finally, a reason to wear a helmet

[why2not]

http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/1/30/321234.html

[thdave]

Wow. That's great. Sounds like it was not due to a bike accident however, but more just a random hazard.

[JeffB502]

Largo police sited the driver of the truck for having improper breaks.

What a horrible sentence! Are you sure this is a credible news source?

This incident is a great example of why helmet use should be mandatory for everybody at all times. A pole can fall on your head at any time, not just when riding a bike. Imagine if this poor boy had been a pedestrian...he could have been killed!:rolleyes:

[why2not]

What a horrible sentence! Are you sure this is a credible news source?


LOL. This is from a tv station. I'm kind of guessing that the printed version came from a voice recognition software package.

[closetbiker]

you guys should read this thread

http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=96298

or better yet, move to a mhl area. then you can see how effective they are

[StrangeWill]

you guys should read this thread

http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=96298

or better yet, move to a mhl area. then you can see how effective they are
Sparknotes plz.

Anyway, I wear a seatbelt, I keep my airbag engaged, I wear my helmet. They all reduce the chances somewhat, sure they don't always prevent it, but it's worth a try.

At least, I value my head enough to put a little effort into protecting it.

[closetbiker]

a little effort, a little protection. Good enough.

Would you guess the risk is elevated on a bike? from data supplied to CTC by UK Department of Health, Detailed analysis of hospital admissions data also fails to support the idea that cycling is unusually dangerous: 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 % and from the April 2005 edition of the Journal of Neurosurgery:
Pediatrics carried a review of patients under age 19 seen by pediatric neurosurgeons at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta between 1996 and 2002.
Sixty four of the total of 2,546 head injured patients treated had sports-related injuries. Less than 1% (17) treated had cycling-related injuries. Fifteen were golf-related.
The review did not attempt to compare relative risks by estimating exposure rates, but since children participate in cycling activities in vastly greater numbers than they do in golfing, it looks like cycling is safer than golfing.

[JLauren]

This article has some interesting perspectives on risk assessment (or lack thereof):

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20071228-000005.html

[StrangeWill]

a little effort, a little protection. Good enough.

Would you guess the risk is elevated on a bike? from data supplied to CTC by UK Department of Health, Detailed analysis of hospital admissions data also fails to support the idea that cycling is unusually dangerous: 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 % and from the April 2005 edition of the Journal of Neurosurgery:
Pediatrics carried a review of patients under age 19 seen by pediatric neurosurgeons at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta between 1996 and 2002.
Sixty four of the total of 2,546 head injured patients treated had sports-related injuries. Less than 1% (17) treated had cycling-related injuries. Fifteen were golf-related.
The review did not attempt to compare relative risks by estimating exposure rates, but since children participate in cycling activities in vastly greater numbers than they do in golfing, it looks like cycling is safer than golfing.

I hit my head once with a helmet, it paid for itself.

AKA: Screw statistics, I don't want to end up with the short straw.

[closetbiker]

...Screw statistics, I don't want to end up with the short straw.

ah, I see and fair enough, but you might if you don't understand where the danger lies

[StrangeWill]

ah, I see and fair enough, but you might if you don't understand where the danger lies
Ah yes that is the most important part. Better to avoid the issues all together.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

I fell twice but the helmet didnt do anything for my knees.
This and other stuff have convinced me I need knee pads now.

[iltb-2]

I hit my head once with a helmet, it paid for itself.

AKA: Screw statistics, I don't want to end up with the short straw.

A more effective method to avoid such a "short straw" while bicycling is to never ride a bicycle. "Safety" First, eh?

[closetbiker]

.... Better to avoid the issues all together.


as some do :(

[closetbiker]

This article has some interesting perspectives on risk assessment (or lack thereof):

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20071228-000005.html

good article

[closetbiker]

Wow. That's great. Sounds like it was not due to a bike accident however, but more just a random hazard.

it was. Funny how people aren't nearly as concerned about those.

[StrangeWill]

A more effective method to avoid such a "short straw" while bicycling is to never ride a bicycle. "Safety" First, eh?
You have to go outside some time. Fact of the matter is, I've already used my helmet once that prevented what would have probably been a hospital trip cracking the side of my head into the curb without it. So I'll continue wearing it to keep those trips down to a minimum.

