View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
178
10.66%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
94
5.63%
I've always worn a helmet
648
38.80%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
408
24.43%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
342
20.48%
Voters: 1670. You may not vote on this poll
The helmet thread
07-15-12, 09:59 AM
#2926
Senior Member
There also is the strategy of ignoring the contradictory evidence to the research that supports helmet usage, pretending it just doesn't exist.
Vancouver recently hosted Velo-City and when some of the worlds leading experts on helmet use spoke at the conference and said that legislation works against the benefit of cycling and cyclists, local politicians and newspaper editorial boards (who know far less) said they were wrong and didn't know what they were talking about. To counter the lectures, they brought up stories of helmets "saving lives" based on personal observations.
Last edited by closetbiker; 07-15-12 at 11:27 AM.
07-15-12, 10:01 AM
#2927
Senior Member
07-15-12, 11:37 AM
#2928
cowboy, steel horse, etc
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The hot spot.
Posts: 44,853
Bikes: everywhere
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12780 Post(s)
Liked 7,695 Times
in
4,084 Posts
Oh, you're being funny? Try using a smiley with every organ donor post, then. Otherwise it seems like you're being just as ignorant as any other user of the "organ donor" phrase.
07-15-12, 11:43 AM
#2929
Geck, wo ist mein Fahrrad
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Front Range
Posts: 715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
you'd think they'd want us to wear helmets for our safety, clearly a nice thought. but when we say no thanks, they not only stop wishing for our safety, they begin the ominous beating of the death drums AND hope we didn't have a chance to breed before our certain decapitation so as to not contaminate the gene pool. it's called darwinisting, I guess.
a skull developed to what it is now for a reason, if you believe Darwin. Who basically said "if you don't use it, you lose it".
maybe this is a stretch but how long before we start to de-evolve because we're not using nature's defenses, over-reacting to a minor head wounds and scaring people into remaining sedentary.
I would rather be the child of a guy who hit his head a lot because according to Darwin, I will be better prepared for a world ready to hit me in the head. that VS a world where they issue you head protection on the day you arrive. I don't understand evolution as well as I'd like it, should it be used to wish harm on the unhelmeted?
oh and the organ donor "jokes"? no they're not funny.
a skull developed to what it is now for a reason, if you believe Darwin. Who basically said "if you don't use it, you lose it".
maybe this is a stretch but how long before we start to de-evolve because we're not using nature's defenses, over-reacting to a minor head wounds and scaring people into remaining sedentary.
I would rather be the child of a guy who hit his head a lot because according to Darwin, I will be better prepared for a world ready to hit me in the head. that VS a world where they issue you head protection on the day you arrive. I don't understand evolution as well as I'd like it, should it be used to wish harm on the unhelmeted?
oh and the organ donor "jokes"? no they're not funny.
07-15-12, 11:55 AM
#2930
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I would rather be the child of a guy who hit his head a lot because according to Darwin, I will be better prepared for a world ready to hit me in the head. that VS a world where they issue you head protection on the day you arrive. I don't understand evolution as well as I'd like ...
07-15-12, 12:03 PM
#2931
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,978
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
Funny? Most definitely the character in question is a big dang joke(r); "seems ignorant"? Hardly.
07-15-12, 12:11 PM
#2932
Geck, wo ist mein Fahrrad
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Front Range
Posts: 715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm not helping your case much, here . . . because I'm not trying to help your case at all. I'm just sick of hearing these snarky, hope you die soon . . . comments from ONE or two of the preachers. personally I think your own recent mishap is a perfect scenario for when and why helmets work.
Last edited by Rx Rider; 07-15-12 at 12:15 PM. Reason: no
07-15-12, 12:13 PM
#2933
Senior Member
I brought it (https://www.aqmd.gov/news1/1999/in_car_facts.htm Canberra study of total cost of requiring helmets vs medical costs) up earlier I think, and I've seen reference to the study from several others.
