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
#3751
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
And whoever thought just 3 years ago we wouldn't be able to buy a large soft drink anymore?
#3752
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,364 Times
in
945 Posts
But the "my right to freedom" argument is dopey if there is a (non-trivial) cost to others. People need to make another argument.
I have no idea why you think smoker's rights are more valuable than no-smoker's rights. It's bizarre that public smoking was ever socially acceptable because it's fundamentally rude and immediately impinges on the rights of others.
Last edited by njkayaker; 10-19-12 at 06:44 AM.
#3753
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It is hard to figure-out where to draw the line. But "complete freedom" doesn't seem reasonable if other people are forced to bear the costs of them for you (because their "freedom" is being taken away). Note that I'm not arguing that people should be forced to wear helmets (no one in this here is arguing for mandatory helmet laws).
But the "my right to freedom" argument is dopey if there is a (non-trivial) cost to others. People need to make another argument.
I have no idea why you think smoker's rights are more valuable than no-smoker's rights. It's bizarre that public smoking was ever socially acceptable because it's fundamentally rude and immediately impinges on the rights of others.
But the "my right to freedom" argument is dopey if there is a (non-trivial) cost to others. People need to make another argument.
I have no idea why you think smoker's rights are more valuable than no-smoker's rights. It's bizarre that public smoking was ever socially acceptable because it's fundamentally rude and immediately impinges on the rights of others.
1. Bicycle helmets are explicitly not designed to reduce traumatic brain inury: this is where the heavy, long-term costs exist.
2. The problem of TBI in bicycling, as in walking is negligeable compared to that incurred through automobile over-use in N.America
3. Widespread helmet use appears to correlate with public perceptions of cycling as risky, which then might be argued to link to a decrease in cycling levels and a reduction of healthy exercise: thus causing an even greater public cost
In short, bicycle induced head injury is not a big cost to society and even if it were there is no reasonably demonstrated solution to the problem. Certainly not through current helmet designs.
#3754
Senior Member
Agreed, and I'll take it one step further. It's been found that mandatory helmet laws actually increase societal health costs.
#3755
Senior Member
I'd largely agree with you. The problem is whether we can measure how much cost is being born by each party. In the case of bicycle helmets it's anything but clear that they reduce the costs to society of medical care:
1. Bicycle helmets are explicitly not designed to reduce traumatic brain inury: this is where the heavy, long-term costs exist.
2. The problem of TBI in bicycling, as in walking is negligeable compared to that incurred through automobile over-use in N.America
3. Widespread helmet use appears to correlate with public perceptions of cycling as risky, which then might be argued to link to a decrease in cycling levels and a reduction of healthy exercise: thus causing an even greater public cost
In short, bicycle induced head injury is not a big cost to society and even if it were there is no reasonably demonstrated solution to the problem. Certainly not through current helmet designs.
1. Bicycle helmets are explicitly not designed to reduce traumatic brain inury: this is where the heavy, long-term costs exist.
2. The problem of TBI in bicycling, as in walking is negligeable compared to that incurred through automobile over-use in N.America
3. Widespread helmet use appears to correlate with public perceptions of cycling as risky, which then might be argued to link to a decrease in cycling levels and a reduction of healthy exercise: thus causing an even greater public cost
In short, bicycle induced head injury is not a big cost to society and even if it were there is no reasonably demonstrated solution to the problem. Certainly not through current helmet designs.
3. I don't know that widespread, voluntary helmet use outside MHL territories drives down ridership. NYC is in the USA where there is that unreasonably fear-driven notion that you need a helmet to be riding a bike safely. Yet they've seen increases in ridership. Cycling in general is increasing in spite of USA fear culture. And while fear-culture might keep people off bikes, helmets are not the only or main cause of that -- contributory, certainly, maybe even significantly, but far from the biggest reason.
If it was found that current attitudes regarding helmets are keeping many away from cycling, that would be a bigger cost -- as you say, cycling is generally safe, head injury due to cycling crashes are not a huge cost. But regular cycling even at current meager participation provides arguably more financial benefit in the form of a general health dividend than payouts for crashes. Not to mention, energy savings, cleaner air, etc.
I've asked for this before and not got an answer: does voluntary but heavily encouraged helmet use have any measurable effect on ridership?
We have studies regarding places where MHLs are in effect and because ridership drops off when a MHL is introduced, I staunchly oppose them. But that has very little to do with voluntary helmet use/ridership statistics, especially since most MHL studies take place in other countries, other cultures.
