Advocacy & Safety - Why do journalists always mention helmets?

http://www.theledger.com/article/20090925/NEWS/909255068/1410?Title=Train-Hits-Kills-Man-On-Bicycle-in-Lakeland

Is there some sort of rule book for newspaper reporters that requires them to always mention whether the bicycle rider was wearing helmet or not. No offense to the man or his family in the article I linked to but he was hit by a TRAIN for God's sake. Does the reporter really think a helmet would have helped?

It's because of political correctness, the censonship of the left. It's Winston Smith in our own Ministry of Information that spews only the most banal, childish garbage for acceptance by the most gullible and stupid in our society. "Reporters" in our time are really, really stupid people.

Helmets are Politally Correct in some of the biking world. Journalist hear "helmet" and parrot the word.

Because they are idiots. They don't have a clue as to what questions should be asked, and just parrot others.... Being a reporter, sure doesn't make them journalists.....

Start writing letters to the editor asking that the reporter state whether people in cars were wearing helmets at the time of their accidents.

Because the data is typically part of the accident reports on which most traffic stories are based.

Based on actual experience, I suggest that reporters tend to be intelligent representatives of the human race.

Knee jerk rants reveal much more about the personality of the ranter than the target.

Knee jerk rants reveal much more about the personality of the ranter than the target. I don't think I'm making a knee jerk rant. Mentioning whether a bicyclist was wearing a helmet when its relevant to the story is one thing, mentioning it when the man commits suicide by train is another. I can't even think of a stupid tasteless joke to make about how a helmet could have helped him. I've emailed the reporter directly asking how it, if I get a response I'll post it. If nothing else maybe there will be one reporter who will give it a double thought when doing a similar story in the future.


I thought your 25 September story of Mr. Lewis's tragic death to be both tastefully and professionally written but I do have an issue regarding it. Is there an editorial requirement or is it journalistic training in your background that requires whenever a bicyclist is injured or killed to report whether he or she was wearing a helmet? Just about every newspaper article I have read on accidents involving bicycle riders, and as an avid cyclist and cycling advocate I have read a lot of them, include a mention whether a helmet is worn or not. Helmets can be a big help in protecting riders when they fall off their bicycles through adverse circumstances. If the rider is lucky a helmet might prevent or limit cranial injury if they are hit by a motor vehicle, but I find it difficult to imagine circumstances where a thin cover of Styrofoam and plastic would have made a difference to a man committing suicide by train. There is a growing movement among cyclists to educate the police, members of government, the motoring public, and journalists to the hazards faced when riding a bicycle. Many cyclists believe that helmets create an illusion of safety that is detrimental to bicycling as a whole, a view supported by at least one British study* that found cars passed closer to bicyclists wearing helmets then to bicyclists without them. Although I am a regular helmet wearer when riding, I do believe that mentioning every instance of helmet wearing when a newspaper reports a bicycle related accident suggests that bicyclists are somehow responsible for their own injuries, whether true or not. Although obviously true in Mr. Lewis's case, that fact he was not wearing a helmet was irrelevant to the sad circumstances of his death and had he been wearing one it certainly wouldn't have helped him. Thank you for listening to my gripe and if you could enlighten me on how bicyclists wearing helmets is viewed by the media I would certainly appreciate it.

(My Name)
Laurel, MD


*http://www.bhsi.org/walkerstudy.htm

Back in the day, when I used to work for a living, I was exposed to many news "stories" which involved my company.

I was usually amazed that the "reported" stories, didn't even remotely mention what really happened.

But, it sure was shocking, as "reported."

http://www.theledger.com/article/20090925/NEWS/909255068/1410?Title=Train-Hits-Kills-Man-On-Bicycle-in-Lakeland

Is there some sort of rule book for newspaper reporters that requires them to always mention whether the bicycle rider was wearing helmet or not. No offense to the man or his family in the article I linked to but he was hit by a TRAIN for God's sake. Does the reporter really think a helmet would have helped?

Reporters, like the general public have been brainwashed by helmet advocates (who have been "encouraged" by helmet manufacturers) to think that helmets make a difference.

I wonder how long it'll be that they figure out that they don't

What about it being a train is special? He's in a bike, not a car. So the cow catch on the train is likely to throw him, much like a passenger sedan will. If he's in town (I'm sure he was, he's an alcoholic not a distance rider) the train was doing 20,30,40mph... Very likely it was going slower than a car would be.

So, I don't see how a helmet would be less helpful when being hit by a train than being hit by a car.


Anyway, I disagree with the constant posting of whether or not a helmet was there. But I more strongly disagree with the lack of basic accident information available on the accident report.

It's because helmets are made of polystyrene or somesuch and it is a substance with magical properties. Except when the rider is killed.