There is rational safety, then there is radical, I'll go with rational.

It's already a good financial decision, a hospital trip for a head injury wouldn't be nearly as cheap as my helmet was in comparison.

If anything at all it's nice to have extra protection from road rash.

as some do :(
Well I generally mean be alert and aware enough to avoid them altogether. Not just not ride.

[iltb-2]

You have to go outside some time. Fact of the matter is, I've already used my helmet once that prevented what would have probably been a hospital trip cracking the side of my head into the curb without it. So I'll continue wearing it to keep those trips down to a minimum.

There is rational safety, then there is radical, I'll go with rational.
You could avoid those minimal trips to the hospital from bicycling activities and take your bicycling risk to zero if you would just quit bicycling. Maybe minimal risk ain't so bad after all. Especially when the difference in overall risk between cycling while wearing a helmet vice not, is also "minimal." But then that would require a rational evaluation of the real risk factors of bicycling, and recognition of the minimal (at best) risk reduction capability of bicycle helmets.

[closetbiker]

Well I generally mean be alert and aware enough to avoid them altogether. Not just not ride.

what I was getting at is that there are people who aren't aware of risks in perspective and worry about only those that have their attention and miss the ones that may be as great or greater as the one they're concerned with so they avoid (thinking about) them (the risks that may be as great or greater) all together.

Kinda like people who say, "screw it I don't care what the situation is, I'll just do what I think" and miss the opportunity to be safe, all the while claiming to be safe.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

I wonder what the ratio of Bodily Harm suffers are related to their riding styles ?
Ie; do more VCealots post saved-by-the-helmet stuff or happy-in-a-lane'rs ?

Personally, Im a mirror whiner...if you dont have a mirror, your helmet will
definatitely get some action whereas if you do, you wont need a helmet.

Mercifully I didnt start a thread, poll or put it in sig. form.

[San Rensho]

In the debate over whether or not to wear a helmet, I don't think that any rational person can argue that given exactly the same crash where the person's head hits something, that if the person is wearing a helmet, that person will suffer lesser injuries than someone not wearing a helmet. The only exception would be a crash so severe that either a helmeted or not helmeted rider would die because of massive head injuries.

All the other arguments against wearing a helmet revolve around not getting into a crash at all, or the chances of getting into a crash, which don't address the real issue of once you are actually in a crash, whether a helmet will reduce injuries.

[iltb-2]

In the debate over whether or not to wear a helmet, I don't think that any rational person can argue that given exactly the same crash where the person's head hits something, that if the person is wearing a helmet, that person will suffer lesser injuries than someone not wearing a helmet. The only exception would be a crash so severe that either a helmeted or not helmeted rider would die because of massive head injuries.

All the other arguments against wearing a helmet revolve around not getting into a crash at all, or the chances of getting into a crash, which don't address the real issue of once you are actually in a crash, whether a helmet will reduce injuries.

In your last sentence, you (apparently of rational mind) do raise the argument/issue of whether a helmet will in fact reduce injuries.

More important is the issue of the significance (if any) of the alleged theoretical injury reduction potential, as well as the probability of head trauma in the first place.

Presumably the same argument about some sort of theoretical (but unspecified significance) injury and associated unspecified risk reduction capability could be made for a cycling cap or a bandanna.

[JeffB502]

I was wondering how long it would take for this to degrade into a pro/anti helmet thread...apparently not long :).

Even if helmets were proven to not prevent head injury, I'd still wear one while riding my bike because it's the best place to mount my 200 lumen LED flashlight that I run strobing during the day and constant-on at night (in addition to handlebar lights strobing during the day and constant on at night). Wearing a helmet with a bright light attached has helped me get the attention of many motorists who otherwise would have violated my right of way (usually as they're coming out in front of me from a side street/driveway or heading the opposite direction starting to make a left turn towards me). Usually once I get their attention they come to a quick stop. This has probably saved me from being involved in traffic collisions (or at least having to make dangerous emergency maneuvers that could result in a crash) on multiple occasions. Just my little rant on how my helmet makes me safer, even if it won't protect me in a high speed collision with a multi-ton vehicle.

