Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Always wear a helmet

Old 01-08-09, 12:05 PM
  #76  
EnigManiac
Senior Member
 
EnigManiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,258

Bikes: BikeE AT, Firebike Bling Bling, Norco Trike (customized)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson View Post
Allow me, a 40+ year cyclist to respectfully disagree with you. You have been lucky, nothing more. Accidents are not always avoidable. After many years in the bicycle industry, I now work in health care and spend a significant portion of my time working on an inpatient rehab unit providing direct care to patients suffering from traumatic brain injuries. Recovery is expensive, slow, uneven and not always complete or successful. Wearing a helmet seems a small price to pay to reduce the risk of this happening.
Lucky? That's what I've been? Nothing more? Pretty presumptuous, I'd say. Luck might or might not have had anything to do with it, but I prefer to believe being alert, experienced, cautious and intelligent has far more to do with not falling or being struck than luck. There's no substitute for intelligence and awareness while riding. They are the keys to avoiding collisions and falls. Accidents are rarely, if ever, actual accidents: they are lapses in judgement and errors in actions on someone's part and they can be, almost always, avoided.
EnigManiac is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 12:05 PM
  #77  
Basil Moss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 1,051

Bikes: Specialized Allez (2007)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson View Post
I don't think anybody seriously claims that helmets can prevent accidents; all they can do is mitigate the effects of an accident.

And who are the "they" you refer to above who purportedly demonstrated that a helmeted head is more likely to be hit in a fall?
I'm afraid I can't find the ref. right now. It's common sense that a head twice as big and a tad heavier is more likely to be hit in a fall, but the difference they found was quite surprising, the relative risk was something like 5.

As to their mitigating the effects of an accident, yes, in some studies they have been shown to reduce the risk of minor injury such as cuts, scrapes and concussion. However, in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary, I think it is extremely difficult to argue the case for helmets reducing mortality among cyclists. In the case of mandatory helmet use, the evidence is very clear that quite the opposite is true.
Basil Moss is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 12:14 PM
  #78  
Speedo
Senior Member
 
Speedo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston Area
Posts: 1,998

Bikes: Univega Gran Turismo, Guerciotti, Bridgestone MB2, Bike Friday New World Tourist, Serotta Ti

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson View Post
I now work in health care and spend a significant portion of my time working on an inpatient rehab unit providing direct care to patients suffering from traumatic brain injuries. Recovery is expensive, slow, uneven and not always complete or successful. Wearing a helmet seems a small price to pay to reduce the risk of this happening.
The price to be paid has to balance against the risk reduction. The balance point is something of a personal choice, and the risk reduction is not as dramatic as people commonly believe.

I would urge anyone with a real interest in this topic rather than the urge to simply blow their horn read through the Helmets cramp my style thread. In addition to seeing the usual arguments hashed over ad infinitum, you can see a fair amount of reasoned discussion, and find links to actual research on the helmet topic.

Speedo
Speedo is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 12:25 PM
  #79  
Speedo
Senior Member
 
Speedo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston Area
Posts: 1,998

Bikes: Univega Gran Turismo, Guerciotti, Bridgestone MB2, Bike Friday New World Tourist, Serotta Ti

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Basil Moss View Post
I'm afraid I can't find the ref. right now. ...
I recall that that discussion, with the links, was hashed over in the Helmets cramp my style thread.
Speedo is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 02:15 PM
  #80  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson View Post
...I now work in health care and spend a significant portion of my time working on an inpatient rehab unit providing direct care to patients suffering from traumatic brain injuries...
these kind of posts just burn me because it not only takes things out of perspective, they deliberately mislead.

Use a little common sense. On a puerly numerical basis, just how many cyclists are in the hospitals compared to others who have a TBI?

What about those cyclists wearing helmets showing up in hospitals with TBI's?

Further, what JDT doesn't see are the numerous cyclists who have not made it into hospitals because they didn't have a heart attack, stroke, diabetes, respiratory disease, etc., etc., because they were cycling. The fact is, benefits outweigh risks on the bike.

Following JDT's logic no one should do anything without a helmet on because there may be some sort of risk of head injury.