I agree it is about the cost of "useless nanny state regulations" but about one specifically: requiring bicycle helmets in Australia. Cost to society exceeded the extra medical costs that would result from not requiring helmets. It kind of blows a hole in the argument that one person refusing to wear a helmet makes another person pay for it indirectly, and hence is the latter's business.
BTW, there is one more reason to wear a helmet that I don't think has been mentioned yet. For every news article about a bicycle accident the reporter seems somehow compelled to state whether or not the rider was wearing a helmet. As if it largely determines his culpability. Should I have an accident, heaven forbid, I'm loath to have them smearing my name in that fashion - I want them reporting that "the cyclist was wearing a helmet" - and had lights for that matter - so the average clueless reader will conclude that I was doing everything right instead of being negligent.
I agree it is about the cost of "useless nanny state regulations" but about one specifically: requiring bicycle helmets in Australia. Cost to society exceeded the extra medical costs that would result from not requiring helmets. It kind of blows a hole in the argument that one person refusing to wear a helmet makes another person pay for it indirectly, and hence is the latter's business.
BTW, there is one more reason to wear a helmet that I don't think has been mentioned yet. For every news article about a bicycle accident the reporter seems somehow compelled to state whether or not the rider was wearing a helmet. As if it largely determines his culpability. Should I have an accident, heaven forbid, I'm loath to have them smearing my name in that fashion - I want them reporting that "the cyclist was wearing a helmet" - and had lights for that matter - so the average clueless reader will conclude that I was doing everything right instead of being negligent.
Helmet usage where it pertains to safety in the common perception has been dealt with previously. Where those not in the know cite helmet usage one way or another in regards to accident reportage, those who have a bit more invested in the issue know where they stand and what the issues are.
The real issue is the weight associated with helmet usage or no, in the legal sense. When public opinion comes into play, helmet use is certainly pertinent, regardless of actual research. Most will associate helmet usage with a responsible rider; non-helmet usage with an irresponsible rider.
Rant all you want about worldwide usage; cite all the studies you want about helmet usage regarding safety -- in the US, you're still going to have to convince those with a predisposition toward helmet use that helmets are not as safe as perceived. Which falls into the category of educating the public, mostly a marketing losing battle...
07-15-12, 12:15 PM
#2934
Senior Member
Vancouver recently hosted Velo-City and when some of the worlds leading experts on helmet use spoke at the conference and said that legislation works against the benefit of cycling and cyclists, local politicians and newspaper editorial boards (who know far less) said they were wrong and didn't know what they were talking about. To counter the lectures, they brought up stories of helmets "saving lives" based on personal observations.
07-15-12, 12:46 PM
#2935
Senior Member
No they're not, but considering the healthy organs cyclists have, and the need for healthy organs for transplantation, I can see to some, calling someone an organ donor isn't really that offensive; it's a good thing to donate organs.
The fatal flaw in the supposed organ donor insult (helmet-less cyclists live longer than that of the general population, and no shorter than helmeted cyclists), means the intention in the comment backfires and makes someone look even more clueless than s/he already is.
The fatal flaw in the supposed organ donor insult (helmet-less cyclists live longer than that of the general population, and no shorter than helmeted cyclists), means the intention in the comment backfires and makes someone look even more clueless than s/he already is.
Last edited by closetbiker; 07-15-12 at 05:15 PM.
07-15-12, 05:11 PM
#2937
Senior Member
Someone recently shared an interesting (IMO) overview of head/brain injuries and helmet.
Since I have a hard time keeping up with the thread, before posting this I checked to see whether it was shared earlier but neither the forum search tool nor Google displayed any posts with the link or some portion of the link and author's name. The forum search was not behaving well ... or I was using it badly ... so please forgive me if I missed an old post and this is old news. The paper is dated 2008. It's by Curnow who has written several other articles on bicycle helmets. However, the others I read were written years earlier.
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/p787.pdf
Since I have a hard time keeping up with the thread, before posting this I checked to see whether it was shared earlier but neither the forum search tool nor Google displayed any posts with the link or some portion of the link and author's name. The forum search was not behaving well ... or I was using it badly ... so please forgive me if I missed an old post and this is old news. The paper is dated 2008. It's by Curnow who has written several other articles on bicycle helmets. However, the others I read were written years earlier.