#3756
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
It is hard to figure-out where to draw the line. But "complete freedom" doesn't seem reasonable if other people are forced to bear the costs of them for you (because their "freedom" is being taken away). Note that I'm not arguing that people should be forced to wear helmets (no one in this here is arguing for mandatory helmet laws).
But the "my right to freedom" argument is dopey if there is a (non-trivial) cost to others. People need to make another argument.
I have no idea why you think smoker's rights are more valuable than no-smoker's rights. It's bizarre that public smoking was ever socially acceptable because it's fundamentally rude and immediately impinges on the rights of others.
But the "my right to freedom" argument is dopey if there is a (non-trivial) cost to others. People need to make another argument.
I have no idea why you think smoker's rights are more valuable than no-smoker's rights. It's bizarre that public smoking was ever socially acceptable because it's fundamentally rude and immediately impinges on the rights of others.
I agree smoking should be banned from some public places, but not all public places like bars where only adults are allowed, and thus as an adult you have the right not to go into an establishment that allows that, and places of living like condo's, apartments, or houses whether owned or rented. Now if the owner of a rental puts a non-smoking clause in a lease agreement or else will be charged the security deposit to fix the damage caused by smoking then that's fine, that's a contract between one private party to another to which it has to be agreed upon, but for any form of government to step in an do that is not right. The only way the government can force that right on us is to make smoking and buying tobacco products of any kind illegal altogether...which I wouldn't be surprise if it got to that, which I'm sure would lead us to prohibition type of behavior we had back when they tried that with alcohol.
And I don't think smokers rights are more valuable then non-smokers, however we both have rights, and since we both have rights then there should be enough freedom for a smoker to go into a bar or restaurant that only caters to adults but allows smoking to have that right to do just that, and our rights are that we don't have to go into that bar or restaurant that caters to smokers. That's plain and simple. It's the same reason I don't think we should be forced to wear bicycle helmets unless your under 18, it should be left as a choice for an adult to make an adult decision, but I feel the same way with seat belts. I don't feel this way because I don't wear helmets or a seat belt because I do both, but as an adult that is my decision to make not the government's.
I hope you understand, but indications from your post are that you don't. And that's ok, it's your opinion just as all the above is my opinion.
#3757
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I do take some slight issue with this:
3. I don't know that widespread, voluntary helmet use outside MHL territories drives down ridership. NYC is in the USA where there is that unreasonably fear-driven notion that you need a helmet to be riding a bike safely. Yet they've seen increases in ridership. Cycling in general is increasing in spite of USA fear culture. And while fear-culture might keep people off bikes, helmets are not the only or main cause of that -- contributory, certainly, maybe even significantly, but far from the biggest reason.
3. I don't know that widespread, voluntary helmet use outside MHL territories drives down ridership. NYC is in the USA where there is that unreasonably fear-driven notion that you need a helmet to be riding a bike safely. Yet they've seen increases in ridership. Cycling in general is increasing in spite of USA fear culture. And while fear-culture might keep people off bikes, helmets are not the only or main cause of that -- contributory, certainly, maybe even significantly, but far from the biggest reason.
#3758
Senior Member
You're right. I can't prove it and it hasn't been demonstrated. I didn't mean to state that bike helmets are the ONLY cause of misplaced fearfulness about cycling. I do suspect they're a very important part of it though. Cause of/response to/reflexive amplification of fear? Who knows. But ask yourself this, if walking helmets suddenly started being promoted to the same levels as cycling helmets, what would be the likely effect?
Walking is fundamentally different than bicycles. Human machine is designed to walk, sometimes even run. No mechanical device to increase speed; low enough speeds to usually avoid crashes.
I get where you're coming from, but just like studies about motorcycle helmets or skateboard helmets don't have equivalent relevance when compared to bicycle helmets; I'm not going to buy an argument based on "walking helmets." (...I think they're more popularly called "hats".)
#3759
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you want a device to protect the head at speed it does exist: it's a motorcycle helmet.
I foresee a vivid new future, of walking stores, selling walking helmets, gloves, shoes, hydration packs.
#3760
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
#3761
Senior Member
Except that bicycle helmets are designed to provide their optimal protection from a falling height similar to what would be experienced if you toppled off your bicycle sideways onto a kerb stone. Bicycle helmets, instead of providing protection from the new type of accident made available by the "mechanical device to increase speed" a.k.a. bicycle, are actually nearly ideal for walkers. Possibly less use for runners.
