Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Woohoo!!! A win for Colorado!

Notices
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.

Woohoo!!! A win for Colorado!

Old 05-05-10, 12:43 PM
  #1  
UnsafeAlpine
Domestic Domestique
Thread Starter
 
UnsafeAlpine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,742

Bikes: Brand New Old Catamount! Schwinn Homegrown, Specialized FSR, Salsa Vaya, Salsa Chile Con Crosso

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Woohoo!!! A win for Colorado!

Colorado children will not be required to wear helmets while riding bicycles, skateboards and scooters despite the best efforts of two Fort Collins lawmakers.

House Bill 1147, sponsored by Democratic Rep. John Kefalas and Sen. Bob Bacon, was amended last week by the Senate to remove the helmet requirement.

Thank god for that.
UnsafeAlpine is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 01:32 PM
  #2  
bikelifetv
Junior Member
 
bikelifetv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 9

Bikes: Giant Road Bike and Trek Mountain Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ummmm....

Why would they not want children to wear helmets? A child died in my neighborhood because he didn't have a helmet on.
bikelifetv is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 01:34 PM
  #3  
UnsafeAlpine
Domestic Domestique
Thread Starter
 
UnsafeAlpine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,742

Bikes: Brand New Old Catamount! Schwinn Homegrown, Specialized FSR, Salsa Vaya, Salsa Chile Con Crosso

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by bikelifetv View Post
Why would they not want children to wear helmets? A child died in my neighborhood because he didn't have a helmet on.
Mandatory helmet laws have the negative effect of reducing cycling.
UnsafeAlpine is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 01:46 PM
  #4  
dougmc
Senior Member
 
dougmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,038

Bikes: Burly Canto

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bikelifetv View Post
Why would they not want children to wear helmets? A child died in my neighborhood because he didn't have a helmet on.
Really? Did a gang come up to him, see that he wasn't wearing a helmet, and shoot him until he was dead because there was no helmet on his head?

Certainly, if he had an accident and hit his head and died, there's no guarantee that a helmet would have saved him ...
dougmc is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 01:54 PM
  #5  
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,739
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14025 Post(s)
Liked 5,144 Times in 2,915 Posts
Originally Posted by dougmc View Post
Certainly, if he had an accident and hit his head and died, there's no guarantee that a helmet would have saved him ...
And if someone drives into a tree at 60 MPH, flies through the windshield, and dies, there's no guarantee that a seatbelt or air bag would have saved them. The truth is, there are very few guarantees of any kind in life. But that's really not a very good reason to abandon common sense. We require seatbelt use in cars, after all.

I can understand not wanting to wear a helmet, but I'm not sure why we're demanding a much higher standard of "reasonably knowing" than in other aspects of life? I don't think I've ever heard anybody argue about whether there exists any proof that stopping for red lights will always save lives in all conditions, to prevent traffic laws. But that's what people are asking for with bike helmets.
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 02:22 PM
  #6  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
The truth is, the law makers feel there were more negative aspects of the bicycle helmet law than positive and that's why the requirement was rescinded.

It's a growing trend, as the rejection of proposed helmet laws has been a trend for some time now.

People are starting to understand, there's more to bike safety than wearing helmets, and forcing people to wear helmet doesn't achieve the goals that were wished for.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 02:33 PM
  #7  
kuan
Twincities MN
 
kuan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,536

Bikes: Fat Caad Lefty, Foundry Overland.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I don't get how it's a win. I never saw this issue as a contest.
__________________
www.marrow.org
kuan is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 02:45 PM
  #8  
dougmc
Senior Member
 
dougmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,038

Bikes: Burly Canto

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest View Post
And if someone drives into a tree at 60 MPH, flies through the windshield, and dies, there's no guarantee that a seatbelt or air bag would have saved them. The truth is, there are very few guarantees of any kind in life. But that's really not a very good reason to abandon common sense. We require seatbelt use in cars, after all.
Yes, we do, and many of the arguments against mandatory seatbelt use are similar to those against helmet use.

However, seatbelts and helmets are very different beasts. Seatbelts are almost magical in how effective they are -- they greatly reduce injuries and this has been shown over and over and over again. People do still die while wearing seatbelts, but usually it's in the most serious of accidents. Lots of seatbelt wearing people walk away with minimal or no injuries after being in some very serious accidents.

