UberGeek

You want to supply some data for that claim?

As for me being pro or anti helmet, I choose to wear one, will make my kids wear one until they are not under my care, and will encourage my friends to do the same.

So, please, don't bother with both the "poisoning the well" tactic, as well as dispense with the "improper shifting of the burden of proof". You made the claim that those who wear helmets die more often, so you need to supply data for that.

Auto manufacturers don't make the claim that seat belts will prevent you from going through a windshield either.

Manufacturers don't really claim all that much, as far as what will prevent what. Opens a huge door for litigation for whenever it (Whatever it may be) doesn't prevent it.

benjdm

I read my car owner's manual and it makes this claim:

"They (airbags) work together with the seat belts to help reduce the risk of death or serious injury."

Googling for a bicycle helmet owner's manual...here's one from Specialized.

"Your helmet will not protect against injury in all types of accidents. Even while wearing a helmet, low speed accidents may result in serious head injury or death.
Because every accident scenario is different, it is impossible to know whether use of a helmet will provide partial or complete protection. Studies have shown that you are better off with a helmet than without one."

FWIW.

UberGeek

So, they do have a label in the manual for helmets letting you know it wont prevent ALL injuries. It doesn't make the claim it wont help you at all.

In fact, the helmet label sounds awfully like the seat belt and airbag claim.

benjdm

The seat belt and airbag claim is much stronger. The helmet claim is only an ambiguous you are 'better off with a helmet than without one'; the seat belt and airbag claim is that it will 'reduce the risk of death or serious injury.'

UberGeek

Most likely, because the safety claim in the auto manuals are standardized by the industry We have 3 or 4 standards of testing in bicycle helmets.

rydabent

Helmet laws, both motorcycle and bicycle, and seat belt laws are rather stupid. They are brought to you by all the nanny state leftwingers that think somehow they need to dictate what everyone should do.

If you are so bull headed that you dont wear helmets or seatbelts and die--------well it does improve the gene pool.

benjdm

This is a summary of the standards: https://www.bhsi.org/stansumm.htm

RolandArthur

This was in response to your comments about people not wearing helmets weeding themselves out of the gene pool. A claim you seem to make in several threads implying that riders not wearing a helmet get killed more often. This off course is not true.

Here in Holland helmet use is ~0%, cycling deaths per distance are about 6 times lower than in the US. The figures for the rest of Europe (except Italy) are similar in the sense that they show little helmet use and smaller death rates per distance driven than the US, and Australia. In this forum I read a lot of cyclists that are killed were wearing helmets, to no avail.

Because there is a huge population of cyclists not wearing helmets getting killed at a low rate (if you ad the numbers of helmet less riders killed in the US and Australia to the numbers collected in Europe it would hardly make a difference) and a small population of riders wearing helmets that get killed at a significant higher rate I conclude that helmet wearing cyclists have a higher chance of dieing per distance traveled. Seems fair right?

This makes your claim that the people not wearing helmets are weeding themselves out of the gene pool not really honest.

cowtown_cowboy

I hope he wins, but he probably won't. This is Hippie Vancouver after all, where not wearing a helmet is = death sentance.
When I lived there, I received no less than 20 tickets for not wearing helmets. They won't do nothing about the psychotic B.C. drivers though.....

UberGeek

Someone who values their brain will take steps to protect it. If they don't, and they get into a collision where a helmet will protect their brain, they will most likely die, thereby weeding out the gene pool.

And, of course pretty much all of those locations have a much better cycling infrastructure, rule of law concerning cyclists, and education than we do in the US.

Until we are on par with them, well...

Of course, the "numbers ridden" are completely pulled from the air for cyclists. Cars have odometers. Bicycles do not.

And, given the entirely different cultural mindsets, well, the whole "correlation does not equal causation" comes into play.

We do know, that given case studies of those who DO end up in hospitals due to cycling accidents that injure the head, a patient has an 85% better chance of recovery if they are wearing a helmet.

No, it's completely honest.