I wonder how long it'll be that they figure out that they don't

Huh. They made a hell of a difference for me the one time my head hit the pavement hard. Caused a lot of damage to the helmet, none to my head other than a few facial cuts.

Of course they don't ALWAYS make a difference, but it's just as untrue that they NEVER make a difference.

Because everyone knows helmets are these magical things that protect against all brain damage. :thumb: hey ho, hey ho off to A&S we go. :roflmao2:

UD

So the cow catch on the train is likely to throw him,

More accurately, the "plow" - and if it's a weed plow (reduced height plow as below), it can easily cut a nice slice out of you in the process:

http://www.jaysmarine.com/F40PH2C_TRCX.jpg

Of course, the MU receptacles and cables can do enough damage without any plow - then you have the coupler lift bar as well - and some designs poke forward as the example on the F40PH-2C above.

-Kurt

Ooo, good call. I guess I'm still picturing something from a 19th century train.

Ooo, good call. I guess I'm still picturing something from a 19th century train.

"Hooterville World Guardian: Floyd and Charley Give Uncle Joe a Scare. Report by Sam Drucker."

http://petticoat.topcities.com/image_011.gif

-Kurt

Newspaper/tv articles always state whether a motorcycle accident victim was wearing his helmet as well. This always seemed pointless to me because it's the law (NC) and virtually no one rides without one.

Newspaper/tv articles always state whether a motorcycle accident victim was wearing his helmet as well.

Now all we have to do is to train them to mention whether automobile drivers are wearing their helmets or not.

:lol:

-Kurt

Newspaper/tv articles always state whether a motorcycle accident victim was wearing his helmet as well. This always seemed pointless to me because it's the law (NC) and virtually no one rides without one.

It's not the law here in Fl, of course they have to be over a certain age, and carry extra insurance. But it's no longer the law that motorcyclists have to wear a helmet.

I have read plenty of articles about car accidents in which they report whether or not seat belts were worn.

Because everyone knows helmets are these magical things that protect against all brain damage. :thumb: hey ho, hey ho off to A&S we go. :roflmao2:

UD

:bang:

:trainwreck:

http://www.theledger.com/article/20090925/NEWS/909255068/1410?Title=Train-Hits-Kills-Man-On-Bicycle-in-Lakeland

Is there some sort of rule book for newspaper reporters that requires them to always mention whether the bicycle rider was wearing helmet or not. No offense to the man or his family in the article I linked to but he was hit by a TRAIN for God's sake. Does the reporter really think a helmet would have helped?

The reporter doesn't know squat, they just parrot the report they get. Every auto accident report ends with "alchohol was ( or wasn't) a factor."

The reporter doesn't know squat, they just parrot the report they get. Every auto accident report ends with "alchohol was ( or wasn't) a factor."

Or, whether road surface, weather, aggressive driving, a police chase, traffic volume, mechanical failure, etc. were factors. Most auto accident stories do mention seat belt use. The same would go for any safety equipment related to cycling.

The reporting staffs at newspapers have been cut to the bare minimum amid declining circulation and ad sales. The mention of local accidents is often reduced to a paragraph gleaned from the overnight police log.

Is there some sort of rule book for newspaper reporters that requires them to always mention whether the bicycle rider was wearing helmet or not.

I think not wearing a helmet could be viewed as a sign of bad judgment in general. Or that the rider was not a "serious" cyclist and had less than perfect regard for his safety. It's all about spin with the media anyway. News is not a public service. It's a money making, power mongering business. Anything they can write that appeals to the human reptilian brain is fair game, even if it is truly irrelevant logically but titillating emotionally.

Someone above compared it to wearing a sea tbelt. "The driver was killed in the car accident...he was not wearing a seat belt." Somehow it makes the reader feel a little less sorry for the person injured or killed.

What about it being a train is special?


It's made of metal and weighs several hundred tons.



He's in a bike, not a car.


Well done!



So the cow catch on the train is likely to throw him, much like a passenger sedan will.


If you knew the first thing about this issue you'd know that even in a head-on bike-car hit helmets are virtually useless. A helmet is designed to take a 10m/s impact on the road. This as much use as sunscreen in a nuclear blast if you hit a huge piece of metal moving at 40m/s. Kinetic energy goes with square of velocity - so that's SIXTEEN TIMES the amount of energy to dissipate.



If he's in town (I'm sure he was, he's an alcoholic not a distance rider) the train was doing 20,30,40mph... Very likely it was going slower than a car would be.


But a helmet is no use in a hit by a car.



So, I don't see how a helmet would be less helpful when being hit by a train than being hit by a car.


But you're entirely ignorant, so what you "see" doesn't matter.