Most risks on a bike do not exceed risks people routinely take without helmets and those small risks are best prevented by the careful and skillful use of a bike.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 02:27 PM
  #81  
EnigManiac
Senior Member
 
EnigManiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,258

Bikes: BikeE AT, Firebike Bling Bling, Norco Trike (customized)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
these kind of posts just burn me because it not only takes things out of perspective, they deliberately mislead.

Use a little common sense. On a puerly numerical basis, just how many cyclists are in the hospitals compared to others who have a TBI?

What about those cyclists wearing helmets showing up in hospitals with TBI's?

Further, what JDT doesn't see are the numerous cyclists who have not made it into hospitals because they didn't have a heart attack, stroke, diabetes, respiratory disease, etc., etc., because they were cycling. The fact is, benefits outweigh risks on the bike.

Following JDT's logic no one should do anything without a helmet on because there may be some sort of risk of head injury.

Most risks on a bike do not exceed risks people routinely take without helmets and those small risks are best prevented by the careful and skillful use of a bike.
+1

You said it!
EnigManiac is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 02:50 PM
  #82  
Denny Koll
Senior Member
 
Denny Koll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom View Post
Then I am sure that you wear a helmet when driving, climbing a ladder, working on your roof, using the stairs, taking a shower, diving into a pool or river, climbing a tree, playing basketball, baseball, touch football, soccer, tennis, etc. or any other activity that carries about the same relative risk of head injury as riding a bicycle...right? It seems a small price to pay to reduce your risk, right?

I think it goes without saying that anyone who wears a helmet while cycling would also wear one while driving. It doesn't take much effort to wear a helmet while driving and just think of all the brain injuries that could be prevented if folks would wear driving helmets.

I don't think you can justify not wearing a driving helmet.
Denny Koll is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 02:51 PM
  #83  
JohnDThompson 
Old fart
 
JohnDThompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 20,405

Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.

Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1699 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 43 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom View Post
Then I am sure that you wear a helmet when driving, climbing a ladder, working on your roof, using the stairs, taking a shower, diving into a pool or river, climbing a tree, playing basketball, baseball, touch football, soccer, tennis, etc. or any other activity that carries about the same relative risk of head injury as riding a bicycle...right? It seems a small price to pay to reduce your risk, right?
These activities do not have the same relative risk of head injury as cycling.

If you feel you have weighed the risks and decided to ride without a helmet, that's your decision, and I hope your luck holds. I do hope you have health insurance AND a long term disability plan. Rehab stays often exceed 3 months and many insurance companies will not pay beyond the first 2 weeks. If you don't have insurance you're unlikely to be admitted to an inpatient facility in the first place -- it's straight to the nursing home for you if you don't recover enough to be independent in a couple weeks.
JohnDThompson is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 02:56 PM
  #84  
Denny Koll
Senior Member
 
Denny Koll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson View Post
These activities do not have the same relative risk of head injury as cycling.

If you feel you have weighed the risks and decided to ride without a helmet, that's your decision, and I hope your luck holds. I do hope you have health insurance AND a long term disability plan. Rehab stays often exceed 3 months and many insurance companies will not pay beyond the first 2 weeks. If you don't have insurance you're unlikely to be admitted to an inpatient facility in the first place -- it's straight to the nursing home for you if you don't recover enough to be independent in a couple weeks.
Auto accidents are one of the most common causes of traumatic brain injury. You're logic doesn't work.
Denny Koll is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 03:13 PM
  #85  
Val
Bike Pilot
 
Val's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 182

Bikes: Oh, yes

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
These activities do not have the same relative risk of head injury as cycling
This is true; it is difficult to track, but quite a bit of evidence does seem to indicate that driving, using stairs, and showering have significantly higher risk factors for head injury than cycling. Of course many variables apply - riding to the coffee shop with Mikael Colville-Anderson probably has a much lower risk factor that training with a group of Cat 2s on a potholed road with railroad tracks. It is always good to think about what one is actually doing, and apply judgement accordingly.
Val is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 04:11 PM
  #86  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson View Post
These activities do not have the same relative risk of head injury as cycling...
Really? I'd like to see some numbers to back that claim up, and wouldn't you also say that risk has a little bit to do with the manner in which the activity was done?