Also worthy of mention, as a kid (before helmets were required for minors in California) I fell off my bike while riding on the sidewalk and got a wound on the back of my head near the top that required stitches. That seems like the kind of head injury a bicycle helmet would prevent, and had I been wearing one I probably wouldn't have had to go to the hospital to get stitched up. I'm sure for a family without medical insurance a cheap helmet from Wal-Mart would be much less expensive than an emergency room visit.

a little effort, a little protection. Good enough.

Would you guess the risk is elevated on a bike? from data supplied to CTC by UK Department of Health, Detailed analysis of hospital admissions data also fails to support the idea that cycling is unusually dangerous: 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 % and from the April 2005 edition of the Journal of Neurosurgery:
Pediatrics carried a review of patients under age 19 seen by pediatric neurosurgeons at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta between 1996 and 2002.
Sixty four of the total of 2,546 head injured patients treated had sports-related injuries. Less than 1% (17) treated had cycling-related injuries. Fifteen were golf-related.
The review did not attempt to compare relative risks by estimating exposure rates, but since children participate in cycling activities in vastly greater numbers than they do in golfing, it looks like cycling is safer than golfing.

I haven't seen the details on the Georgia study, but could the number of child cyclists being treated by pediatric neurosurgeons be lower than they otherwise would have been due to the law in Georgia requiring that children under 16 wear helmets while cycling? When I received my head injury as a child I'm pretty sure I never saw a pediatric neurosurgeon. I guess I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they just sewed me up and that was it. A visit to a pediatric neurosurgeon is probably reserved for the worst of the head injuries, or head injuries involving concussions or other problems requiring brain surgery instead of abrasions/lacerations/etc. That would explain the high proportion of golf related pediatric neurosurgeon visits to cycling related pediatric neurosurgeon visits.

I'll bet a large percentage of those "non-sports" head injuries are from riding in (or driving) motor vehicles, especially since it includes drivers under 19. Maybe some of the drivers were even illegally racing their cars on the street (auto racing is a sport, right?). Went off on a bit of a tangent there...oh well.

Are bicycle helmets popular in the UK? Maybe the UK study results could be read as "helmet use has reduced the likelihood of receiving a head injury while cycling to that of walking" instead of "cycling is just as safe as walking, so if I don't wear a helmet walking, I don't need to wear a helmet while cycling."

[StrangeWill]

You could avoid those minimal trips to the hospital from bicycling activities and take your bicycling risk to zero if you would just quit bicycling. Maybe minimal risk ain't so bad after all. Especially when the difference in overall risk between cycling while wearing a helmet vice not, is also "minimal." But then that would require a rational evaluation of the real risk factors of bicycling, and recognition of the minimal (at best) risk reduction capability of bicycle helmets.
You're making a horrible argument, this could be applied to anything, a comparative minor to the comparative NONE of not doing EVERYTHING. How many people driving use their seatbelt every day in an accident? How about every month? Every year? I haven't NEEDED a seatbelt in a good decade. So either I should drive without it, or not drive at all?

Horrible argument, I want to ride, I am willing to spend $40 and 5 seconds of my life to respect my brain bucket a little. If anything, I've used my helmet more than my seatbelt, and I have at least 100 times more miles in my car. So trying to evaluate stuff in how "minor" something is would be irrelevant, I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

As I said, it's already protected me from a bloody head and a probable hospital trip, will it protect me from a car? Probably not. Do I want to run the risk of taking a hospital trip when I didn't have to? (Especially when the only difference is $40 and your ego) Not so much. Especially when it involves head injuries.

Though I'll keep listening to brain surgeons about head injuries over over-egotistical "cyclist advocates" who can't step down because the "I'm always right, I have nothing to learn" attitude.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/a_brain_surgeon.php

I don't think they should be required, your choice. Just make sure if you get in an accident and on the news that you don't get any head injuries, or we will make fun of you (though thats given on A&S), and don't be a prick about those that do.