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/p787.pdf
07-15-12, 05:21 PM
#2938
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I've seen some really interesting discussion here, so thanks to all for that. For me the major issues are:
1. Whether two equivalent populations of helmet-wearing and non-helmet wearing cyclists (e.g. with all other factors, such as experience controlled for) are statistically different in terms of injury and fatality numbers.
2. The safety in numbers benefit of having more cyclists on the road in general, and that mandatory helmet use can be detrimental to this cause.
In terms of issue (2) there seems to be a real trend. The more cyclists on the road, the better the infrastructure and advocacy, as well as driver awareness.
In terms of issue (1) the fact is that I simply haven't seen any controlled studies where helmet usage and injuries are compared between groups of cyclists with similar levels of experience and usage patterns. I haven't had time to read all the studies posted, but I think it would be helpful to identify ones that attempt a meaningful comparison. So, please let me know if these studies exist.
Based on considerations so far I'm against mandatory helmets laws. Still, I like to wear my helmet
1. Whether two equivalent populations of helmet-wearing and non-helmet wearing cyclists (e.g. with all other factors, such as experience controlled for) are statistically different in terms of injury and fatality numbers.
2. The safety in numbers benefit of having more cyclists on the road in general, and that mandatory helmet use can be detrimental to this cause.
In terms of issue (2) there seems to be a real trend. The more cyclists on the road, the better the infrastructure and advocacy, as well as driver awareness.
In terms of issue (1) the fact is that I simply haven't seen any controlled studies where helmet usage and injuries are compared between groups of cyclists with similar levels of experience and usage patterns. I haven't had time to read all the studies posted, but I think it would be helpful to identify ones that attempt a meaningful comparison. So, please let me know if these studies exist.
Based on considerations so far I'm against mandatory helmets laws. Still, I like to wear my helmet
07-15-12, 05:28 PM
#2939
Senior Member
I've seen some really interesting discussion here, so thanks to all for that. For me the major issues are:
1. Whether two equivalent populations of helmet-wearing and non-helmet wearing cyclists (e.g. with all other factors, such as experience controlled for) are statistically different in terms of injury and fatality numbers.
2. The safety in numbers benefit of having more cyclists on the road in general, and that mandatory helmet use can be detrimental to this cause.
In terms of issue (2) there seems to be a real trend. The more cyclists on the road, the better the infrastructure and advocacy, as well as driver awareness.
In terms of issue (1) the fact is that I simply haven't seen any controlled studies where helmet usage and injuries are compared between groups of cyclists with similar levels of experience and usage patterns. I haven't had time to read all the studies posted, but I think it would be helpful to identify ones that attempt a meaningful comparison. So, please let me know if these studies exist.
Based on considerations so far I'm against mandatory helmets laws. Still, I like to wear my helmet
1. Whether two equivalent populations of helmet-wearing and non-helmet wearing cyclists (e.g. with all other factors, such as experience controlled for) are statistically different in terms of injury and fatality numbers.
2. The safety in numbers benefit of having more cyclists on the road in general, and that mandatory helmet use can be detrimental to this cause.
In terms of issue (2) there seems to be a real trend. The more cyclists on the road, the better the infrastructure and advocacy, as well as driver awareness.
In terms of issue (1) the fact is that I simply haven't seen any controlled studies where helmet usage and injuries are compared between groups of cyclists with similar levels of experience and usage patterns. I haven't had time to read all the studies posted, but I think it would be helpful to identify ones that attempt a meaningful comparison. So, please let me know if these studies exist.
Based on considerations so far I'm against mandatory helmets laws. Still, I like to wear my helmet
07-15-12, 05:32 PM
#2940
Senior Member
... the fact is that I simply haven't seen any controlled studies where helmet usage and injuries are compared between groups of cyclists with similar levels of experience and usage patterns. I haven't had time to read all the studies posted, but I think it would be helpful to identify ones that attempt a meaningful comparison. So, please let me know if these studies exist.