According to data supplied to the CTC by the UK Dept. of Health, the proportion of cyclist injuries which are head injuries is essentially the same as the proportion for pedestrians at 30.0 % vs. 30.1 %

Last edited by closetbiker; 01-09-09 at 11:29 AM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 04:27 PM
  #87  
EnigManiac
Senior Member
 
EnigManiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,258

Bikes: BikeE AT, Firebike Bling Bling, Norco Trike (customized)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson View Post
These activities do not have the same relative risk of head injury as cycling.

If you feel you have weighed the risks and decided to ride without a helmet, that's your decision, and I hope your luck holds. I do hope you have health insurance AND a long term disability plan. Rehab stays often exceed 3 months and many insurance companies will not pay beyond the first 2 weeks. If you don't have insurance you're unlikely to be admitted to an inpatient facility in the first place -- it's straight to the nursing home for you if you don't recover enough to be independent in a couple weeks.
If you have such a strong reliance on luck while riding, you, my friend, need to wear a helmet. The rest of us will rely on skill, common sense, intelligence, experience and alertness.
EnigManiac is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 05:31 PM
  #88  
JohnDThompson 
Old fart
 
JohnDThompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 20,405

Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.

Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1699 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 43 Posts
Accidents

Originally Posted by Denny Koll View Post
Auto accidents are one of the most common causes of traumatic brain injury. You're logic doesn't work.
Unrestrained passengers in auto accidents, to be more specific. Wearing a seat belt will greatly reduce your risk, just as wearing a helmet while cycling reduces your risks of TBI.
JohnDThompson is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 06:44 PM
  #89  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson View Post
Unrestrained passengers in auto accidents, to be more specific. Wearing a seat belt will greatly reduce your risk, just as wearing a helmet while cycling reduces your risks of TBI.
you're not familiar with TBI caused by the jerking motion of the head in restrained occupants in MVA's?

According to the Canadian Institue for Health Information, falls, MVA's and assault account for 90% of all head injury admissions to hospitals.



Also, fess up. You're not saying that cycling is not beneficial to health are you?

Last edited by closetbiker; 01-09-09 at 11:25 AM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 06:59 PM
  #90  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 27,695

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 64 Times in 46 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson View Post
These activities do not have the same relative risk of head injury as cycling..
Is your reference for the relative risk of head injury from cycling vis--vis other physical activities the same source as your your assumptions about the alleged effectiveness of helmets in accident effects mitigation?

My assumption is that your assumptions are fabricated out of whole cloth and/or Internet legends and factoid snippets, compounded by ignorance in the subject of measuring/evaluating risk.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 08:22 PM
  #91  
ritepath
Senior Member
 
ritepath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 207

Bikes: CRF150

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 402 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7813418.stm
__________________
Love one another
ritepath is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 08:49 PM
  #92  
degnaw
Senior Member
 
degnaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Denny Koll View Post
I don't think you can justify not wearing a driving helmet.
When other drivers see me driving with a helmet on, they'll freak out, run off the road and crash, causing a net decrease in safety.

Anyways, wouldn't the "fact" that 90% of head injuries come from stuff other than biking have something to do with the overwhelming popularity of not biking?

personally I wear a helmet, but I don't care if someone decides to wear a helmet or not, nor do I really believe the helmet gives a very significant safety benefit in many conditions. But seriously...your "facts" are basically saying BASE jumping is safer than eating because more people die while eating.

Edit: wait a second...would falling while on a bike count as a fall or "other" ?

Last edited by degnaw; 01-08-09 at 09:18 PM.
degnaw is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 09:13 PM
  #93  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SlimAgainSoon View Post
You're mistaken ... Pee Wee Herman was cool.
yes he was...
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 09:21 PM
  #94  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by degnaw View Post
... Anyways, wouldn't the "fact" that 90% of head injuries come from car accidents have something to do with the overwhelming popularity of driving as opposed to cycling or something else?
that's not the point.