Bicycle helmets are nowhere near as effective as seatbelts. They may help in some small percentage of accidents, but the percentage is far smaller than where seatbelts help. And even when they do help, the help tends to be limited as the helmet breaks or gets completely compressed. And finally, in serious accidents, even if the helmet does somehow protect your head -- the rest of your body may have life threatening injuries. (Motorcycle helmets are better -- stronger, cover more of the head. But they're rarely used by those on bicycles.)

But ultimately, my point really was that I'm pretty sure that nobody knows that a helmet would have saved that child's life. Sure, some doctor (if we're lucky!) may have decided "oh, the child hit their head -- a helmet would have prevented that!" -- but most doctors don't really realize just how weak bicycle helmets are, and really aren't qualified to recreate accident scenarios.

You mention common sense. Where exactly where you claiming that common sense came into this?
dougmc is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 02:47 PM
  #9  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by kuan View Post
I don't get how it's a win. I never saw this issue as a contest.
It's been shown that mandating helmet use results in worse negative consequences than if there was no helmet law.

It's a win because attention can now be better focused on more effective safety efforts.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 03:01 PM
  #10  
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,739
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14025 Post(s)
Liked 5,144 Times in 2,915 Posts
Originally Posted by dougmc View Post
Bicycle helmets are nowhere near as effective as seatbelts. They may help in some small percentage of accidents, but the percentage is far smaller than where seatbelts help. And even when they do help, the help tends to be limited as the helmet breaks. And finally, in serious accidents, even if the helmet does somehow protect your head -- the rest of your body may have life threatening injuries. (Motorcycle helmets are better -- stronger, cover more of the head. But they're rarely used by those on bicycles.)


This is exactly what I'm getting at! People would take this argument a lot more seriously if somebody, somewhere, was able to produce some evidence, so people don't have to take your word for it. With all due respect, the fact that someone on the internet can assert anything, but that doesn't make it true. You can say "helmets don't provide any/enough protection" and I can say "Cats think in German."

If it's true that helmets don't make people any safer, there's evidence somewhere that this is true. If not, we're just arguing about Celestial Teapots.

Originally Posted by dougmc View Post
But ultimately, my point really was that I'm pretty sure that nobody knows that a helmet would have saved that child's life.
I'm not sure what this uncertainty has to do with the law? Again, we can't be certain that any particular victim of an auto crash would or wouldn't have survived, had (s)he been wearing a seatbelt. Nobody has ever said "until this is 100 % certain that seatbelts will always protect everybody who wears one, we shouldn't require people in cars to use them."
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 03:16 PM
  #11  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest View Post
... People would take this argument a lot more seriously if somebody, somewhere, was able to produce some evidence, so people don't have to take your word for it...
If it's true that helmets don't make people any safer, there's evidence somewhere that this is true....
Believe me, there's abundant evidence for this stance. This is not a new issue.

There has been quality, peer reviewed evidence that helmet laws have not achieved their desired effects.

You don't have to look to hard to find the evidence, but it seems if someone doesn't want to face up to the evidence, it doesn't exist.

Last edited by closetbiker; 05-05-10 at 03:38 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 03:44 PM
  #12  
mikeybikes
Senior Member
 
mikeybikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edgewater, CO
Posts: 3,214

Bikes: Tons

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rock on. Way to go senate. I saw that it had passed, but missed the amendments that removed the MHL component of it.
mikeybikes is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 04:02 PM
  #13  
prathmann
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest View Post
[IMG]People would take this argument a lot more seriously if somebody, somewhere, was able to produce some evidence, so people don't have to take your word for it. ...
If it's true that helmets don't make people any safer, there's evidence somewhere that this is true.
There are plenty of citations given to peer-reviewed papers on both sides of this debate at:
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/
under 'Papers for and against ...'.