Anyone who's casual about whether or not you should wear a bike helmet hasn't had the unique sensation of your head hitting the pavement after going over your handlebars, that's for sure. I literally cracked a piece of my helmet out that time. My head was the only part of me that didn't hurt. If I wasn't wearing a helmet, the impact may not have killed me, but it would likely have knocked me out, and left me at risk for getting run over in the middle of the road.And I know that exact feeling

what I was getting at is that there are people who aren't aware of risks in perspective and worry about only those that have their attention and miss the ones that may be as great or greater as the one they're concerned with so they avoid (thinking about) them (the risks that may be as great or greater) all together.

Kinda like people who say, "screw it I don't care what the situation is, I'll just do what I think" and miss the opportunity to be safe, all the while claiming to be safe.
Ah, it was hard to tell what you really meant, but good point, but it's kind of that way regardless of whatever the person is doing, they have their priorities, screw what reality may be.

I wonder what the ratio of Bodily Harm suffers are related to their riding styles ?
Ie; do more VCealots post saved-by-the-helmet stuff or happy-in-a-lane'rs ?

Personally, Im a mirror whiner...if you dont have a mirror, your helmet will
definatitely get some action whereas if you do, you wont need a helmet.

Mercifully I didnt start a thread, poll or put it in sig. form.
What if your mirror is mounted on your helmet? D: Can't do without one without not having the other. D:

Or I can glue it to my head.

[iltb-2]

You're making a horrible argument, this could be applied to anything, a comparative minor to the comparative NONE of not doing EVERYTHING. How many people driving use their seatbelt every day in an accident? How about every month? Every year? I haven't NEEDED a seatbelt in a good decade. So either I should drive without it, or not drive at all?
Sorry, my good man, my argument is sound and logical. You fail to distinguish the difference/usefulness in a proven risk reduction countermeasure (seat belts) with a device that essentially is no better than a talisman. Your argument falls apart because you consider insignificant risk reduction as a justification for your better caught with it then without it method of choosing appropriate risk reduction gear. It is also evident that you equate proven passive risk reduction devices such as seat belts (a device designed to mitigate/prevent major trauma to the body and head) with a device with little to no capability to do the same. Also wearing seat belts on your head (with associated sweat, hygiene and comfort issues) and cyclists carrying them around like a ball and chain to have them available "just in case" isn't part of the package.

If better to wear it just in case, even if the risk is tiny, or the risk reduction power is insignificant is your standard fine, enjoy! Do you consider that normal riding would be "safer" with a full face protection, mouth guard, elbow and knee pads, steel toes shoes, etc. A good idea to wear that stuff - just in case, eh? Why not? Doesn't the "potential" risk reduction justify the up-armoring of a safety conscious cyclist? After all, your concept of the risk of trauma while cycling appears to justify wearing/using anything on the market that is marketed to reduce that special cycling risk no matter how insignificant it's design for serious risk reduction. Such a logical progression follows for someone who is unable to seriously evaluate risk factors and/or the capability of alleged "safety" equipment to actually seriously reduce that risk.

Just an afterthought: Do you wear a helmet also when walking on an icy sidewalk, a dry sidewalk, in the shower, when working on a ladder, etc. Just in case? Why not?

[iltb-2]

I was wondering how long it would take for this to degrade into a pro/anti helmet thread...apparently not long :).

Even if helmets were proven to not prevent head injury, I'd still wear one while riding my bike because it's the best place to mount my 200 lumen LED flashlight

My handlebars serve that purpose, as well as a good place for mounting my mirror, bell, etc.. Works for me! But if a cyclist prefers to wear that equipment on their head with a $20-$150 mounting device, that's OK by me.

Yeah, who wudda thunk that a thread with this title would degenerate in such a predictable manner? :)

[CommuterRun]

A helmet reduces the trauma of impact injuries to the head. That's all it does, and all it is supposed to do. As to a cycling specific helmet, it's also a handy place to mount mirrors and lights, but that's an aside to it's primary function. I use a helmet mounted light in addition to my 'bar mounted light, but that's because I want to be able to see where I'm looking, instead of just where the bike is pointed.

If a cyclist wants to wear one, that's okay. If the cyclist doesn't want to wear one, that's okay too, with regard to local law.

Anybody that tries to argue that a helmet does not reduce the severity of impact injuries to the head, has already suffered too many blows to the head, or been out in the sun too long without a hat.

