstand multiple large impacts for this reason.

Then, in the past several years, a HANS device is, at least, recommended (possibly required in some classes or venues; I'm not sure). That way, the head doesn't flop too far or too severely because of the extra-snug fit of the harness, and the chance of getting a broken neck is decreased greatly.

Basically, wheel-to-wheel racing requires the roll cage, and everything else is also required because of that cage. If you're autocrossing or just driving HPDEs for fun, you're not supposed to be getting hit by other cars, so roll cages aren't normally required (convertibles... eh, it might depend).

BarracksSi

08-30-07, 02:43 PM

http://www.scoobymods.com/mods/impreza/images/seatbeltharness12.jpg

I wouldn't use a harness like that -- and installed in that manner -- for a few reasons. The 2-to-1 shoulder straps just say "pinch off the neck" to me, and having both straps run through one hole doesn't dissuade that fear, either. I'd only use a harness in a seat with two holes for shoulder straps (which, incidentally, means that I won't use harnesses with my stock seats).

The rear strap also looks like it's anchored too low. Ideally, it would be straight (this is what harness bars are for), but if it angles downwards, it should be no further than 30 degrees from horizontal. When it's too low, it can actually compress the spine, even in a frontal collision. That's a sedan (an STi, right?), and there should be a way to anchor the shoulder strap to the back shelf.

Also, there is no 5th point, which means that the body could submarine below the lap belt. A proper fit of this harness would help prevent such a disaster (meaning that the lap belt is drawn tight & low across the hips; the shoulder belts are then only for keeping the driver's back against the seat), but having at least a 5th strap between the legs is safer.

I wonder how air bags would fit it pro/con as well.

There's been debate about this, specifically as it relates to helmets colliding with airbags. It may actually be more dangerous for a helmeted head to meet an airbag, especially a full-face helmet. They're saying that the chin portion can collide with the airbag while it's still inflating, which, obviously, can impart quite a strong force on the driver's neck, brain, or whatever.

One thing very likely is that even if safer for occupants, it would make conditions on average worse for other road users as I would guess there would be an increase in aggressive and careless driving, with that sense of protection.

Good thought, and I think it would probably be true. People think that ABS will save them from their own stupidity -- or lack of training, as I see it -- as will stability control and all-wheel drive.

My dad has talked about when they started adding those big padded mats on the wall behind the basketball hoop in gyms. Before the mats, it was just that hard concrete or tile wall. Players knew that it would hurt if they ran into it, so they were careful enough to try to stay away. If they hit, of course they got hurt, sometimes severely; but those injuries were relatively rare. Later, as these safety pads started appearing, the players felt that they wouldn't get hurt, so they'd just bang into them. Unfortunately for them, they still got injured, but suffered types of injuries that were deeper and long-term -- sprains, ligament damage, dislocations, etc. And they had MORE injuries.

noisebeam

08-30-07, 02:50 PM

IGood thought, and I think it would probably be true.
Think of it this way. Put all the safety equipment into/onto a street car/driver that NASCAR drivers have, give it to a new teenage driver and how do you think they will respond?

Thats right, they will drive safer since all that equipment will be a constant reminder of how dangerous driving can be. ;)

Al

BarracksSi

08-30-07, 02:56 PM

Hopefully!

:D

I'd say to put a bunch of swords, arrows and spears, all pointed at the driver, inside the passenger compartment. Mount an open glass of sulfuric acid on top of the steering column, too. Maybe they'll drive smoothly and safely.. just maybe, I'm guessing. ;)

uke

08-24-08, 01:39 PM

Nope. I support lowered speed limits, though. Enforced intracity limits of 20mph would make every city bike friendly overnight.

genec

08-24-08, 01:44 PM

Should be mandatory for all drivers... driving is dangerous.

:D

closetbiker

08-24-08, 05:43 PM

Nope. I support lowered speed limits, though. Enforced intracity limits of 20mph would make every city bike friendly overnight.

lowering speed of auto travel by 10 mph would reduce more damage by a far greater degree than 100% helmet usage would reduce damage (but we know that's never going to happen, don't we?)

