Advocacy & Safety - Bike Helmets are making kids fat...

LOL. Only in California :P

http://healthyliving.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/21/do-bike-helmet-laws-free-lunches-make-kids-fatter/11681/

LOL. Only in California :P

http://healthyliving.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/21/do-bike-helmet-laws-free-lunches-make-kids-fatter/11681/

If someone is so lazy that putting on a helmet will deter them from riding a bike, then I think that ship has already sailed.

Most of the article was about poor nutrition and you just concentrated on the last paragraph? :rolleyes:
http://www.damnidunno.com/funnypics/disappointed-bongo.jpg

Fat parents make fat kids.

Most of the article was about poor nutrition and you just concentrated on the last paragraph? :rolleyes:


Aww, come on. Last two, AND the headline.. :love:

Helmets do make kids fat; I once saw a kid expand faster than Violet Beauregarde chewing a piece of dinner gum when his mother strapped a helmet on him.

Helmets do make kids fat; I once saw a kid expand faster than Violet Beauregarde chewing a piece of dinner gum when his mother strapped a helmet on him.

For a second there, I thought you were going to say you saw a kid eat a helmet ... :)

For a second there, I thought you were going to say you saw a kid eat a helmet ... :)

Fat kids will eat anything. :) I have friends who (well ok, only one), after we're done eating in a restaurant and heading for the door will grab a basket of fries from an abandoned table and munch them on his way out.

Anyway it all sounds funny... except...

"HELMET LAWS COST MILLIONS - showing they do more harm than good, according to an article on the website of the New Scientist. Cited is Piet de Jong, a mathematician at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, who says that helmet laws like those in effect in Australia levy a substantial cost on healthcare systems because savings from fewer head injuries pale in comparison to the costs incurred by decreases in cycling. In reply to those skeptical of his findings, he says only under extreme, theoretical circumstances do mandatory helmet laws not end up costing the healthcare system."

From The New Scientist, as published on http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/

If someone is so lazy that putting on a helmet will deter them from riding a bike, then I think that ship has already sailed.
I don't think laziness had anything to do with it. But looking at bike racks in local schools just before and after the passage of the MHL made it clear that there was a pretty dramatic decline in kids riding to school. Talking to LBS owners confirms that there was also a sharp decline in sales of children's bikes at that time. So there was an effect - the question is why.

I think there are several factors at work. One is parental attitudes toward cycling. Presumably everyone on this board is involved with cycling and recognizes the positive values associated with the activity. But many parents last rode a bike when they were kids themselves and have no interest in it. But they used to see it as a normal step in child development and would plan to have a bike under the christmas tree every few years.

But have a pro-MHL media campaign that emphasizes the possible dangers of cycling with statistics deliberately chosen to make it sound as dangerous as possible (e.g. head injury numbers that include every cut and scrape in addition to serious injuries) and then pronouncements that it's absolutely essential to wear a helmet whenever riding and many of those non-cycling parents will have a change in attitude and start discouraging riding rather than encouraging it. And frankly, if I really thought a helmet was *necessary* I would have discouraged our daughter from riding as well - look at the other activities where helmets are routine: race car driving, dangerous parts of construction sites, fire fighting, military exercises - not the type of things I'd usually encourage our daughter to participate in when she was young.

So the bike under the tree gets replaced by a few new video games and more parents start driving the kids to school.

A second factor is that past a certain age the kids really don't like to wear helmets. My commute route used to pass by three schools: elem., middle, and high school, so I'd see the kids on their way to school. Those relatively few who were still riding after the MHL was passed almost all had a helmet with them, but only about 1 in 20 was being worn. The others dangled from handlebars and backpacks, ready to be put on at the ends of the trip where the school officials enforced the rule at one end and the parents did at the other. You have to really dislike the helmet to make it worth the bother to stop as soon as you're out of sight of the house, clip it somewhere on your bike, and then stop again when getting close to the school to put it back on again. That's not due to laziness since it's much more effort that just wearing it the whole way.
The 'helmet hair' effect is certainly one reason, especially among girls as they get a little older - and you can easily see that very few teenage girls are still among the kids who bike. Lack of 'coolness' is presumably a reason as well. But it really doesn't matter why the kids don't like helmets, the fact is that they don't and it's a factor discouraging the use of their bikes.