[JeffB502]

My handlebars serve that purpose, as well as a good place for mounting my mirror, bell, etc.. Works for me! But if a cyclist prefers to wear that equipment on their head with a $20-$150 mounting device, that's OK by me.

Yeah, who wudda thunk that a thread with this title would degenerate in such a predictable manner? :)

I do know your commute involves that high speed road with minimal cross traffic that you show pictures of every now and then; do you have many intersections or driveways to deal with on your commute? Maybe you don't have as many problems as I have had with cars not seeing you when pulling out from driveways/side streets?

What I've found is a helmet light is much more useful than just the bar mounted lights for pointing at vehicles coming from the side. It would be pretty difficult to point the handlebar mounted lights at a car coming from a side street without steering sharply towards the car, and even then it would only be a momentary flash of light instead of the constant "staring at the driver" light or the flashing "nodding head up and down at driver" I can do with my helmet light.

I started off with handlebar lights only (independent 10w halogen and 15w halogen systems, at first mounted one light head on top of the other, then later on either side of the stem). I found cars pulling out of driveways (and other cross traffic coming from sharp angles) had a hard time seeing the bar mounted lights, and of course they can't see the side-visible reflective material until I'm directly in front of their headlights (which is too late), so there was a visibility gap that needed filling.

The choice seemed to be mounting blinkies at 45 degree angles (maybe on the fork) to cover the gap, or get a helmet light to cover all possible angles in that gap. The helmet light is great for shining an intense spot of light on somebody that is at an angle where it would be difficult or impossible for them to see my bar lights, and now that I've ridden with a helmet light I feel unsafe riding without one. CommuterRun also mentioned the ability to look through corners with a helmet light as opposed to having the lights fixed in the direction of the handlebars.

I guess riding with a helmet light (especially at night with lots of cross traffic) is the same as riding with a rear view mirror...you don't really know the full extent of what you're missing until you try it. I currently use a bar mounted mirror on my hybrid, but I'm thinking about getting a helmet mounted mirror for when I'm riding my new road bike. I definitely felt like something was missing when I rode the road bike on the short 2.6 mile ride home from the LBS without a mirror. It was so much faster than my hybrid though I felt like I was almost keeping up with traffic in the 30mph zone, with the fact that I couldn't see what was behind me being the motivation to go as fast as possible (fear of the unknown will get the adrenaline going I guess :)).

Oh and my helmet mounting device for my flashlight is a Livestrong wristband ($1) and an extra rubber spacer from a plastic blinky mount (free). It would cost me the same amount to mount it on my handlebars.

[StrangeWill]

Sorry, my good man, my argument is sound and logical. You fail to distinguish the difference/usefulness in a proven risk reduction countermeasure (seat belts) with a device that essentially is no better than a talisman. Your argument falls apart because you consider insignificant risk reduction as a justification for your better caught with it then without it method of choosing appropriate risk reduction gear. It is also evident that you equate proven passive risk reduction devices such as seat belts (a device designed to mitigate/prevent major trauma to the body and head) with a device with little to no capability to do the same. Also wearing seat belts on your head (with associated sweat, hygiene and comfort issues) and cyclists carrying them around like a ball and chain to have them available "just in case" isn't part of the package.

If better to wear it just in case, even if the risk is tiny, or the risk reduction power is insignificant is your standard fine, enjoy! Do you consider that normal riding would be "safer" with a full face protection, mouth guard, elbow and knee pads, steel toes shoes, etc. A good idea to wear that stuff - just in case, eh? Why not? Doesn't the "potential" risk reduction justify the up-armoring of a safety conscious cyclist? After all, your concept of the risk of trauma while cycling appears to justify wearing/using anything on the market that is marketed to reduce that special cycling risk no matter how insignificant it's design for serious risk reduction. Such a logical progression follows for someone who is unable to seriously evaluate risk factors and/or the capability of alleged "safety" equipment to actually seriously reduce that risk.

Just an afterthought: Do you wear a helmet also when walking on an icy sidewalk, a dry sidewalk, in the shower, when working on a ladder, etc. Just in case? Why not?
I posted an article from a brain surgeon that says differently. Hence you're just working on a belief as if it is fact.