Mandatory helmet laws passed in Australia, New Zealand, and BC did this and much was learned by what happened when overnight, helmet- less cyclists virtually disappeared.
07-15-12, 05:34 PM
#2941
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You forgot one thing: The overall safety of bicycling in general, compared to other activities. That is, if you like to wear your helmet cycling, you should also wear it in the shower and when driving your car; both activities with a higher risk of head injury than cycling.
07-15-12, 05:37 PM
#2942
Senior Member
that, and the emotional ploys that go along with those numbers... if we only save just one life...
Last edited by closetbiker; 07-15-12 at 08:36 PM.
07-15-12, 09:34 PM
#2943
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The best way to show as many similarities as possible between two groups, is to use the same groups in the same situations, with the only difference being being an addition of helmets.
Mandatory helmet laws passed in Australia, New Zealand, and BC did this and much was learned by what happened when overnight, helmet- less cyclists virtually disappeared.
Mandatory helmet laws passed in Australia, New Zealand, and BC did this and much was learned by what happened when overnight, helmet- less cyclists virtually disappeared.
I would be a bit surprised if helmets weren't found to offer at least a bit of extra protection/safety for those who choose to wear them. This is why I voluntarily strap one on before a ride. Even if MHLs have zero or negative effect on safety due to decreasing ridership, having accurate information about what helmets can and can't do for you would be useful and informative for all. If found to be beneficial, incentives such as low-cost or free helmets could be provided by municipalities and/or states, rather than trying to force MHLs down our throats.
07-15-12, 11:09 PM
#2944
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 8,687
Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1126 Post(s)
Liked 253 Times
in
204 Posts
My helmet didn't save my life...
because I wasn't wearing one.
Yesterday I was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle. I was negotiating a roundabout, I had the right of way, a car drove straight out in front of me, I had no opportunity to avoid it. I was catapulted over the car into the roadway. My shoulder and the side of my unhelmeted head struck the road. I have a separated shoulder joint and a lump on my head.
It occurred to me afterwards that had I been wearing a helmet, it would very probably have sustained some damage and that I might well have concluded that it had saved me from serious injury. But in fact what happened was that my skull struck the roadway with a single, glancing blow. I had a mild headache for about an hour and some residual tenderness of the scalp. My head did not rotate on impact, tests have shown no neurological deficit, I'm fine. (My shoulder is a bit of a mess, though).
This was the result of most such incidents before helmets became prevalent. For the most part, bumping one's head is unpleasant but not serious.
It also occurred to me that had I been wearing a helmet it is at least possible that the outcome might have been worse, given the reported tendency of helmets to increase the extent to which the head rotates. It's possible, if unlikely, that not wearing a helmet saved my life.
I value my noggin too highly to wear a helmet.
because I wasn't wearing one.
Yesterday I was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle. I was negotiating a roundabout, I had the right of way, a car drove straight out in front of me, I had no opportunity to avoid it. I was catapulted over the car into the roadway. My shoulder and the side of my unhelmeted head struck the road. I have a separated shoulder joint and a lump on my head.
It occurred to me afterwards that had I been wearing a helmet, it would very probably have sustained some damage and that I might well have concluded that it had saved me from serious injury. But in fact what happened was that my skull struck the roadway with a single, glancing blow. I had a mild headache for about an hour and some residual tenderness of the scalp. My head did not rotate on impact, tests have shown no neurological deficit, I'm fine. (My shoulder is a bit of a mess, though).
This was the result of most such incidents before helmets became prevalent. For the most part, bumping one's head is unpleasant but not serious.
It also occurred to me that had I been wearing a helmet it is at least possible that the outcome might have been worse, given the reported tendency of helmets to increase the extent to which the head rotates. It's possible, if unlikely, that not wearing a helmet saved my life.
I value my noggin too highly to wear a helmet.
07-16-12, 01:26 AM
#2945
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Unfortunately I don't have digital copies of the x-rays to show you, but believe what you like. The facts remain the facts, including the fact that my use of a real incident to satirise the usual helmeteers stories is evidently lost on you.
