meanwhile

Excuse me: I didn't say that personal choice was bad, I said that your argument was silly:

Yes, that's silly. Individual choice leads to one riding a hybrid and another a crit bike; it doesn't make people so startlingly unique that statistics - ie shared experience - don't say anything about individuals.

..And this is hypocritical.

mwbarker

No, the risk for the same distance comes out the same. My point is that the journey is not the same if the distance is covered on a bike vs. on foot, because the bike journey covers the ground at significantly greater speed. As a statistic, fatalities or mishaps per mile tells us nothing about this difference because it does not incorporate time. The per hour statistic incorporates events, distance, and time and so is a much more useful tool for making meaningful comparisons between the two activities.

mconlonx

And the no-helmet brigade is quick to jump on those with personal experience anecdotes about how a helmet probably worked as intended, saving the wearer from a less than serious injury, inferring that a helmet did not work as intended. Ya'll ever had open wounds scrubbed down with a stiff-bristle brush by a nurse who doesn't appreciate your (prejudice on their part...) lack of concern for your own safety? Think that same treatment on your scalp will be any fun? And bald riders would be way ahead of the majority here--hairless legs are one thing; scalp full o' hair mixed with heinous abrasions another.

If a serious injury is considered brain trauma or other horrific injury and a helmet won't help with that, so be it, but there are plenty who will benefit if they're in a wreck which results in less than serious head injuries. Lacerations, abrasions, contusions--stuff requiring stitches, road rash on yo head(!), etc.--is stuff that many probably might want to avoid in hind-sight, after an accident or assault.

Even if they won't "save lives, prevent concussions, protect in collisions with motor vehicles," they are still handy to have if you go down and end up scraping your head along the pavement and other objects.

And aside from any protection provided based on what they are designed to do, there's still public perception: reporters mention if automobile accident participants are wearing seatbelts; they also report on whether bike accident participants are wearing helmets. Godz help you if you even think of taking someone to court over injuries sustained while riding without a helmet...

mconlonx

Clarification always helps. And rather than reiterate something and be some kind of stuck in the mud kind of person, I'll adjust my views based on feedback I receive from other sources. Call it back-pedaling if you want; I'm certainly willing to adjust my views on the subject based on continuing discussion. I'm willing to admit that it's not contradictory, but the redundancy is not necessary and might be considered a detriment when you put forth your arguments.

Helmets are not designed to protect from serious injuries and outside studies support this. Shocker. Yet ya'll insist on pointing at both depending on the context to support your point. Like it's two separate issues. Keep them together, use an "and" conjunction, and yer all set.

closetbiker

If a cyclist receives a head injury in a collision with a motor vehicle that was found to be at fault, the cyclist would receive compensation for that injury even if that cyclist was not wearing a helmet as required by law. However, it is likely the insurer would ask for a reduction of damages awarded (often 10 to 15%) for the cyclists "contributory negligence" in not wearing a helmet that the insurer would likely claim "would have" reduced, however minimally, the injury the cyclist suffered.

If challenged, the insurer would have to prove to the court that their claim of probable reduction of injury via a bicycle helmet is reasonable. AFAIK, few, if any plaintiffs have done this in BC and from looking at the issue for some time, I know this challenge is a legitimate one. I just posted a news story of a claim of negligence against a helmet manufacturer that was dismissed based on the prior knowledge of injury while wearing helmets and the extensive warnings that come with helmets about their inability to prevent the injury the plaintiff suffered.

So would I. The tests helmets currently go through provide little resemblance to real life impacts.

closetbiker

The helmet optional group rarely claims a helmet doesn't provide a level of protection that can include protection from torn scalps. We're a little more skeptical of claims that otherwise haven't been shown to occur, such as claims that lives have been saved when the death totals haven't changed

it's based on the public's perception of a helmets effectiveness that if a helmet is worn or not is mentioned. Most people think they are life savers and effective in MV collisions, so if a helmet isn't worn, it's presumed that if a cyclist dies and the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, the death is the cyclists own fault.

And, yes a helmet-less cyclist can successfully sue an at fault motorist for injuries sustained in a collision. It happens all the time.