In general the studies showing positive results for helmets are those looking at ER data, which is subject to the criticism that the population that chooses to use helmets may differ in various ways from those who choose not to. On the other side, the studies finding limited or no benefit, are generally looking at the effects when mandatory helmets laws are first enacted for a country and find that despite substantial rises in helmet usage there is not the hoped-for decrease in serious injury or fatality rates. Check out the links referenced at the site above and you can find plenty of studies to support your view, whatever it is. More detailed study of the individual papers is required to determine any flaws in their methodologies and to decide which you still consider credible.
prathmann is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 04:32 PM
  #14  
dougmc
Senior Member
 
dougmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,038

Bikes: Burly Canto

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest View Post
People would take this argument a lot more seriously if somebody, somewhere, was able to produce some evidence, so people don't have to take your word for it.
The effectiveness of seatbelts is well established. But here, here's a citation (and it's not even a terribly good one, as it's purpose is to point out that the studies find too much benefit. But I didn't look very hard.)

As for the effectiveness of helmets, that's a bit more murky -- but I do think that we can all agree that a helmet isn't going to be effective if it never strikes anything (or did you need a citation for that too?) Beyond that, I think we're pretty familiar with the pros and cons of helmet studies. But seatbelts? They're almost magical -- they reduce injuries in smaller accidents, save lives in the bigger accidents. Not all injuries, not all lives -- but a very significant portion.

Ultimately, "we should have a helmet law -- after all, we have a seatbelt law!" arguments are weak -- the two items are very different in their effectiveness.
You can say "helmets don't provide any/enough protection" and I can say "Cats think in German."
OK, but I didn't say "helmets don't provide any/enough protection". I said they're not as effective as seat belts.
If it's true that helmets don't make people any safer, there's evidence somewhere that this is true.
Well, the sample size is a lot smaller, so there's less evidence. But more to the point, I never said helmets don't make people safer. I said they're not as effective as seat belts.
I'm not sure what this uncertainty has to do with the law?
Nothing. And I didn't say it did. Somebody said that a child died in their neighborhood because they weren't wearing a helmet, and I pointed out that there's no way they could know that. Thread drift, perhaps, but it happens.
dougmc is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 04:44 PM
  #15  
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,739
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14025 Post(s)
Liked 5,144 Times in 2,915 Posts
Originally Posted by dougmc View Post
Well, the sample size is a lot smaller, so there's less evidence. But more to the point, I never said helmets don't make people safer. I said they're not as effective as seat belts.
Then I'm confused. Surely, the bike advocacy movement isn't pushing to stop and/or repeal mandatory helmet laws, just because helmets are less effective than seatbelts??? How is it a victory, "a win for Colorado," that a safety measure which it sounds to be effective, but less so than seatbelts, was defeated? If seatbelts work 2/3 of the time and helmets 1/3 ( pulling numbers from nowhere for the sake of example ), that's still better than 0/3.

Originally Posted by dougmc View Post
Nothing. And I didn't say it did. Somebody said that a child died in their neighborhood because they weren't wearing a helmet, and I pointed out that there's no way they could know that. Thread drift, perhaps, but it happens.
Well I apologize if I've misunderstood you. I thought what you were saying was that because nobody has ever been able to conclusively prove that somebody who died in a bike accident while not wearing a helmet would have been guaranteed to survive with one, that it was silly to have laws mandating their use. I seem to be wrong in comparing this to Bertrand Russel's teapot.
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 05:59 PM
  #16  
kludgefudge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 437

Bikes: late 80's bianchi campion d'italia, early 90's trek 2100, early 90's shogun selectra, mid 90's aluminum marin xcMTB, dept. store grade but upgraded columbia double eagle tandem

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest View Post
Then I'm confused. Surely, the bike advocacy movement isn't pushing to stop and/or repeal mandatory helmet laws, just because helmets are less effective than seatbelts???
No, the "Bike advocacy movement" or more specifically a significant and growing part of it, is pushing to repeal/stop MHL's on the basis that

A) MHL's Discourage cycling in general.

B) statistically, there is little to no change in cycling related fatalities when MHL's go into effect. Basically that the negatives of MHL's outweigh the positives.

C) Helmets are for nerds.

D)some other reasons. go check out the helmets cramp my style thread or something.