I-Like-To-Bike

"We" know? Ya mean YOU "know" this alleged factoid. What other dumbell factoids do you "know" about the health benefits/risk reduction powers of bicycle helmets?

Don't be shy, continue to let your imagination run wild!

UberGeek

We also know this:
https://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

In 2008, 91% of those who died during an incident involving a bicycle were wearing no helmet. Only 8% who died were wearing one.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2F14651858.CD001855
We know this:
And, that study found a 63-88% improvement in patient result from those injured in a bicycle incident, when wearing a helmet. And given that helmets most likely end up precluding many hospital visits at all, they would seem to be more effective.

So, given that, it would be a correct assumption, that those who choose not to wear a helmet, and then die due to that choice are in effect, cleaning up the gene pool for us.

Does it cause a decrease in cycling? Maybe. Only if it's mandated, which I do not call for. Does it increase risk taking? Maybe.

About the only way the argument AGAINST mandated helmet wearing is if the over all health aspects are taken into account. But to claim that bicycle helmets are "dangerous" to wear; or claiming that it's riskier to be alive than to not wear a helmet is just ridiculous.

RolandArthur

The discussion is about bicycle helmets, not about helmets that could actually make a difference in outcome in crashes where bicyclists die.

This is really important. Ask yourself why this is. Perhaps because cycling isn't regarded as an extreme sport that requires safety gear? Therefore more people will use the bike making it a priority for the government to create a decent infrastructure for cyclists. Should their come a helmet law in Holland, 90% of the cyclists will just quit (my estimate, I don't think you can grasp the resentment for helmets in Holland), 90% of the budget will vanish with it. Then we will be on par with you... Including the higher mortality.

Over here these numbers aren't recorded from odometers. On bicycle tracks you will find devices that count the number of passers by. Occasionally you will see a group of people turfing the number of cyclists and other road users. I don't know how it is done in the US but I reckon in a similar way?

It is really doubtful that bicycle helmets safe lives. There have been a lot of studies in Holland, comparing different cities and cycling habits that show a strong correlation in the number of cyclists on the road and their safety. The mayor contributions are the awareness for cyclists that increases as the number of cyclists go up and the reduction in cars on the roads as drivers choose to ride a bike.

Now think of it this way: If you want to make it safer to ride a bike, what makes sense to do? Giving cyclist helmets that have not really shown they actually work or getting more people on bicycles? Note that these two exclude each other!

The main reason I am posting this is because you keep referring to helmet less cyclist as Darwin award nominees. I think that is quite arrogant as the people on this world that detest helmets the most and wear them the least seem to be able to make cycling a lot safer than you in the States.

I-Like-To-Bike

Your quoting of irrelevant stats and URL's that don't support in the slightest your 85% factoid about risk reduction. You may fool yourself with this statistical fluff and hot air but it convinces nobody but the fools who are unable/unwilling to do any logical thinking on this subject.

RolandArthur

I object to the bold part: I have read a lot of posts on this forum regarding the need to wear a helmet if you want to partake in group rides, excluding helmet less riders. Calling helmet less riders idiots or applauding them for taking themselves out of the gene pool seems to be another popular activity of the pro-helmet club. Doing this will create an environment that is hostile to helmet less riders and might also result in people leaving their bike at home or not starting to ride at all just to avoid the guilt trip they are forced into.

UberGeek

Ah, irrelevant stats... Ok. And, you're critiquing me on logical thinking?

Logic denotes using stats to make an educated conclusion. Logic does not denote dismissing any facts that disagree with your POV.

UberGeek

How about the helmet-less, or those who despise wearing a helmet so much that they refuse to put them on for singular events, and just not wear them for everything else just start their own events?

Free markets are a good thing. And private groups, requiring the use of helmets to participate in said group is the free market at work.

UberGeek

It's about helmets but not about helmets?

I have a friend who lives in the Netherlands, and I get into this sort of discussion a lot. It's the difference in attitudes is key.

I've never seen anything on any cycling tracks here. So, Holland's numbers don't really mean much in regards to the traffic patterns currently here in the US.

