miamijim

Thats my basic arguement for wearing them. There are so many variables outside of a riders control that its impossible to know when, where and how an accident may occur.

My last 2 serious head impacts were vastly different. The first, I was trying to negotiate a difficult cresting off road turn and ended up going down the fall line, hitting my head on a tree, falling over and slidding down a hill on my side to within feet of an alligator infested pond. I knew the risks. That was my potential medivac impact.

The second impact was and still is a mystery. I was riding on a flat trail and hit the ground. Hard. There's nothing more I can say because I simply dont know what happened.

closetbiker

and it's a basic argument for retaining the right of choice to go without

miamijim

No objections from me.....

JohnBrooking

Several people have argued that the action is discriminatory against people who can't afford helmets. The article did say that free helmets could be obtained through the police department in this case, which I think addresses this criticism.

My current feeling about helmets is that I'm against making them mandatory for adults, but I have less of a problem doing so for kids (at some given cutoff age which is up for debate), because they aren't generally as good at operating their bikes as adults, nor are they as capable of learning and remembering to follow traffic rules. (I realize that many adults have these problems as well, but most kids do, as a simple matter of physical and mental development.)

randya

it's not about being able to afford a helmet or not, it's about freedom of choice...how many people wear helmets in the Netherlands, or China, or Japan, or any other country that arguably has much higher bicycle use rates and is more bicycle-friendly than the US?



arguing that helmets protect us from ourselves or that helmets will keep you safer if you bicycle on roads you have to share with motor vehicles is just plain lame, get over it.

life is a risk, some choose to wear helmets, some don't, but it shouldn't be a legal requirement.

how would most Americans feel if the law said their car would be confiscated if they were caught speeding, which carries a much higher risk than bicycling without a helmet?

closetbiker

and therein lies a hypocrisy.

They'll confiscate someone else's bicycle, but they would never allow their automobile to be subject to the same treatment

StrangeWill

Whether or not you meant to, you're stating in a thread about physics and statistics, that it is statistically safer to ride without one.

2nd link is totally debunked in the helmet physics thread due to the fact that you're oversimplifying data for shock value. Cause and correlation, look up the differences. Graphs are flashy and typically get those that don't understand the data picking behind them (I did a fun few months of business class on how to not, and how TO data pick and data skew), but the issue is finding a peer reviewed article that isn't copied form some anti-helmet website.

Not that I'm saying people should, but again and again we see the same handful of graphs from the same resource, it isn't very persuasive, and the fact that someone would pick the one over the 100 other articles that say something different points at you being extremely biased.


And we're talking about children, which don't have freedom of choice.

Actually it would be nice, considering how much calmer I drive to help conserve fuel, I wont have to deal with jerkoffs that want me to do 75mph in the slow lane.

closetbiker

actually, I'm pointing out how cause and correlation can be used to show something that isn't true

Gee. The BMJ doesn't print peer reviewed articles?

so you don't think a parent should have any say in what their children do?

Well, we're on the same page here. I'd love for a cop to take away a car from someone doing 55 in a 50 zone. before we'd know it, the roads would be clear!

spoker

It's not a bogus argument in Canada or any country that has publicly-funded healthcare.
Can you figure that out or do you need it explained?

Ajenkins

Thanks for proving my point. In case #1 you were going too fast for the terrain and lost control of your bike. In case #2 you were plainly unobservant. In both cases, these "accidents" could have been prevented by riding correctly, and no helmet would have been needed. Again, it appears to me that you are substituting your helmet for good judgement.

capejohn

This whole thing sounds fishy. I'm sensing there is, or soon will be some money changing hands in that town in the form of fines or penalties.

Just leave people alone for crying out loud.

Booger1

Thanks for looking after me but mom says I'm grown now,and as far as kids wearing helmets,that's what parents are for.

So if there going to take kids bikes for not having a helmet,will they give them a bike if they wear a helmet and don't have one?

Camilo

Oooh, sarcasm! Actually your thought is wrong and it's very likely you are indeed wasting your time and money.

Riding skills, knowledge of how to safely ride on sidewalks, on streets, how to safely cross streets, etc, will "encourage safe riding". Actually adjusting a helmet so it fits properly may increase safety. Passing out helmets will only encourage .... well, further funding by government and private funding programs that aren't concerned with real effects, but simply statistics like "number of helmets given away". It is a waste of money if done in isolation.

Just having them will have a surprisingly small effect on usage - and simple usage may or may not improve safety depending on if (BIG IF) they are actually worn properly. Helmets will be of very little help in avoiding an accident which is FAR more important than helmet use.

Have your pass out the helmet programs looked at any of this?

Avoiding falling over on a bike (riding skills) and definitely avoiding a collision with a motor vehicle (safe riding, road savvy, etc.) will be HUGELY more effective in promoting safety than the feel-good ineffective passing out of helmets.

A helmet, especially one worn improperly, will do tragically little when the little scamp rides in the way of a car that's going 30 mph. The kid is dead or seriously injured regardless of that helmet you "passed out". The helmet doesn't affect the neck, chest, abdomen or limbs - all just as likely to be severely harmed in a kid vs. car collision.

Yes, I do have a pet peeve with people who spend money and spend time doing things that are a waste of time and money - without thinking it through at all, without thinking what they will actually accomplish in the real world, not the ideal "I hope" world they live in.

Like programs that hand out child safety seats. Studies have shown that a huge portion of people install them incorrectly in their cars and kids are injured that should be safe. A far more effective intervention is relatively cheap: Shopping mall stations and promotions where trained volunteers simply adjust the seats that are already in cars to install them properly, and showing the user how to do it and showing them why improper installation is nearly worthless. Same goes with bicycle helmets for kids - handing them out is worth next to nothing, regardless of what you think.