You want citations? please find them yourself, this is an internet forum, and I don't feel compelled to back up everything I say with links.
kludgefudge is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 07:07 PM
  #17  
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 12,033

Bikes: 2016 Hong Fu FM-079-F, 1984 Trek 660, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2016 Islabikes Beinn 20 (son's)

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1214 Post(s)
Liked 59 Times in 42 Posts
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest View Post
If seatbelts work 2/3 of the time and helmets 1/3 ( pulling numbers from nowhere for the sake of example ), that's still better than 0/3.
Your bias is obvious. You believe bicycle helmets have some significant impact on the injuries received by cyclists. My feeling is that you haven't really thought much about the limitations of what a piece of styrofoam on top of someone's head can do to protect them.

For starters, compare being securely strapped inside of a steel cage to having a relatively loosely fitting (look at most helmet wearing cyclists and see how well secured their helmets are) 1 inch thick piece of styrofoam on your head. Do you really think the helmet is 50% as effective as the former, or even 5%?
joejack951 is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 07:46 PM
  #18  
dougmc
Senior Member
 
dougmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,038

Bikes: Burly Canto

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest View Post
Then I'm confused. Surely, the bike advocacy movement isn't pushing to stop and/or repeal mandatory helmet laws, just because helmets are less effective than seatbelts???
I didn't claim that either. But you did bring up seat belts in a discussion about helmets. " We require seatbelt use in cars, after all." -- and I was pointing out that the two are very different in how effective they are.

As for the "bike advocacy movement" -- there really is no such single movement either. Instead, there's millions of people pushing for different things. Some bicycle advocates *are* pushing for mandatory helmet laws -- most aren't, but some are. Ultimately, just because we're all on bikes, that doesn't mean we agree about much of anything besides liking bikes (and really, we don't all agree on that!)

If seatbelts work 2/3 of the time and helmets 1/3 ( pulling numbers from nowhere for the sake of example ), that's still better than 0/3.
I don't even think the helmet odds are that good (but it's still a good example), but that's not really my point either.

Making motorists wear helmets would probably save lives too. Pedestrians wearing helmets -- especially motorcycle helmets -- would reduce injuries and save lives. Let's make them wear body armor too -- that would save even more lives. Ultimately, we have to draw the line somewhere -- "still better than 0/3" isn't good enough.

And really -- having a steel cage around you with a seat belt and air bags is likely safer than being protected only by a helmet. Using that argument, perhaps we should ban bicycling entirely ...
dougmc is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 08:41 PM
  #19  
Giffen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bikelifetv View Post
Why would they not want children to wear helmets? A child died in my neighborhood because he didn't have a helmet on.
There's only one problem with your logic -- bicycle helmets don't prevent serious head injuries.
Giffen is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 09:02 PM
  #20  
Dchiefransom
Senior Member
 
Dchiefransom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Newark, CA. San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 6,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by dougmc View Post
Yes, we do, and many of the arguments against mandatory seatbelt use are similar to those against helmet use.

However, seatbelts and helmets are very different beasts. Seatbelts are almost magical in how effective they are -- they greatly reduce injuries and this has been shown over and over and over again. People do still die while wearing seatbelts, but usually it's in the most serious of accidents. Lots of seatbelt wearing people walk away with minimal or no injuries after being in some very serious accidents.

Bicycle helmets are nowhere near as effective as seatbelts. They may help in some small percentage of accidents, but the percentage is far smaller than where seatbelts help. And even when they do help, the help tends to be limited as the helmet breaks or gets completely compressed. And finally, in serious accidents, even if the helmet does somehow protect your head -- the rest of your body may have life threatening injuries. (Motorcycle helmets are better -- stronger, cover more of the head. But they're rarely used by those on bicycles.)

But ultimately, my point really was that I'm pretty sure that nobody knows that a helmet would have saved that child's life. Sure, some doctor (if we're lucky!) may have decided "oh, the child hit their head -- a helmet would have prevented that!" -- but most doctors don't really realize just how weak bicycle helmets are, and really aren't qualified to recreate accident scenarios.

You mention common sense. Where exactly where you claiming that common sense came into this?
Why are you sticking to seatbelts? Look up the stats for fatal head trauma and see what the largest slice of that pie chart is. Then explain why we don't mandate helmet use during THAT activity. After all, we want to use common sense, don't we?
Dchiefransom is offline  
Old 05-05-10, 10:04 PM
  #21  
ccd rider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Windsor, CO
Posts: 315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
While I agree they shouldn't be mandatory, it puzzles me why there's such a strong reaction to discouraging their use......regardless of how statistical evidence plays out.