As I've already pointed out, I've used my helmet more than my seatbelt, so saying it has no use is pretty null and void now isn't it? It's been used, it has a use. To ignore it is pure ignorance, no matter how long and needlessly complex a simple idea has been made.

I'm going to keep using both, but your observation of "minor" is greater than you fool yourself to be.

My handlebars serve that purpose, as well as a good place for mounting my mirror, bell, etc.. Works for me! But if a cyclist prefers to wear that equipment on their head with a $20-$150 mounting device, that's OK by me.

Yeah, who wudda thunk that a thread with this title would degenerate in such a predictable manner? :)
Tried that already, it's actually what I got the first time, road on the road ONCE with it, and immediately returned that garbage.

However I have much different handlebars than you, and I would enjoy the ability to have a stable mirror on the bike as opposed to the one on my head where vibrations can cause the image to be hard to make out (remember the mirror is the size of a quarter and on the end of a small plastic arm), then again finding one that I like to go on the bike is a challenge. However the floating image is a cool idea.

A helmet reduces the trauma of impact injuries to the head. That's all it does, and all it is supposed to do. As to a cycling specific helmet, it's also a handy place to mount mirrors and lights, but that's an aside to it's primary function. I use a helmet mounted light in addition to my 'bar mounted light, but that's because I want to be able to see where I'm looking, instead of just where the bike is pointed.

If a cyclist wants to wear one, that's okay. If the cyclist doesn't want to wear one, that's okay too, with regard to local law.

Anybody that tries to argue that a helmet does not reduce the severity of impact injuries to the head, has already suffered too many blows to the head, or been out in the sun too long without a hat.
I don't know why people buck against it so hard, but then again people buck against established scientific fact thats been that way for the past 50-100 years, so I guess I'm not really surprised. I guess it's this idea that they're this super-genius that found out some conspiracy and can save $40 and educate the world!

However, I've never seen a cyclist that has fallen and hit his head and been glad he didn't have a helmet.

You'll always find crackpots over the weirdest stuff.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/21/1361
Of course who do I trust, doctors, scientists, studies, and a nice mark where my helmet contacted a curb, or crackpots on the internet with an agenda along the lines of "helmet laws hurt cycling".

[iltb-2]

Anybody that tries to argue that a helmet does not reduce the severity of impact injuries to the head, has already suffered too many blows to the head, or been out in the sun too long without a hat.

Just as no one would argue that wearing a bandana or cycling cap has No effect on impact severities, only that the reduction is minimal to unmeasurable.

No one is arguing that there is No helmet effect, only that the alleged "severity reduction," is by product design, insufficient to significantly reduce bicycling risk. And that the actual overall risk reduction is little better than a wearing bandana or having a plastic St Jude on your handlebars. If it gives you comfort and peace of mind: Swell. If you are satisfied that you were "saved" by your totem in an accident, who am I to mess with your beliefs in the power of positive/wishful thinking and/or a fraction of an inch of styrofoam?

Rational people (outside of bicycle helmet devotees and promoters) recognize there are a whole host of other activities with the same (or more) "risk" as bicycling that would be equally "unserved" by the minimal protection/risk reduction power of wearing helmets "just in case." These rational people are capable of making acceptable risk decisions and wearing helmets "just in case" is recognized as an unnecessary over reaction to the minimal risk of their activities

[iltb-2]

However, I've never seen a cyclist that has fallen and hit his head and been glad he didn't have a helmet.

You'll always find crackpots over the weirdest stuff.
Ever hear anyone complain about the Plastic Jesus they had on their dashboard after walking away from an auto accident? Same principle.

[iltb-2]

I do know your commute involves that high speed road with minimal cross traffic that you show pictures of every now and then; do you have many intersections or driveways to deal with on your commute? Maybe you don't have as many problems as I have had with cars not seeing you when pulling out from driveways/side streets?
Correct, I don't on my current commute. However when I did have such a commute in Philadelphia for 5 1/2 years in the 70's I never found the need for a pointing headlight. But that's me, I always expect cross traffic to be capable of not reacting appropriately to my approach whether they see me or not, and am prepared for pull outs and left crosses accordingly.