But go ahead and be sarcastic and think you're doing something worth while.

StrangeWill

Hence why we pay departments to run clean statistics, and come up with what I posted...


Err, they're letters to the editor, they're not conclusive documents.

This argument could easily be used for behavior that leads to child endangerment, in some cases, no, a parent cannot make poor choices that can affect the child negatively, just because the parent is stupid doesn't mean the child should live with the poor parenting decision for the rest of their life. Nor does the commonality of making poor choices that can screw over other people for life create any just arguments for one's complete and unrestrained freedom (which nothing says we have).

Well actually cyclists would probably dislike it more, being as all that will be left are the old people that drive way to close.

closetbiker

you mean, statistics that reflect the way you feel

they're letters from peer reviewed authors with references from peer reviewed studies

define child endangerment. if your meaning is bumps and cuts, I'd argue your being a little over protective,. If your meaning is for the prevention of deaths, there's very little, if any, evidence of a bicycle helmet being capable of such a thing.

However, if you take a bike away from a kid and the kid does not ride anymore, I guess that'll stop deaths on bicycles. They'll just die as pedestrians then. Not our problem

I'd rather have some drive close at low speed than the way I see high speed drivers follow closely now

IntoThickAir

I hate to interrupt this spirited/heated/furious exchange, but I'm an Arizonan who fears the sun and skin caner more than cars running me down. I'm 51, have ridden daily for the last three decades, have yet to fall on my head (luck and caution), and prefer a hat with a brim to a helmet. At least until someone could recommend to me a helmet with decent sunshade. Any ideas?

StrangeWill

Um, no, it's numerical, if you can find more than fringe statistics that data pick, then I'll be inclined to believe you, but there is an overwhelming amount of articles that say otherwise.

It's much easier to say that you're just going with how you feel, considering you throw out 98% of articles because you just don't like them, when I'm throwing out the odd 2%.

The article itself needs to be peer reviewed, just because you published something that's been peer reviewed before means you get an automatic pass to not have to be peer reviewed again, nor have you actually cited the sources those two studies are from.

98% of articles... "little evidence". I can find an article that says wearing a seat belt is dangerous for every anti-helmet "statistic" you bring up, fact is that the number of people backing it just isn't sufficient to make anyone that deals with numbers over feelings actually think it's a decent source to make a conclusion from.

If it's one thing cycling helmets were designed for, it was kids sustaining head injuries from falls, unless you really think it's a giant conspiracy to get people to wear funny looking foam hats so that the people in dark robes in the back room can laugh at us.

Strange, you're totally for that idea with cars...

Ah there was just a huge rant about old people possibly driving really close because they don't actually notice you, I've never had the problem.




Get some decent sunscreen, apply it at well timed intervals, make sure it's sweat resistant, and a strong SPF level, a hat/helmet is going to do very little, more like next to nothing...

closetbiker

well, it's pretty clear there's more than a bit of debate on this issue, and the fact it's been going on for years, shows the issue is far from clear cut.

Taking away bicycles isn't going to solve the debate and it won't do much to get people on bikes either.

If anything, it's just going to create animosity.

RobertHurst

Cyclists are a healthier population whether or not they choose to wear helmets. If nobody wore helmets in Canada Canada's health care system would still benefit from bicycling (unless you buy the argument that bicycling makes people so healthy that their extra longevity cancels the benefit). There is no evidence that making people wear helmets will even result in a drop in head injury rate (as crazy as that will seem to you knee-jerkers), much less a drop in health care costs. There is quite a bit of evidence that it would result in an increase in overall health care costs by causing fewer people to ride. So nyaaah to the bogus health-care-costs argument.

Unhelmeted bike riders don't cost society money. People sitting in their cars and their couches scarfing junk food and beer who get heart attacks and strokes and cancer cost society money.

What'd you have for dinner tonight? What's in your cupboard? Explain to me why that isn't any of my business, but whether I choose to wear a helmet or not is your business.

StrangeWill

Alas taking away bicycles was not the first step, they have been extremely lenient and are being laughed at, they're upping the ante because people are unwilling to obey the law.

Well you don't have the exact numbers on that, so I wouldn't go jumping on that hypothesis, it's interesting, but without numbers it's pure speculation.

closetbiker

it's pretty much the equivalent of taking your ball and going home when all the other players don't agree with you, but in this instance, your taking away everyone else's balls as well and then going home so no one can play.

The real issue is how this law was passed in the first place, but if it's the law, it's the law. That still doesn't mean the law isn't short-sighted and harmful though. It also wouldn't be the first law that was a bad law.

actually there's been more than a few studies showing what Robert has posted to be true, but we know you probably won't acknowledge them because it's clear you feel you know more than any expert on the subject.

Elkhound

A kid can learn to pick or break a lock. Also, kids often are careless about locking up their bikes.

If you will see above, it was mentioned that the police are distributing free helmets, so "not being able to afford a helmet" is not an issue.

bakaster

anyone can steal a bike if they want to, and the quality of the lock will not stop people from locking the bike poorly.

for example, a bike was stolen at my school (which is kind of silly to say as it has a TON of bike theft) using only a spoke wrench. since many people only bother with one lock, even if it is a good one it can only do so much. they locked through the back wheel (in the middle of the stays) to the bike rack without locking anything to the frame.

Feldman

I'm not stupid enough to ride without a helmet, but I hate helmet laws--they're the equivalent of requiring women to wear steel shorts to prevent ****. CONTROL THE BEHAVIOR OF MOTORISTS.
Confiscate cars for speeding, driving distracted, running stoplights. Never mind helmetless bike riders--that is thinking backwards.

Elkhound

I agree with you with respect to adults, but children are another matter.