RazrSkutr

Nice, two new Helmet Fear memes. I've noticed these starting to appear recently but this is a good clear example of both of them in the same post.

Neither of the scenarios which you imagine ( I'll bet you like watching horror movies, documentaries about the holocaust and Formula-1 crashes) has any bearing in reality and instead are an expression of your vicious hostility towards those that don't conform to your view of reality.

Seeing as you like anecdotes: I know at least one helmeted person with a nice head of hair who had scalp lacerations (after being tossed over the bonnet of a hit and run) and was treated very nicely by the normal, professional ER staff.

Now, where is the court case which shows that not wearing a helmet will tilt liability against one? On the contrary there are court cases in which the opposite viewpoint has expressly been upheld (read e.g. the second page of Brian Walker's article "Heads Up" where he recounts his experience in failing to uphold your viewpoint in the High Court) and others in which the attempt by a motorized vehicle driver's defence team to use the "wasn't wearing a helmet" line was abandoned: https://cyclehelmets.org/1054.html

In short, your postings are reflective of nasty, scaremongering ninnyism.

RichMac

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well.

Personal choice is paramount in my opinion. My reasons for making choices are completely unique. For someone else to say that they know what's best for me when that choice does not affect them i.e. wearing a helmet is utterly ridiculous.

I don't understand how pointing out the bias in this thread's title is hypocritical.

LesterOfPuppets

The last bike wreck that put me in the hospital involved removing gravel from my knee. I'm still rolling bikes sans knee pads. I do wear knee pads while riding skateboard in vertical environments most of the time.

Bike riding should be compared to ice skating if you ask me. Some styles lend themselves to more protection than others. It's up to the individual participant to gauge what level of protection is necessary.

To some extent the level of necessary protection might go against some folks' sense of reason. For example, I think any ride on the average MUP is much more helmet worthy than a solo ride down the road at a moderate pace on a well maintained bicycle piloted by an experienced rider.

chasm54

Tell me about it. Dogs - especially dogs on long leashes - meandering (and apparently deaf) pedestrians, kids chasing balls, other cyclists who appear to be suffering from dizzy spells... FWIW the last time I actually ran into anyone was when a young woman was so drunk she staggered directly in front of me on a shared path. I was unhurt, (though helmetless) and she wasn't really able to tell if she was hurt or not. She should have been wearing a helmet, though.

meanwhile

Except when it's deliberate distortion, as you were practising when you altered the context of a quote to make yourself look smarter...

When people do that they say "Hey! I was wrong about this and I now believe X." They don't try to "win" a lost argument by editing it.

meanwhile

And so we should be. Concluding that because you fell off a bicycle moving at 15mph and lived that a foam hat is responsible is stupid. 15mph falls rarely kill people! Nor do 20mph ones, or even ones at 30mph where no car is involved. Surviving a fall off a bicycle a is quite normal.

Val

Actually, I have been using the fact that I have survived many falls from bicycles while wearing fedoras, berets, and cowboy hats as anectotal evidence that hats like these saved my life. I'm living proof!

sudo bike

I wear a flatcap.
I have not wrecked and/or injured myself.
Ergo, hats (perhaps only flatcaps) prevent accidents from happening in the first place.

Good God, you're right!

RazrSkutr

Hey! Me too! What are the odds of that?!!!!

closetbiker

It's always struck me as funny how people who think they're right never look at others who have a different experiences and opinions and think there might be something to that opinion.

Mike Rubbo is a film maker from down under and has posted several films on the helmet law in Australia.

The most recent one I've seen is on the problems Melbourne is having with it's bike share system that could be to blame in part to the requirement for share patrons to wear helmets.

A bit into the film, Mike asks people if they think that maybe exempting bike share users from this requirement might be a good thing to help the system be more successful but everyone said no, cycling is too dangerous without a helmet.

They say this even when these systems have had very few injuries to users when the riders do not wear helmets.

sudo bike

More proof!

mountainjesus

The Wall Street Journal weighs in

"Using surveys of parents, the professors find that about 650,000 fewer children ride bikes each year after helmet laws go into effect. That's about 81,000 fewer riders for every life saved."

RazrSkutr

Is the Carpenter & Stehr paper really so simple-minded that it looks at the absolute drop rather than the proportion of injuries to the population?