JDT claims he works in health care and and spends a significant portion of his time working on an inpatient rehab unit providing direct care to patients suffering from traumatic brain injuries.

What is not said is that most of these patients receive brain injuries from falls, MVA's and acquired brain injuries (which cycling prevents) that number in far greater totals than the traumatic brain injuries seen in hospitals.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-08-09, 09:30 PM
  #95  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by degnaw View Post
...

Edit: wait a second...would falling while on a bike count as a fall or "other" ?
bikes are listed under "other" with everything else that leads to head injuries
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-09-09, 04:06 PM
  #96  
JohnDThompson 
Old fart
 
JohnDThompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 20,405

Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.

Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1699 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 43 Posts
Studies.

Originally Posted by Ajenkins View Post
In the case of first responders, their protective gear has actually been tested and demonstrated to be protective. That is not the case with bicycle helmets. In fact, what testing has been done demonstrates that they offer little protection at all.

Once again, people start chucking around campfire stories and claiming that these anecdotes are data. They are not. The data that does exist does not support the daily use of cycling helmets.
A few abstracts:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ract/110/5/e60

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11235796

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3606780

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/...ealth.19.1.293

http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtrauma...195629!8091!-1

http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtrauma...195629!8091!-1


I'll STFU now.
JohnDThompson is offline  
Old 01-09-09, 04:29 PM
  #97  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson View Post
... I'll STFU now.
Awww! Without addressing the few points that were directly asked?

No numbers to show the relative risks of head injury received by cyclists vs. the general population?

No admission that most of the people with TBI became that way without riding a bike?

No acknowledgement of TBI from whiplash in restrained occupants involved in MVA's?

No answering whether cycling improves health and keeps people out of hospital rather than put them in?

as for the links to the abstracts, I'm sure you're familiar that this is a hotly debated issue and that there many studies opposing the types of studies you've linked. In fact the UK's Department for Transport has a page on this part of the debate

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety...?page=11#a1050

The purpose of this section is to summarise the range of arguments that have been deployed in the bicycle helmet debate and to consider some of the ways in which this debate has been conducted. A selection of papers from the late 1980s/2002 were chosen for analysis;

Key points
*The pro-bicycle helmet group base their argument overwhelmingly on one major point: that there is scientific evidence that, in the event of a fall, helmets substantially reduce head injury.

*The anti-helmet group base their argument on a wider range of issues including: compulsory helmet wearing leads to a decline in bicycling, risk compensation theory negates health gains, scientific studies are defective, the overall road environment needs to be improved.

*The way in which the debate has been conducted is unhelpful to those wishing to make a balanced judgement on the issue.
Trombone made a good post on how some papers can be of low quality on the "Helmets cramp my style" thread

Originally Posted by trombone View Post
It’s not exactly on topic, but many people reading this thread might be surprised at the low quality of a lot of the academic research presented. Alternatively, they might be dismissive of criticisms of methodology or bias presented, amongst others, by people like myself; after all these are peer-reviewed papers in prestigious scientific journals. Surely they must be accurate, despite what people on the internet might say.

What many people not acquainted with both the career development and funding aspects of higher education might not realise is how the current system is set up to produce a high quantity of low-quality research. Grants, funding, tenure and promotion in academic circles depends, in today’s climate, primarily on a count of published research articles. Not quality, or originality, or practical value – quantity is what counts. University departments that have the longest lists of publications get the most funding. Researchers with the longest lists of articles get the best tenures and promotions. This is an unfortunate by-product of the current obsession in educative circles generally on quantative measurement – it’s very easy and cheap to compare the research output of two departments by counting papers, much harder by comparing research quality and originality.

Given this climate, there is a real and severe pressure on all academic researchers to publish and publish quickly. This tends to drive down the quality of research; particularly the time-consuming (and expensive) business of data collection. It also fosters an environment where self-critiquing of research methods is not encouraged; researchers simply cannot afford to get part way through a piece of research only to re-consider whether they are using the correct approach, and have to start again. Their next tenure, or department’s grant funding, might be dependent on then getting published.