I don't see why wearing a helmet and focusing on other forms of bike safety have to be mutually exclusive??? One would think if someone is wearing a helmet because they think it might be safer, then they would be MORE amenable to additional safety measures. I understand the argument against the notion of false security by wearing a helmet alone makes me safe, but I still think there would be more parents/peers (or even the child him/herself) equating the safety (perceived or otherwise) of a helmet with overall safety.....and therefore becoming more aware of those other habits.

As far as actual safety from wearing a helmet, it doesn't matter to me. I would wear one anyway. Anecdotal evidence is as powerful a force as supposed unequivocal statistical data. Variables run amok. I know for me I had an incident where I was barely moving, but fell over on my bike and hit my head (or in this case the helmet I was wearing) on the asphalt.....much harder than I would have anticipated from being almost stationery. The sheer force of the vertical fall was enough to make me realize there are situations where a helmet is beneficial (rather than just wearing one for cultural reasons). I felt like if I hadn't been wearing one......while perhaps not being seriously injured (I know asphalt gives a bit more than concrete).....I would have been shaken up to the point where I may have been rendered unable to continue (and perhaps even needed medical attention). Obviously that's a guess (more of those variables I mentioned earlier), but as it was, while I felt stunned with the helmet on, I think in that case having "an inch of styrofoam" was enough of an impact absorber to keep me on my merry way. I can't know for sure, but it's a hunch based on how I think that same fall would have felt otherwise.......and that's good enough for me.

So pencil me in as a helmet advocate....but not just based on that one incident. It's because I believe it could be beneficial in less extreme situations than the ones people like to point to as a reason NOT to wear one. And in this case advocate is a relative term. Other than this obscure post on this forum, I'm not going around pushing the idea on others (hence the opposition to the mandatory). Advocacy in this sense means "promoting by wearing" (if it actually does). Everybody has their choices (even if it's "mandated" it doesn't mean everyone will do it), but I find the vigor of "opposition" to a law of that kind comes across as an emphatic "dissuasion" for someone to wear one for any reason (I like having one to hold my headlamp too), rather than just a disagreement over their safety related effectiveness (or concern about detracting from other safety).

Last edited by ccd rider; 05-05-10 at 10:11 PM.
ccd rider is offline  
Old 05-06-10, 12:16 AM
  #22  
Giffen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I understand the argument against the notion of false security by wearing a helmet alone makes me safe, but I still think there would be more parents/peers (or even the child him/herself) equating the safety (perceived or otherwise) of a helmet with overall safety.....and therefore becoming more aware of those other habits.
Could you clarify this statement? I'm not sure what other habits you are referring too.

As far as actual safety from wearing a helmet, it doesn't matter to me. I would wear one anyway.
Could you say why?

Anecdotal evidence is as powerful a force as supposed unequivocal statistical data.
On the ignorant.

Variables run amok.
In what sense? I've studied statistics and never came accross this phenomemon.

I know for me I had an incident where I was barely moving, but fell over on my bike and hit my head (or in this case the helmet I was wearing) on the asphalt.....much harder than I would have anticipated from being almost stationery.
It happens -- sorry to hear it.


The sheer force of the vertical fall was enough to make me realize there are situations where a helmet is beneficial (rather than just wearing one for cultural reasons).
How so? I'm dying to hear.

I felt like if I hadn't been wearing one......while perhaps not being seriously injured (I know asphalt gives a bit more than concrete).....I would have been shaken up to the point where I may have been rendered unable to continue (and perhaps even needed medical attention).
Your helmet did not lower your risk of a permanent brain injury.

Obviously that's a guess (more of those variables I mentioned earlier), but as it was, while I felt stunned with the helmet on, I think in that case having "an inch of styrofoam" was enough of an impact absorber to keep me on my merry way.
Ahh, yes. Those pesky facts and variables again.


I can't know for sure, but it's a hunch based on how I think that same fall would have felt otherwise.......and that's good enough for me.
It's interesting that you think you can predict head injuries in hypothetical scenarios when you clearly have no idea of how they occur.