BarracksSi

08-24-08, 06:02 PM

lowering speed of auto travel by 10 mph would reduce more damage by a far greater degree than 100% helmet usage would reduce damage (but we know that's never going to happen, don't we?)

And better driver education, along with social pressure ("peer pressure"?) to not drive stupid, will do better than any so-called enforcement.

Keep telling people to not do something, and they're only going to try to see how much they can get away with. Better to have them want to do the right thing instead of being afraid of doing the wrong thing -- because once they lose that fear, the rules won't matter.

ritepath

08-24-08, 06:45 PM

I've worn my HJC full face many time in the jeep trail riding, but only if I expect there's a more than 80% chance I'll roll over or do an endo.

However.com on the road in my accord I suppose I'll keep riding unsafe, I have to spend all day working with people and would rather not have to look like I just woke up.

OneArmedScissor

08-24-08, 09:56 PM

I wear my helmet in my car at the track. Helmets do severely limit your head and neck movement and race cars often utilize neck restraint as well (I have a removable 4 point harness as well for the track)

this is bad for street driving because it makes it difficult to check blind spots. This is not as important on a race track since you tend to know who is next to or behind you given the limited number of drives on track at once.

I wear my helmet at the track when I am pushing my car to the limits.

I always wear my helmet on my bike, because I'm always pushing my bike to the limits.

closetbiker

08-24-08, 10:21 PM

And better driver education, along with social pressure ("peer pressure"?) to not drive stupid, will do better than any so-called enforcement.

Keep telling people to not do something, and they're only going to try to see how much they can get away with. Better to have them want to do the right thing instead of being afraid of doing the wrong thing -- because once they lose that fear, the rules won't matter.

so telling people to do something is better than telling them not to do something?

Linus_S

08-24-08, 10:24 PM

My dad once wore his helmet combat pilot helmet in his car. He wore it while driving a long distance for fun. He had a lot of weird looks. This was in the 1970's.

BarracksSi

08-24-08, 10:36 PM

so telling people to do something is better than telling them not to do something?

Um... Yup. :rolleyes:

Even better, get them to understand the reasons why they should do the right thing.

I deal with this crap at work all the time. The best results always come from encouraging people to do the right thing.

uke

08-24-08, 11:27 PM

lowering speed of auto travel by 10 mph would reduce more damage by a far greater degree than 100% helmet usage would reduce damage (but we know that's never going to happen, don't we?)

Agreed.

I deal with this crap at work all the time. The best results always come from encouraging people to do the right thing.

Positive reinforcement is always better than punishment, but sometimes, punishment is the only option of the two that works. People don't drive at 65mph on the highway because it's safe to do so; they drive at that speed because they know if they exceed it by more than 5 or so mph, the chances of being caught and fined rise exponentially. There isn't enough time or money to convince everyone to do the right thing, no matter how much of either is spent on encouraging them. That's why we have consequences attached to laws. You can let your kids ride the schoolbus in towns where people are encouraged not to pass when the foldout stop signs are engaged. I would much rather live in towns where people can and do have their licenses stripped for passing under such circumstances. In much the same way, you could live in the city where people were encouraged not to commit murder. I'm happy to live in places where people can and do face prison time for taking the lives of others. It would be even better if such laws were extended to people committing such crimes in vehicles against cyclists.

closetbiker

08-24-08, 11:44 PM

Um... Yup. :rolleyes:

Even better, get them to understand the reasons why they should do the right thing.

I deal with this crap at work all the time. The best results always come from encouraging people to do the right thing.

Yeah. Like driving within the speed limit.

uke

08-24-08, 11:49 PM

Yeah. Like driving within the speed limit.

Exactly. The reason cars aren't flying down the highway at 100, 120, or 150mph isn't because their drivers have been taught to drive safely; it's because they know they'll get busted if they deviate significantly from the speed limit.

Remove the penalty, and you'd see people driving as quickly as their engines could take them tomorrow.

Generally, people don't go around committing crimes because they've been taught how much more fun it is to do nice things, but because they typically come to the realization that the risks aren't worth the reward. We call the people who don't come to this realization criminals.