At least the WSJ article emphasizes that the absolute numbers are still absolutely tiny, a point made by John Allen Paulos about many medical studies.

closetbiker

The work does explain just how rare cycling deaths are (there was a recent media release echoing this in Vancouver in reaction to our new segregated bike lane explaining how rare these deaths we fear are - 1 per 22 million trips) but one of the main problems with this work is the data comes from both self-reports and parental reports.

What people do and what they say they do are often two different things and as well, there is significant differences between what the parents say their children do and the self reported data. For instance, Carpenter and Stehr associated helmet laws with an increase in "always or almost always wears helmet" when cycling of 34.9% (on parental report) or 9.7% (self-report)

Further, there is no exposure information. We don't know if the trips these people are taking are one block, one mile or twenty miles each. The authors do make this point and make a note in the study,

meanwhile

Useful -

Dr Chinn's opinion was accepted by the court.

Heatherbikes

Closetbiker, I know you're passionate about this. But, I've dealt with ICBC, have you? I know what they will do if you were in a cycling accident without a helmet. The x amount of benefits you SHOULD receive will be dwindled well beyond the reduction of damages and they will attack you viciously. My husband was hit by a truck while cycling. He had a helmet on, he had done everything correctly, had the right of way etc.. The police looked at his bike. The brake pads were a bit worn-so he was found partly at fault for negligence! Years of cycling experience and it goes on file that he acted with negligence.
I was in a head on collision in a motor vehicle accident and I was a passenger in the car that got hit(not our fault in anyway)but was the only one really injured. Sound bad enough? We had to remember if the headrests were in the correct position and things like that. As if that helped! my ex couldn't remember anything while I relive the accident to this day so the lawyers tried to find holes anywhere. My case lasted 5 years due to all the injuries and various complications. In the end hearing, the ICBC lawyer dwindled my intended settlement an astonishing amount. He attacked me on every front, my life choices(I was in my early 20's was in art school-how terrible!), dug into medical records, personally attacked me and treated me like crap. It was appalling. I was a passenger! ICBC have spies-luckily I was out of province after the car accident, but they had their ways. Do not think for one minute that they will be nice to you, that you will have an ounce of leeway. If you take them on over the helmet laws be prepared to be roasted.
So, forgive me if I just wear a helmet.

RazrSkutr

I'd say that he's measured, reasonable and logical. He may be passionate, but we'll leave that up to those that actually know him to decide. It's very belittling of you to put it that way: it suggests hysteria, irrationality and hot-headedness. None of those traits are in evidence in his carefully reasoned, pleasant and well-researched replies.

That's because brakes have been proven to be effective in stopping your bicycle.

Helmets HAVE NOT been proven to be effective in stopping serious head injuries.

You are arguing a parallel between two completely different devices. One of them is effective at its job, the other isn't.

You don't need to ask forgiveness for doing whatever you choose to do. You should however plead forgiveness for your underhanded arguments.

closetbiker

well, I wouldn't say I'm passionate about this, but I do get irked when people spread false, misleading or incorrect information and want to correct them if the false, misleading or incorrect information can lead to worse outcomes for cycling

yes I have and I've done more than a bit of consultation with lawyers to understand that of which I wrote

I'm not sure that you really do

anything that could have been done to prevent the damage and was not done will work against a judgement. That's basic


that's the way the game works

If you take anyone on in anything you should be prepared. that's life.

hey, I have no problem if someone wants to or is wearing a helmet. That isn't the issue

mconlonx

When Anirudha Rao found that expanded polystyrene helmets only protect the users’ heads 16 percent of the time during a crash as polystyrene does little to absorb impact energy, the designer offered us a much effective alternative of cycling protections: ‘Kranium’.

Exhibited during London Design Week 2010 at Designersblock, the new helmet is made from cardboard and features several ribs that will flex and de-flex during a crash to absorb the energy of impact. When tested against British (EN 1078) standards at the imperial college, ‘Kranium’ was found to have the ability of absorbing four times the amount of impact energy as that of regular helmets. And we bet that exciting news will surely make ‘Kranium’ the most popular one on the helmet market.