[CommuterRun]

Put on a helmet and have someone hit you in the head with a brick.

Take the helmet off, put a bandana on your head and have them repeat the action.

When you wake up, come back and tell us which hurt worse. Better yet, get a third person to YouTube it for us.

A helmet is part of risk reduction, which is caused by what the helmet protects.

[iltb-2]

Put on a helmet and have someone hit you in the head with a brick.
By all means, if you run much of a risk of people hitting you in the head with a brick while you cycle you might want to consider wearing a helmet, though the similarity of brick tossing to typical bicycling risk strains credulity. Of course if insignificant risk avoidance is your bag, or if you choose to cycle in dangerous locations you might also want to wear a bullet proof vest while cycling too - just in case - Some people know when a additional safety equipment is warranted and some let their emotions and peer pressure as well as The Conventional Wisdom cloud their judgment.

[closetbiker]

I was wondering how long it would take for this to degrade into a pro/anti helmet thread...apparently not long :).

Even if helmets were proven to not prevent head injury, I'd still wear one

I fell off my bike while riding on the sidewalk ...

That's just what happens when someone posts a story about a topic that provokes.

There's nothing at all wrong with wearing one for whatever reason, but the provocative story is ridiculous.

There's nothing at all that shows the helmet saved the life of the boy, it just shows he could possibly have had a bump or cut on the head without the helmet, but there is nothing in the story to support the headline. It seems when someone who has hit their head while wearing a helmet, that becomes "proof" that the helmet "saved their life" when in fact, it isn't. The fact is, people hit their heads everyday and survive. Sometimes they learn from their mistakes and hit their head less often in the future.

There are plenty of stories of cyclists dying with helmets on, but they don't seem to get the play like the ones where the cyclist survives. Just this week-end there was a story in my paper about a local cyclist enjoying a cycle touring vacation in New Zealand when a motor vehicle collided with her helmeted head and she died.

But deaths are relatively rare in cycling, as it is to most of us when trauma is experienced. We usually die from poor health far more often than trauma, but most people miss the connection that by cycling, you're lengthening and improving your life through the exercise that cycling provides.

Here's a graph from Time magazine that shows what people die from. Note the cycling deaths and note the amount of people who could have "had their lives saved" by the physiological benefits that cycling regularly provides, and ask your self just how risky cycling is

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1375/655932140_f672bca6fc_o.jpg

My province (that has North America's first all ages mandatory helmet law for an entire province) went from a 5% usage rate to a 75% usage rate and over a 10 year period both before and after the law was implemented, the death rate has remained the same. There are as many die with helmets on as die with out wearing a helmet and do you know why? Because helmets are not designed to withstand impacts with motor vehicles and that is the cause of virtually all cyclist deaths. There are exceptions of course. Just last summer, a helmeted cyclist here collided with an unhelmeted roller blader on a multiple use path and the cyclist died from a head injury.

Here's a quiz.

From New Zealand, that introduced an all ages MHL in 1994. Over 90% of cyclists wear helmets there due to strict enforcement.

This graph shows head injuries to cyclists that do not involve a motor vehicle. Just a scenario that fits into the the design performance of helmets.

Show the year that the law was introduced and police enforced an over 90% compliance rate of wear

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/images/9/9f/Percent-hi.jpg

Just because people have accidents or collisions does not mean they they are going to die in each one of them. It's time people started to place a little less emphasis on helmets and a little more emphasis on prevention. The lack of a helmets is a little too convenient a device to tag blame on. It's a distraction to examining real solutions to a problem. I mean, where's the concern that this driver who didn't tie down his load properly? Shouldn't that be the better story?

[StrangeWill]

There's nothing at all wrong with wearing one for whatever reason, but the provocative story is ridiculous.

I agree, it's absurd to think that a freak accident is a good reason, the more common eating-**** accident would be more appropriate, but not really news worthy: "Guy falls off bicycle hits head, is okay". Awesome lets report people who wear kneepads and don't get scratched up.