..Reading your post I can't help wonder if you think the reason being hit by a car hurts is that the rider then falls on the floor. Of course, this isn't the case - the damage is done by the impact with the car. In about 50% of cases where fatal head injury is inflicted fatal torso injuries will be also, making a helmet useless. In the remaining 50% the best evidence from an EEC study of motorcycle injuries) is that 70% of deaths will be from rotational injury - which current cycling helmet designs either don't reduce or make worse. That leaves a mere 15% of serious car impacts where a helmet could help - if the car was moving at a very low speed (that 10m/s threshold) which typically it isn't in a serious accident.

Why do journalists always mention helmets?

Quite simple: It's the only safety device available to cyclists in the mind of the general public. And it is known that it is not universally used by cyclists, so they think it is *always* relevant.

Reporters, like the general public have been brainwashed by helmet advocates (who have been "encouraged" by helmet manufacturers) to think that helmets make a difference.

I wonder how long it'll be that they figure out that they don't

Here's an example of how reporters aren't being fair. (Or are the reporters being fed info in order to increase sales?)

In spite of considerable research that counters other research that shows favor to helmets, this reporter writes that the evidence only shows helmets save lives and prevent head injuries.

After parents respond to a survey showing a rate of use that is less than desirable to the (?) writer (or interests that want more helmets to be worn/sold) a solution is presented that a helmet law could double the rate of use and save lives when in fact, when rates of wear do double (almost always due to a passing of a law), there has been no reduction of lives lost (except when the amount of cyclists decrease).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/health/research/07safe.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

Safety: Helmet Laws for Cyclists Are Effective

By ERIC NAGOURNEY
Published: July 6, 2009

Children who live in states with laws requiring bicycle helmet use are much more likely to wear them than those who do not, a new study reports.

And despite strong evidence that helmets save lives and prevent head injuries, the study found, many children still do not wear them.

The findings come from a survey by the C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital at the University of Michigan, which asked more than 2,000 adults across the country about helmet use.

Based on what parents told them, the researchers said that 42 percent of bike riders ages 14 to 17 always wear a helmet, while 31 percent sometimes do. That meant 1 in 4 never wore a helmet.

Helmet laws of various sorts are in effect in 21 states, the researchers said. In those states, helmet use was found to be twice as high.

How the laws help is unclear, said Dr. Matthew M. Davis, who directed the poll. It may be that the laws increase awareness of the issue.

Still, while the researchers said more lives would probably be saved if more states passed helmet laws, that may not be enough.

Parents gave the researchers several reasons for their children’s failure to wear helmets. Some said they were uncomfortable; but others said the helmets were too expensive, and the survey found that low-income parents reported much lower use. One solution, the researchers said, may be to provide helmets to those families that cannot afford them.

If you knew the first thing about this issue you'd know that even in a head-on bike-car hit helmets are virtually useless. A helmet is designed to take a 10m/s impact on the road. This as much use as sunscreen in a nuclear blast if you hit a huge piece of metal moving at 40m/s. Kinetic energy goes with square of velocity - so that's SIXTEEN TIMES the amount of energy to dissipate.



The car is 20 times your mass. The train is 20,000 times your mass. Is that going to make a huge difference in the end? Both are waaaaaaay bigger. In both cases, your head is going to make _all_ of the velocity change.

Another person made a good point that the sweeping device on trains is quite a bit uglier than the hood of a car.

Nowhere did I say helmets were effective. Stop reading in and learn to be civil.

>>
If you knew the first thing about this issue you'd know that even in a head-on bike-car hit helmets are virtually useless. A helmet is designed to take a 10m/s impact on the road. This as much use as sunscreen in a nuclear blast if you hit a huge piece of metal moving at 40m/s. Kinetic energy goes with square of velocity - so that's SIXTEEN TIMES the amount of energy to dissipate.
>>
The car is 20 times your mass. The train is 20,000 times your mass. Is that going to make a huge difference in the end? Both are waaaaaaay bigger. In both cases, your head is going to make _all_ of the velocity change.


Yes, that's why I didn't say that a train hit is worse than a car hit. Yes, I know you seem to believe that I did - but why you believe that is beyond me. I said that helmets are

1. useless in a hit by a "fast" (say 30mph) moving car

2. that this is because helmets are designed for much lower impact speeds

I never referred to the train's mass relative to the cars as being important and the above in fact assumes that "In both cases, your head is going to make _all_ of the velocity change."



Another person made a good point that the sweeping device on trains is quite a bit uglier than the hood of a car.


???

Yes, that's why I didn't say that a train hit is worse than a car hit. Yes, I know you seem to believe that I did - but why you believe that is beyond me. I said that helmets are

1. useless in a hit by a "fast" (say 30mph) moving car

2. that this is because helmets are designed for much lower impact speeds

I never referred to the train's mass relative to the cars as being important and the above in fact assumes that "In both cases, your head is going to make _all_ of the velocity change."