07-16-12, 06:51 AM
#2946
Senior Member
I understand from those studies that there was either no correlation or negative correlation between mandatory helmet use and cyclist injuries/fatalities. However, I was wondering if this could be isolated somehow from the safety in numbers effect, as I understand that ridership also significantly dropped when the MHLs were instituted.
I would be a bit surprised if helmets weren't found to offer at least a bit of extra protection/safety for those who choose to wear them. This is why I voluntarily strap one on before a ride.
Even if MHLs have zero or negative effect on safety due to decreasing ridership, having accurate information about what helmets can and can't do for you would be useful and informative for all. If found to be beneficial, incentives such as low-cost or free helmets could be provided by municipalities and/or states, rather than trying to force MHLs down our throats.
Last edited by closetbiker; 07-16-12 at 07:39 AM.
07-16-12, 09:16 AM
#2947
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 8,687
Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1126 Post(s)
Liked 253 Times
in
204 Posts
You have no facts for what you said. There is no way for you to prove that wearing a helmet in that supposedly accident you had would have killed you or had a worst outcome, that's pure nonsense, in fact the only way you could have possibly come to that knowledge would to have several high speed cameras placed strategically around the point of impact and then take the film and have a crash engineer study it to determine if you could have been better off with or without the helmet. And more then likely you probably wouldn't even had the bump had you been wearing a helmet, and that's why I don't believe your boorish story.
07-16-12, 11:09 AM
#2949
Senior Member
"Clearly, a thorough investigation of the efficacy of helmets and effects of compulsorywearing in Australia is needed, preliminary to review of the policy, but authorities seem to be
unwilling or unable to learn from experience and are resisting pressure to take such action.
Though the policy of compulsory wearing has gone badly wrong, authorities still insist that
the sun goes around the earth. Such attitudes have implications that are wider than bicycle
helmets; they indicate a lack of scientific understanding among road safety authorities and a
need for governments to take action to strengthen their competence."
Since Australia has implemented MHL, how many other nations/localities have?
unwilling or unable to learn from experience and are resisting pressure to take such action.
Though the policy of compulsory wearing has gone badly wrong, authorities still insist that
the sun goes around the earth. Such attitudes have implications that are wider than bicycle
helmets; they indicate a lack of scientific understanding among road safety authorities and a
need for governments to take action to strengthen their competence."
Since Australia has implemented MHL, how many other nations/localities have?
07-16-12, 11:28 AM
#2950
Senior Member
it could be, or it could be something else like, risk compensation, or that helmets have a far more limited effect on injury than thought from a few, previous, very flawed studies (that get far too much attention and credit). The fact is, there are studies, and there is the real world, and positive results of helmet use in the real world is far from clear, cyclists shouldn't be considered being an "airhead" for not wearing one.
It would seem, on an individual level helmets may provide some protection, but that protection hasn't been born out on an aggregate level. Again, there could be many reasons why (perhaps the level of injury protection helmets provide is too low to register on an aggregate level? perhaps on an aggregate level, people do things they never would have before if not for the helmet?) but I'm sure we can agree, helmets don't prevent collisions or falls and avoiding these are far more important than wearing a helmet.
That is one of main purposes of this thread, to provide information about what helmets can and can't do. In a nut shell, they provide protection within a specific section of the helmet, in a simple fall with little to no forward movement. To say helmets to perform beyond this is simple conjecture, to expect them to, is folly.
It would seem, on an individual level helmets may provide some protection, but that protection hasn't been born out on an aggregate level. Again, there could be many reasons why (perhaps the level of injury protection helmets provide is too low to register on an aggregate level? perhaps on an aggregate level, people do things they never would have before if not for the helmet?) but I'm sure we can agree, helmets don't prevent collisions or falls and avoiding these are far more important than wearing a helmet.
That is one of main purposes of this thread, to provide information about what helmets can and can't do. In a nut shell, they provide protection within a specific section of the helmet, in a simple fall with little to no forward movement. To say helmets to perform beyond this is simple conjecture, to expect them to, is folly.