Helmet advocacy is one of the worst things that ever happened to cycling in North America.

,,

Car companies should lobby for MHLs. A great way to kill cycling.

How many bike helmets does a kid have to eat to get fat?

Find a porky kiddie and I guarantee you'll find at least one manatee-sized parent. Probably both. Most overeating is a learned behavior. My parents were skinny. I've not gained a pound since high school. My wife is slim. My two 24-year-old girls are slim like their mom - and pretty, like me.

Helmet advocacy is one of the worst things that ever happened to cycling in North America.

yup.

While ignoring that even with falls, cycling results in better health, it promotes the idea that cycling is dangerous (much more dangerous than it is) and results in fewer people cycling (that makes it even more dangerous)

Yup, cycling is down and kids are fatter. Isn't it ironic that these kids will likely wind up with preventable diseases and run a greater risk of brain injury via stroke via lifestyle than they would run a risk of brain injury from a fall off a bike?

His parents made him wear a helmet when he was a kid.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/rubbersidedown/2008/04/medium_fat%20cyclist.jpg

The kids are fat because there ****** parents rather buy a dollar cheeseburger for them then some organic fruit. Its pretty sickening if you think about it

Como Se Llama ...does this helmet make me look fat?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/226/513411415_a3b78ebf91.jpg

Angela Lee, founder of the UKs helmet promotion organization, BHIT (B Hit - yes, be hit)

She doesn't look fat, does she?

Angela Lee, founder of the UKs helmet promotion organization, BHIT (B Hit - yes, be hit)

She doesn't look fat, does she?

Angela Lee is Sarah Lee's sister. After leaving Sarah Lee in a huff over poduct size being deminished, she took up the fight for diet and exercise to put her sister out of the pastry business. This is a true story.......

Angela Lee is Sarah Lee's sister. After leaving Sarah Lee in a huff over poduct size being deminished, she took up the fight for diet and exercise to put her sister out of the pastry business. This is a true story.......

Oh I hate the bimbo now!
You mess with Sarah Lee, you're messing with me and every other god-fearing bakery junkie in the world!

Oh I hate the bimbo now!
You mess with Sarah Lee, you're messing with me and every other god-fearing bakery junkie in the world!

Nobody doesn't like Sarah Lee.

don't ride your bikes to school kids...drive, yes drive instead.

http://www.myspacespells.com/files/18e9b7cc0553.jpg

:roflmao:

The kids are fat because there ****** parents rather buy a dollar cheeseburger for them then some organic fruit. Its pretty sickening if you think about it

The fruit and veggies don't have to be organic to be healthy, just fresh. There are always healthy alternatives out there. It's just too easy to go with the quick and unhealthy options.

The fruit and veggies don't have to be organic to be healthy, just fresh. There are always healthy alternatives out there. It's just too easy to go with the quick and unhealthy options.

Which was another quote in the article that I found idiotic. According the person quoted it is either pizzas or organic fruit. :rolleyes:

I grew up under a MHL and I got to say I'm not surprised. Being a kid, wearing a helmet was one of the nerdiest things you could do. Now that I've grown up and realized my full nerd potential, wearing a helmet is fine when I please. When I was eight, getting harassed by the neighborhood bully for wearing a helmet definitely made me think twice about going for a ride. Ironically, he was the one who got fat, not me.

Cool is king for kids, and kids who skate, BMX, dirt jump, etc generally know in order to be able become rad one wears a brain bucket., but that's not where the issue lies it seems. To get back and forth..from school , a friend's house... the MHL will restrict bike usage.

Cool is king for kids, and kids who skate, BMX, dirt jump, etc generally know in order to be able become rad one wears a brain bucket., but that's not where the issue lies it seems. To get back and forth..from school , a friend's house... the MHL will restrict bike usage.

The other issue with kids is their parents...and if the parents perceive cycling to be dangerous, they won't be keen on letting their kid ride at all, let alone spending money on a bike and helmet.