There is also pressure on journals. The number of submissions is rising dramatically, making it harder to separate the wheat from the chaff. The who system of peer-review also comes under strain, given than those doing the reviewing are under the same pressures as other researchers. There are also many more journals springing up to cope with the volume; many of which have lower quality thresholds than more established publications. However, their existence in of itself puts pressure on larger journals to also lower their standards in order to ensure they still get enough submissions. Finally, it leads to a huge quantity of derivative papers to be produced; a ‘me-too’ paper that comes to the same conclusions as previously published research, however sloppy in execution, is likely to get published based on the precedent of the preceding articles.

Inside academia, this is an often discussion and recognised problem. For ‘lay’ readers of academic research, however, it can be difficult to distinguish the good stuff from the ‘filler’.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/106557388/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4D9143BF930A25755C0A96E948260

Some things are certain though. A claim of a bicycle helmet being a very effective device that can prevent the occurrence of up to 88% of serious brain injuries has never been shown to be true in real world applications.

As an example, New Zealand instituted an all-ages mandatory helmet law that has been vigorously enforced. Dr. Nigel Perry charted head injury among cyclists with the rise in helmet use against head injury amongst the general population to see the effects of wearing helmets made for cyclists.



Now, does that look anything like an 88% reduction in injury with helmet use?

Use a little common sense, don't have a closed mind, and you'll find there is much debate and disagreement on the topic, it's not black and white, and that substantial reduction in significant head injuries has never been shown in areas that have instituted mandatory helmet use.

Britain's National Cycling Strategy Board made a statement of policy on cycle helmet wearing in January 2004,

Arguments that appear to disavow the efficacy or utility of cycle helmet wearing, or on the other hand claim it as the major influence in reducing injury to cyclists, are both wide of the mark. In particular, campaigns seeking to present cycling as an inevitably dangerous or hazardous activity, or which suggest that helmet wearing should be made compulsory, risk prejudicing the delivery of those very benefits to health and environment which cycling can deliver: they also serve to confuse the general public about the wider social and economic advantages of cycling.
This falls more to my feeling on the issue. That the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks, that cycling increases health. Even brain injury can be reduced by cycling without a helmet because the larger risk is of acquisition through lack of exercise that cycling provides. By simply riding, your chances of receiving brain injury are being reduced.

An excellent site for cyclist safety is bicyclesafe.com

Here the author tackles the helmet issue nicely

Focusing on helmets distracts people from what's more likely to actually save their lives: Learning how to ride safely. It's not that I'm against helmets, I'm against all the attention placed on helmets at the expense of safe riding skills. Helmets are not the most important aspect of bike safety. Not by a long shot.

The main problem with helmets is not with the helmets themselves, it's with the attitude towards them, the idea that they're the first and last word in bike safety. If that's the definition (and that's pretty much how people view helmets) then there are two big problems with that:

A helmet does nothing to prevent a cyclist from getting hit by a car.

The effectiveness of helmets in preventing injury is seriously exaggerated.

I don't believe that helmets are useless. I think if you want the maximum protection possible in a crash you ought to wear one. But I also believe that if you think a helmet will do as much to protect you as you probably think it does then you're kidding yourself.

Last edited by closetbiker; 01-09-09 at 06:22 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-09-09, 08:43 PM
  #98  
boneshake
living with metabolic r8
 
boneshake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Some other planet
Posts: 5,644

Bikes: Giant OCR

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
you're not familiar with TBI caused by the jerking motion of the head in restrained occupants in MVA's?
But even a helmet can't protect from a "jerking motion." That's your brain hitting your skull.
boneshake is offline  
Old 01-09-09, 10:04 PM
  #99  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
it's the movement within the skull that's the problem
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-10-09, 05:49 AM
  #100  
Basil Moss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 1,051

Bikes: Specialized Allez (2007)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
it's the movement within the skull that's the problem
Which is one of the proposed reasons for helmets apparently increasing the risk of brain damage in certain studies. Look up "rotational injury"- this is what persuaded me to stop kidding myself. If a helmet is a useless placebo, that's one thing. If there's even the faintest chance that it might make matters worse, that's quite another.
Basil Moss is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.