So pencil me in as a helmet advocate....but not just based on that one incident. It's because I believe it could be beneficial in less extreme situations than the ones people like to point to as a reason NOT to wear one.
The same can be said about knee pads, elbow pads, shoulder pads, toothguard. You should wear those too.

And in this case advocate is a relative term. Other than this obscure post on this forum, I'm not going around pushing the idea on others (hence the opposition to the mandatory). Advocacy in this sense means "promoting by wearing" (if it actually does). Everybody has their choices (even if it's "mandated" it doesn't mean everyone will do it), but I find the vigor of "opposition" to a law of that kind comes across as an emphatic "dissuasion" for someone to wear one for any reason (I like having one to hold my headlamp too), rather than just a disagreement over their safety related effectiveness (or concern about detracting from other safety).
So what do you think about my commentary? Does it go beyond discussing their effectiveness, to discouraging people to wear them? Notice that nowhere did I say that you should stop wearing yours.
Giffen is offline  
Old 05-06-10, 12:26 AM
  #23  
wsbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by UnsafeAlpine View Post
Coloradan.com's reporter Nate Taylor's story says very little as to the reasons Colorado lawmakers supposedly did not favor the mandatory helmet part of the proposed House Bill 1147. More info that would have come closer to the truth would have been helpful. An important bit of information he did provide in his story:
"..."We could not get the votes in the Senate in order to keep the helmet piece in," Kefalas said. "We wanted to get the other pieces passed."
This seems to suggest the House did support mandatory helmet use for younger Coloradans of certain age levels. Democratic Rep Kefalas's co-sponsor of the bill was Senator Bob Bacon. Both are democrats. Took a web search to help me remember an earlier story about this bill:Article doesn't report what jokes the republicans offered in the way of jokes. Maybe that's a good thing.

Interesting possibility as to how the Arizona Senate shaped up on the helmet requirement part of the proposed bill: Arizona's Senate has 29 members (assuming my count is correct). 18 are Republicans. Of course, some of the senators opposed to a helmet requirement may have been Democrats, but the suggestion is that Republican opposition was responsible for Kefalas and Bacon finding they were unable to get the required votes from the Senate.

Last edited by wsbob; 05-06-10 at 12:30 AM.
wsbob is offline  
Old 05-06-10, 06:07 AM
  #24  
UnsafeAlpine
Domestic Domestique
Thread Starter
 
UnsafeAlpine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,742

Bikes: Brand New Old Catamount! Schwinn Homegrown, Specialized FSR, Salsa Vaya, Salsa Chile Con Crosso

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by ccd rider View Post
While I agree they shouldn't be mandatory, it puzzles me why there's such a strong reaction to discouraging their use......regardless of how statistical evidence plays out.

I don't see why wearing a helmet and focusing on other forms of bike safety have to be mutually exclusive??? One would think if someone is wearing a helmet because they think it might be safer, then they would be MORE amenable to additional safety measures. I understand the argument against the notion of false security by wearing a helmet alone makes me safe, but I still think there would be more parents/peers (or even the child him/herself) equating the safety (perceived or otherwise) of a helmet with overall safety.....and therefore becoming more aware of those other habits.

As far as actual safety from wearing a helmet, it doesn't matter to me. I would wear one anyway. Anecdotal evidence is as powerful a force as supposed unequivocal statistical data. Variables run amok. I know for me I had an incident where I was barely moving, but fell over on my bike and hit my head (or in this case the helmet I was wearing) on the asphalt.....much harder than I would have anticipated from being almost stationery. The sheer force of the vertical fall was enough to make me realize there are situations where a helmet is beneficial (rather than just wearing one for cultural reasons). I felt like if I hadn't been wearing one......while perhaps not being seriously injured (I know asphalt gives a bit more than concrete).....I would have been shaken up to the point where I may have been rendered unable to continue (and perhaps even needed medical attention). Obviously that's a guess (more of those variables I mentioned earlier), but as it was, while I felt stunned with the helmet on, I think in that case having "an inch of styrofoam" was enough of an impact absorber to keep me on my merry way. I can't know for sure, but it's a hunch based on how I think that same fall would have felt otherwise.......and that's good enough for me.