No matter what one's opinion on helmets is, one simple fact is beyond dispute...wearing a helmet for an activity gives the perception that there is some danger associated with engaging in that activity.

*pounds desk with flat hand Parliament Style* HEAR HEAR

Helmet advocacy is one of the worst things that ever happened to cycling in North America.

Ditto.

Most of the article was about poor nutrition and you just concentrated on the last paragraph? :rolleyes:
http://www.damnidunno.com/funnypics/disappointed-bongo.jpg

hilarious

The other issue with kids is their parents...and if the parents perceive cycling to be dangerous, they won't be keen on letting their kid ride at all, let alone spending money on a bike and helmet.

No matter what one's opinion on helmets is, one simple fact is beyond dispute...wearing a helmet for an activity gives the perception that there is some danger associated with engaging in that activity.

I don't know about you, but danger is what I went after when I was a kid.

But on the plus side, wearing a brain bucket is what got my kid to get a famous skate boarder's autograph... right on the helmet.

Now truth be told, I think mandatory helmets are for the birds... we all seemed to survive just find in the days before helmets, and rubber playgrounds, and while playing on hot metal swing sets. You learned quick or got hurt. Lesson learned, no nanny needed.

Oh the sh*t I did as a kid, oh what fun I had.... I don't think helmets were even sold at the stores. I think remember going to automotive store to get something to true my wheel, and patching my inner tubes with pieces from old tubes and some kind of super glue.... Fun times.

You learned quick or got hurt. Lesson learned, no nanny needed.

Or lawyers...

"Dad, I hurt myself swinging sidewalks and crashing into the side pole."
*helps stop the bleeding and administers stern glare*
"Well now you know how much it's going to hurt if you swing sideways too far right?"

Today would see a lawsuit against the designer, the company that installed, the parks dept. etc etc.

LOL. Only in California :P

http://healthyliving.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/21/do-bike-helmet-laws-free-lunches-make-kids-fatter/11681/

The only way a bicycle helmet can make a kid fat, is if the cost of a helmet, or the implication that bicycle riding is overly dangerous, means that a the kid does not ride.

The reason kids are fat, is that they don't ride, not sure helmets really make a difference here, I think it's more cultural.

When I was a kid, (late 1960's and early 1970's) 45% of the students at my school rode bicycles, the racks were overflowing, and you would find bicycles locked to the fence down the back 40. Another 50% walked to the school, and 4.95% took a bus. Some .05% were driven by parents. This changed a little if the weather was really, really bad. It also changed when the snow flew in that bicycle use usually went on hiatus until spring, with the cycling students switching to walking.

Out of a school population of 300, there were maybe 5 overweight students. There would be one or two crashes a year, I don't recall anyone being seriously injured or killed riding, bicycle helmet use was zero, they hadn't been introduced yet. In summer, when school wasn't in session, bicycle use went up to about 99%, there might be one or two crashes over the summer, I don't recall anyone being seriously injured or killed then either.

Now almost nobody rides to school, almost nobody walks to school, they are all driven by parents in big SUV's and the kids are fat, few kids ride in the summer either, they either sit on the couch playing video games, or sit at the mall. I think if you suggested to the average 12 year old, the idea of bicycling 10 miles to another town for ice cream, followed by riding 10 miles back home, they would look at you as if you had a third arm growing out of your forehead. We did that trip once a week!

Fear sells, and no one is more susceptible to fear than parents.

Bell developed a marketing campaign based on fear and we're all the worse off for it now.

Think of what the atmosphere was like when Bell marketed "The Bell Biker" 14 years before they went all medical with TRT in '89 and compare that with the atmosphere since.

The silver lining in all this is that now some years later after the initial hysteria of the 90's, people are starting to look at what effect Bells marketing has wrought and are starting to question it.

People are riding less, getting fatter, and our reliance on motorized transport is hurting us like never before. It's great that some politicians are starting to speak out at the obvious flaw in the danger argument.

When all is said and done, people riding bikes, even without helmets and including all injuries, live longer and healthier lives than people who don't get that same, inherent benefit that riding a bicycle gives.