And, counting cyclists does not equal calculation of miles.
It's not really doubtful helmets can, and do in fact, save lives. I posted one such controlled case study above.

I've not see any evidence that shows helmets don't work. And the two do NOT exclude each other. You are proposing a false dichotomy.

You can, in fact, do both.

They are darwin award nominees. I'm sure you'll agree the first time you see someone with a cracked open skunion where a helmet would have prevented it.

RolandArthur

I think you understand where I'm getting at: bicycle helmets and helmets that actually work like integral helmets or hard hats used in construction.

Does he or she wear a helmet? If not, do you call that person a Darwin award nominee to?

I am sure they do a lot more than just counting them. I assume it is part of a larger project to get good estimates. I don't know the ins and outs.

People don't want to ride with helmets. In Australia the mandatory helmet law resulted in less cyclists, in some European countries they tried for a while but repealed the laws for the same reason. In the countries that might still have those laws they are not enforced, for a reason. Helmet advocates in Holland have tried it but failed because the government estimated that it would result in a large decline in cyclists and cycling is overall beneficiary, with or without a helmet. At the moment the EU is trying to pass a law forcing cyclists to wear high visibility jackets, something that actually would make a difference, but it will not pass for the same reason: people don't want to wear them and would rather choose another form of transportation.

The cracked open 'skunions' are mostly on your side of the pond. Perhaps you should try a different approach.

closetbiker

Correct. It's not me, but I've been in contact with Ron for some time and tried to help him as best I could.

I think the most help I've given Ron is to link him to a couple of academics who have analysed much of our data in BC and provided him with good information to counter the Crowns arguments.

Ron has a strong case and is well organized, but I think it's likely he'll lose his case on a procedural basis rather than on the merit of his evidence because he is representing himself and to challenge a law without a lawyer, is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

The case will reconvene in a couple of weeks for the judge to render a decision if it will go to the Supreme Court.

The publicity from this case has been good for discussion. TV, radio, print, and the usual bloggers are giving it coverage.

A local lawyer who specializes in representing cyclists has written his opinion in a local paper and has given several interviews. He believes the case has merit but won't represent Ron, he has the impression helmets save lives (ugh!)

I-Like-To-Bike

Accurate conclusions require relevant stats to draw the correct conclusion. Drawing conclusions from bogus/irrelevant stats logically leads to bogus, inaccurate and irrelevant conclusions. Your posts are obvious examples of the later.

Paul Barnard

Link please.

sudo bike

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01457596000164

(I did some clipping. Link is unedited.)

I post this here and not in the Helmet Thread (where most of this discussion belongs), because it directly discusses mandatory helmet laws and their net effect on a nation.

mconlonx

Coolio! Thanks for the local update.

Is it creating any new political movement, or is it just confined to media/judiciary? Don't know how political timing works on the city or province level in your neck of the woods, but if I was organizing in my state, I'd be getting things into higher gear right about now--scoping out possible friendly pols, uniting allies--for a push this next legislative season, coming up in winter...

UberGeek

So, rather than railing against helmets, maybe we should be working to make a better one, eh?

I'll assume he cycles, but I don't know. If the conversation came up, yes I would. We discuss other topics, and he can not understand why the US isn't leading the way on green energy, and sustainability. He actually can not comprehend the difference in attitudes.

So, basically, the mileage estimates for cycling are pulled out of thin air.

And, I'm not an advocate of mandated helmet wearing. So, the point is moot.

Maybe we should. Maybe, we can do both: Increase ridership AND encourage helmets AND make a better helmet.

Bogus and irrelevant stats? Because as you say, you don't like my figures provided. Please, feel free to disprove any of them. And they are wholly relevant to the topic at hand: Helmets do in fact save lives.

Yep, I'm sure whenever something is mandated, it reduces usage. Like mandatory helmet laws reducing motorcycle usage... Which doesn't happen. I believe that study falls into the fallacy of "correlation does not equal causation".