Also as for your graphs, I'm not so much expecting a helmet to save my life, as to just prevent painful injuries to the head, prevent what could have been a hospital trip, and last thing I need is some kind of permanent injury to my head. I thought headaches were bad and made me unable to work...

Saving my life? Probably not, an accident bad enough to kill me probably wont be from head injuries if they involve a car.

[crhilton]

Put on a helmet and have someone hit you in the head with a brick.

Take the helmet off, put a bandana on your head and have them repeat the action.

When you wake up, come back and tell us which hurt worse. Better yet, get a third person to YouTube it for us.

A helmet is part of risk reduction, which is caused by what the helmet protects.

Before someone posthumously sues CommuterRun; he means the flat part of the brick not the edges or corners.

[tomg]

i got hit by a car (1999). it was her (age 85) fault. settled out of court.
my helmet (1997 bell image-pro) has a +3/4 inch (+0.750 ") deep dent across the bottom back side.
police there stated that i would have been removed from the site in another "way" without helmet.
i'm domed Every time i ride (since 1979).
choose wisely.
good to hear that this kid chose to wear his helmet....another advocate for positive change!

[iltb-2]

Before someone posthumously sues CommuterRun; he means the flat part of the brick not the edges or corners.

And I presume he means just a love tap with this perfectly positioned brick where a helmet might mitigate the effect, just like the minimal mass/velocity design test standards that bicycle helmets are built to meet.

[CommuterRun]

There you guys go, reading between the lines of sarcasm and putting words in my mouth.:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

[StrangeWill]

Before someone posthumously sues CommuterRun; he means the flat part of the brick not the edges or corners.

Best post in this thread.

i got hit by a car (1999). it was her (age 85) fault. settled out of court.
my helmet (1997 bell image-pro) has a +3/4 inch (+0.750 ") deep dent across the bottom back side.
police there stated that i would have been removed from the site in another "way" without helmet.
i'm domed Every time i ride (since 1979).
choose wisely.
good to hear that this kid chose to wear his helmet....another advocate for positive change!
Pretty lucky there, helmet or not tangling with 2000lbs of steel isn't healthy.

And I presume he means just a love tap with this perfectly positioned brick where a helmet might mitigate the effect, just like the minimal mass/velocity design test standards that bicycle helmets are built to meet.

He meant a foam brick too.

[closetbiker]

Hey, how come no one's answered my quiz? You have at least a 1 in 7 chance in getting it right.

[why2not]

As the OP, I guess that the thread title was a bad idea. I was trying to poke a bit of fun at the whole pro/anti helmet debate here by calling attention a very unusual event in which a bike helmet saved some level of injury but not due to any sort of bike crash.

I was trying to keep it lighthearted & down a different path than the ongoing debate. It obviously didn't work out that way, c'est la vie.

[closetbiker]

I can get the thread title as being light hearted but the headline the press gave the incident was bad.

Talk about divert the issue (driver doesn't tie down load) to cash in on a sale (advertising revenue for helmets).

Irresponsible and unethical

[JeffB502]

I can get the thread title as being light hearted but the headline the press gave the incident was bad.

Talk about divert the issue (driver doesn't tie down load) to cash in on a sale (advertising revenue for helmets).

Irresponsible and unethical

From the Article: The Largo Police Department said a truck pulled into the Fifth Third Bank parking lot and as it was backing up its brakes failed.

The truck then jumped the curb, went across the grass and hit a crossing sign before plowing into a nearly 10-foot pedestrian crossing signal pole. That's what fell on Ferland.
...
Largo police sited the driver of the truck for having improper breaks.


I don't think there is any issue here with whether or not the truck's load was tied down (the article doesn't even seem to mention if the truck had a load on it or not).

[closetbiker]

...I don't think there is any issue here with whether or not the truck's load was tied down...

Oops. Right. What I should have said, was it was a brake problem. They should be investigating trucks for potential brake problems if they wanted to get to the issue. The point is not new in the media. They make a buck by advertising irresponsible driving all the time while writing stories about deaths caused by these drivers of fast cars and then write about ABS or bike helmets saving lives

[StrangeWill]

I get this image of the truck plowing towards him, him freaking out, the truck hitting the poll, the kid letting out a sigh of relief... then the pole landing on his head... like a cartoon.