Black Cat: Not to be a pain in the butt, but.....you just pointed out the fact that injuries and death did not change any measurable amount in your experience through the ages as we went from no helmet use to great helmet use. Go back and read your post. I thought you were a militant helmet pusher who always used whatever convenient injury stats fit at the moment to help forward helmet use? Kind of an awkward moment for you now, don't you think?

Sorry if this has made you squirm a little bit. Or maybe I'm thinking of some other helmet nazi.

I hate to say this but I started wearing a helmet back in 1987.
I think I was reading an article in Cycling Weekly whilst working out in Australia for a few months.
The article writer was a bike courier and he explained that he only has to imagine his head meeting a car bonnet and he remembers why he wears a helmet.
I thought that made sense and have worn one ever since. I now feel naked without it.
I have had 2 accidents where the helmet has saved me from a cracked skull.
What I find disappointing is parents cycling with children where the children are wearing helmets and the parents are not. OK - childrens heads may be more delicate but it still seems a bit hypocritical and a bad example.

I started wearing a helmet about 8 years ago; since then, I've had three significant accidents, involving cracked/broken bones. The last one, had I NOT had the helmet, would likely have either crippled or killed me, as I landed on my head and R shoulder. My R collarbone broke in 5 places.

IF helmets are making kids fat, it's because the helmets are restricting the fat going to their heads, it has to settle SOMEWHERE. (lol)

I hate to say this but I started wearing a helmet back in 1987.
I think I was reading an article in Cycling Weekly whilst working out in Australia for a few months.
The article writer was a bike courier and he explained that he only has to imagine his head meeting a car bonnet and he remembers why he wears a helmet.
I thought that made sense and have worn one ever since. I now feel naked without it.
I have had 2 accidents where the helmet has saved me from a cracked skull.
What I find disappointing is parents cycling with children where the children are wearing helmets and the parents are not. OK - childrens heads may be more delicate but it still seems a bit hypocritical and a bad example.

Ahh... so you have fallen for the propaganda that without a helmet, severe injuries would occur.

Odd how people managed for so long, and in so many places without them.

Funny how it's been that with an increase in helmet use and a drop in number of cyclists on the road, head injuries have risen, as have obesity rates.

I started wearing a helmet about 8 years ago; since then, I've had three significant accidents, involving cracked/broken bones. The last one, had I NOT had the helmet, would likely have either crippled or killed me, as I landed on my head and R shoulder. My R collarbone broke in 5 places.

IF helmets are making kids fat, it's because the helmets are restricting the fat going to their heads, it has to settle SOMEWHERE. (lol)

If I may borrow the usual logic we see in helmet debates:

I only worn a helmet in over 40 years of riding when required by organized rides/races and have never had an accident that caused any broken bones...though I did hit my head once (at about 15mph into the back of a motor home).

You started wearing a helmet 8 years ago and have since had three accidents that caused broken bones and/or a blow to your head that you think would have ruined your day.

Thus, if you had not started wearing the helmet, you might have avoided those accidents, or at least their severity. :D

When engaging in debate about helmets, fat in the head is required. :beer:

Three accidents with broken bones? There's other things going on here you ain't tellin'.

If I may borrow the usual logic we see in helmet debates:

I only worn a helmet in over 40 years of riding when required by organized rides/races and have never had an accident that caused any broken bones...though I did hit my head once (at about 15mph into the back of a motor home).

You started wearing a helmet 8 years ago and have since had three accidents that caused broken bones and/or a blow to your head that you think would have ruined your day.

Thus, if you had not started wearing the helmet, you might have avoided those accidents, or at least their severity. :D

When engaging in debate about helmets, fat in the head is required. :beer:

Chip, I'm not advocating for anyone else to wear helmets, only relating my own experience, so logic is a FAIL in this case.

The other, CRITICAL, difference in the last 8 years was my choice of ride; I'm now on mountain bikes, and pushing my skill levels. The big one (c-bone) was the result of another faulty equipment, too-thick gloves that reduced my feedback from the lever.

Nor do I think that the lack of helmet would have kept the wrist-cracking wipeout over a small ramp from happening, or the Corvette coming the wrong way out of an alley into me.

I'm not engaging in debate, I'm simply telling a story; there's not enough room in my head for fat, what with all the eclectic knowledge and ego.

three accidents with broken bones? There's other things going on here you ain't tellin'.