So pencil me in as a helmet advocate....but not just based on that one incident. It's because I believe it could be beneficial in less extreme situations than the ones people like to point to as a reason NOT to wear one. And in this case advocate is a relative term. Other than this obscure post on this forum, I'm not going around pushing the idea on others (hence the opposition to the mandatory). Advocacy in this sense means "promoting by wearing" (if it actually does). Everybody has their choices (even if it's "mandated" it doesn't mean everyone will do it), but I find the vigor of "opposition" to a law of that kind comes across as an emphatic "dissuasion" for someone to wear one for any reason (I like having one to hold my headlamp too), rather than just a disagreement over their safety related effectiveness (or concern about detracting from other safety).
My problem is not the use of helmets. I've read the pros and cons and have decided the evidence against the use of helmets (rotational brain injuries, etc.) isn't strong enough to undermine the possible good they do (reduce head trauma and cuts, etc.) Both of my kids were helmets whenever they ride because studies have shown a strong correlation to helmet use and a decrease in head trauma in children. To encourage their behavior, I also wear a helmet.

No, I would consider myself pro-helmet use, especially for children. My major concern is the mandating of helmet use. There does appear to be a strong correlation between mandatory helmet laws and a decrease in cyclists. This is not something we can compare to mandatory seatbelt laws because the ease of auto transport will always overcome the mandatory use of auto protection systems. However, the more we make cycling appear dangerous, the less inclined people are to put themselves or their children on a bicycle. I want to see more cyclists on the road. I want children to grow up thinking that cycling is normal and not an activity for crazy people with death wishes. I would also like helmets to be normal, especially in a culture with such a low number of cyclists that motorists don't look for us but doing that isn't going to mean we mandate helmets, it means we teach people how to be safe while riding, and yes, I see both riding education and helmets as a two-fold solution.

The problem with Colorado's MHL is this, as I see it. As I have already said, MHL's seem to decrease ridership among the population which to me, is a bad thing. This law also allowed LEO's to "educate" children about safety, which, to me, means LEO's, untrained in real cycling safety, will have the opportunity to scare children away from cycling by "educating" them on the use of helmets. I commend Rep. Kefalas and Rep. Bacon in trying to do something to increase safety for cyclists, but this is the wrong way to do it. What we need to see is vulnerable road user laws becoming stronger. We need to see harsher penalties for distracted motorists. We need more cycling safety programs that don't specifically rely on helmet use but teach cyclists how to ride safely.

To sum up, I am pro-helmet use, pro-cycling education and safety, pro-cyclist numbers, and anti-mandatory helmet laws.
UnsafeAlpine is offline  
Old 05-06-10, 08:09 AM
  #25  
Laserman
Senior Member
 
Laserman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 383

Bikes: 15 Specialized Crosstrail, 83 Schwinn Traveller, Fuji Sport

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
Coloradan.com's reporter Nate Taylor's story says very little as to the reasons Colorado lawmakers supposedly did not favor the mandatory helmet part of the proposed House Bill 1147. More info that would have come closer to the truth would have been helpful. An important bit of information he did provide in his story:
"..."We could not get the votes in the Senate in order to keep the helmet piece in," Kefalas said. "We wanted to get the other pieces passed."
This seems to suggest the House did support mandatory helmet use for younger Coloradans of certain age levels. Democratic Rep Kefalas's co-sponsor of the bill was Senator Bob Bacon. Both are democrats. Took a web search to help me remember an earlier story about this bill:Article doesn't report what jokes the republicans offered in the way of jokes. Maybe that's a good thing.

Interesting possibility as to how the Arizona Senate shaped up on the helmet requirement part of the proposed bill: Arizona's Senate has 29 members (assuming my count is correct). 18 are Republicans. Of course, some of the senators opposed to a helmet requirement may have been Democrats, but the suggestion is that Republican opposition was responsible for Kefalas and Bacon finding they were unable to get the required votes from the Senate.
Interesting article and interesting that you should link to it as evidence of...what exactly?
That Republicans suck and want to see your children die?
That Democrats are geniuses who can save lives with the wave of a magic law?
I am no particular fan of Republicans or Democrats for that matter but I can recognize a political smear piece when I read one. Take it to moveon.org.
Laserman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.