???

I know, I was reiterating my point so you would shut up about the one you made up for me. Looks like it worked.

1. They are lazy.
2. They are not paid to be non-partisan
3. They have little understanding of the subject matter
4. It's safer to follow the herd than to speak the truth.

Thus we get reporters sermonizing about:
accidents vs collusions {almost always an accident and never driver's fault**
under the influence of drugs
maybe something about cell phone texting distractions
never about: need for better driver education, need for better vehicle handling skills,
better accident avoidance training, driving being task#1 before entertainment, moving
offices on wheels etc.

It's because of political correctness, the censonship of the left.

Pretty wide of the mark. I think it has just become an automatic thing the same as whether someone was wearing a seatbelt or whether alcohol was involved. It is just one of those stupid things that reporters focus on so they don't have to think too much. It is just laziness.

I'll be the first to say I haven't looked into just how effective seat belt laws have been, but I'd bet they have been far more effective than helmet laws have been for cyclists. AFAIK, to test the belts, they strap dummies into cars and drive the cars into a wall at about 30 mph. Wouldn't that be something like what some collisions be like?

Anyhow, I think it's pretty obvious if someone's been drinking too much, that's going to make a difference but whether someones wearing a bike helmet isn't really going to make a difference (because that's already been shown when countries have enacted laws) so to equate wearing bicycle helmets to wearing seatbelts or drinking too much alcohol is to display ignorance.

The response from the reporter:


(My Name),

Thanks for your compliments about my writing and your thoughtful note. To be honest, I regretted having written that the moment I read it in the paper. It is simply policy (and I think good practice) for reporters to include that kind of information in any story about a crash because it offers an opportunity to educate the public about proper safety procedures. But, you're right; I'm sure it wouldn't have made a difference in this case.

Thanks for taking the time to write to me, and please continue to do so in the future!

Shoshana

________________

Shoshana Walter
Reporter
The Ledger

(o) 863-802-7590
shoshana.walter@theledger.com

http://polk-911.theledger.com (http://polk-911.theledger.com/)
www.theledger.com/losingthefight (http://www.theledger.com/losingthefight)

A normal human response is to vilify the person who died so the rest of us can feel better about our chances. So, sure, the helmet wouldn't have helped, but he obviously was different from the the rest of the careful people, so feel better.

Another tendency is to constantly public message us. My local 14 lane Hwy, has these real time traffic signs. But when there isn't a tie up, they have messages like "drive carefully - keep your eyes on the road" to distract us.

If you knew the first thing about this issue you'd know that even in a head-on bike-car hit helmets are virtually useless.

I wouldn't waste my breath on crhilton. He showed up on the first "Helmets cramp my style thread" and has been busy spreading his ignorance for quite a while. Scan the stupidity here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&&q=site:bikeforums.net+crhilton+helmet&start=30&sa=N

My helmet saved my life in a head on collision with a boat... why should trains be any different!

Here in "ski country", every time someone skis in to a tree and cashes in, the report says "not wearing a helmet" , but never "wearing a helmet".
Bud

The response from the reporter:

I emailed the writer of the Times piece asking what his source of reference was for writing there was strong evidence that bicycle helmets save lives and he said that "public health doctors" are in agreement on this and he wasn't even aware that there was a debate on the issue.

I directed him to the wikipedia page for reference and asked again for the study he had mentioned he had in his notes that substantiates his claim.

(my suspicion is it's the infamous '89 TRT report out of Seattle)

Here in "ski country", every time someone skis in to a tree and cashes in, the report says "not wearing a helmet" , but never "wearing a helmet".
Bud

maybe that's because people want to promote their point of view even if it doesn't make sense?

helmet use in the USA increased in the 2008/09 season to 48% of the total on slope population ... more than half of the people involved in fatal accidents last season at ski areas in the USA were wearing helmets at the time of the incident (http://www.ski-injury.com/prevention/helmet)

It's a conspiracy by THEM

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/1/29/128777714835949870.jpg

more like ignorance. People display their ignorance all the time

http://www.theledger.com/article/20090925/NEWS/909255068/1410?Title=Train-Hits-Kills-Man-On-Bicycle-in-Lakeland

Is there some sort of rule book for newspaper reporters that requires them to always mention whether the bicycle rider was wearing helmet or not. No offense to the man or his family in the article I linked to but he was hit by a TRAIN for God's sake. Does the reporter really think a helmet would have helped?

Same reason they always mention texting or elderly when reporting car accidents

well, texting while driving (or perhaps being elderly) can make a difference. A helmet in collision with a train will make no difference.