For INSTANCE...?

Chip...I'm not engaging in debate, I'm simply telling a story...

yup, that's just it. Just a story. And an unlikely one at that. (y'know, would've been crippled or killed and all)

yup, that's just it. Just a story. And an unlikely one at that. (y'know, would've been crippled or killed and all)

Unlikely, huh? So now you know what happened to me better than I do? Asphalt is JUST A BIT harder than bone. As hard as I hit, there's not a doubt in my mind I'd never have ridden a bike again without having helmet on. I lived it, aschlo.

Unlikely, as in we know how often cyclists have died and the most common conditions when a cyclist has died. (just for the record, cyclists die with helmets on just as often as not, sometimes, even more often)

I'm not discounting your position, just questioning your judgement on what would have happened.

You don't know. Neither do I, but I can make a guess based on probability. It's most probable you wouldn't have, but no one knows for sure now, do they?

PS - I'm sure it hurt. I'm sure you have been rattled, but it's a pretty common claim, isn't it? If this were true, there'd be thousands upon thousands of deaths to cyclists not wearing helmets now, wouldn't there?

I started wearing a helmet about 8 years ago; since then, I've had three significant accidents, involving cracked/broken bones.

How many years did you ride without a helmet and how many accidents during that time resulting in broken bones?

I'm not saying helmets cause accidents, :) but whatever your answer to my question, this is another example of the utter uselessness of these anecdotal reports.

If someone is having frequent accidents involving hitting the head, maybe that person should wear a helmet at all times, during all activities.

Some people hit their heads while making love (I've heard). They should wear helmets.



"Honey, take that helmet off. I've got a headache...

... still ... from last night.'

If we take a look at snowboarding for a moment... Back east, I almost never saw people wear helmets. Out here in Colorado, I see them everywhere, from 5 year olds to 50 year olds. I'd actually consider boarding out east far more dangerous, because there is a great chance for ice on the slopes than out here. But helmets actually seem to be a 'cool' thing to do out here. Of course, boarding helmets actually do tend to look nicer than their cycling counterparts. I think the companies have done a much better job of integrating the style of the culture into the design of their helmets.

Let's look at Shaun White vs Lance Armstrong:

http://whitelines.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ShaunWhite_Helmet-main.jpghttp://blogs.suntimes.com/sportsprose/assets_c/2008/12/lance-thumb-512x339-thumb-512x339-2147.jpg

The boarding helmet flows better into the style, IMHO. And let's not forget, the average kid is going to get behind Shaun as a role model, long before they get behind Lance. If cycling(on the road) had a Shaun White type person, helmets would likely be more popular for kids. Before we regulate, we need to educate.

Of course, if you were to find a Ghost Rider of city cycling, it might do wonders to get people on bikes. Despite his lack of regard for the law(ok, it's really a complete F you to the police really), he is a very talented motorcyclist...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPDm550tN7o&feature=related

Black Cat: Not to be a pain in the butt, but.....you just pointed out the fact that injuries and death did not change any measurable amount in your experience through the ages as we went from no helmet use to great helmet use. Go back and read your post. I thought you were a militant helmet pusher who always used whatever convenient injury stats fit at the moment to help forward helmet use? Kind of an awkward moment for you now, don't you think?

Sorry if this has made you squirm a little bit. Or maybe I'm thinking of some other helmet nazi.

You talking at me? If so, you got the wrong cat :D

If a rider wants to wear a helmet, then they should be allowed to wear one, if they don't then, they should be allowed to go bare headed. The evidence that helmets actually scientifically prevent injuries and deaths, just isn't there. The only way to prove otherwise, is to crash with a helmet, then crash in an identical manner without and compare injuries :injured:

I think wearing one probably does more good then harm, but disagree that we should have mandatory helmet use laws. Having said that, I do think that seatbelt wearing, by the driver should be required in motor vehicles, because in a crash the seatbelt keeps the driver in place, so that they can regain control of the vehicle.

Legislators have long been able to get away with mandating equipment to minimize the damage in a crash, but never seem to deal with the issue of preventing the crash in the first place.