If you want a device to protect the head at speed it does exist: it's a motorcycle helmet.
I foresee a vivid new future, of walking stores, selling walking helmets, gloves, shoes, hydration packs.
If you want a device to protect the head at speed it does exist: it's a motorcycle helmet.
I foresee a vivid new future, of walking stores, selling walking helmets, gloves, shoes, hydration packs.
Cycling is basically a safe sport, why should helmet mfgs design helmets for the nth percentile of worst bike crashes, where TBI becomes relevant?
There's also no figures out there regarding the efficacy of helmets in mitigating damage where less than serious injury is concerned. Which make up the bulk of bike crashes.
Motorcycle helmet is overkill; bike helmets are fine for bicycle riding.
You've seen those new walking balance sticks, yes? Marketed as "trekking poles"? While there's no walking helmets just yet, there are indeed walking shoes, and I bet there's some walking website out there that could direct you to decent walking gloves and hydration packs... It actually surprises me there's no walking helmet being marketed yet, especially for that "Extreme Walking" niche...
#3762
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 7 Times
in
6 Posts
Not all that different. Bicycling on city streets and walking on the adjoining sidewalks/crosswalks are both very safe activities when done in the absence of motor vehicles. Sure, there are some exceptions, but the dominant cause of fatalities and serious injuries for both activities is that sometimes the rider or pedestrian has a collision with a vehicle. In that case the impact speeds and forces are pretty similar and would call for similar types of protective gear, if any.
#3763
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 7 Times
in
6 Posts
You've seen those new walking balance sticks, yes? Marketed as "trekking poles"? While there's no walking helmets just yet, there are indeed walking shoes, and I bet there's some walking website out there that could direct you to decent walking gloves and hydration packs... It actually surprises me there's no walking helmet being marketed yet, especially for that "Extreme Walking" niche...
https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/jpeds.html
A Danish insurance group is promoting walking helmets: https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/sc...alking-helmets
and there are crawling/walking helmets for toddlers: https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/fa...udguard-helmet
#3764
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
But the "my right to freedom" argument is dopey if there is a (non-trivial) cost to others. People need to make another argument.
#3765
Senior Member
Not all that different. Bicycling on city streets and walking on the adjoining sidewalks/crosswalks are both very safe activities when done in the absence of motor vehicles. Sure, there are some exceptions, but the dominant cause of fatalities and serious injuries for both activities is that sometimes the rider or pedestrian has a collision with a vehicle. In that case the impact speeds and forces are pretty similar and would call for similar types of protective gear, if any.
But such situations are exceedingly rare.
It's the 85% of cycling crashes which don't involve a vehicle, don't involve serious injury, where helmets might be making a difference. But maybe not. We don't really know. Those who wear helmets think they do... so do those who don't.
In less than serious injuries which don't involve a vehicle, I'd wager your average pedestrian suffers less damage than your average cyclist. Also that the rates of light to moderate injury are far more for bicycle crashes when compared to pedestrian... crashes? mishaps? unfortunate events?
#3766
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 76
Bikes: Pure Fix Romeo
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Any recommendation on what helmet I should get? I want to get a helmet that meets all or most or the hardest certification to obtain. I prefer my Safety while commuting to work. Also, I'm planning to have a helmet light on it.
Don't want to break the bank.
Thanks!
Don't want to break the bank.
Thanks!
#3767
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Posts: 7,663
Bikes: Miyata 618 GT, Marinoni, Kestral 200 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina, Miyata team Ti, Santa Cruz Highball
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1611 Post(s)
Liked 2,593 Times
in
1,225 Posts
I can sit out on the bay trail here and watch one commuter come by with helmet, lights, fenders, bell, callin out "On your left", and then see a guy in tight jeans on a fixed gear, hair blowing, earpods and a cigarette hanging from his mouth... I didn't see anyones freedoms being surpressed.
#3768
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 7 Times
in
6 Posts
I realize that you are not (or at least no longer) making such claims about the need for helmets. But those who do think that helmets should be worn by cyclists on all rides as protection against serious head injuries should also want the same protection for pedestrians since the risks are similar.
#3769
Senior Member
If there were agreement on that ('helmets are effectively useless' in preventing serious injury) then we wouldn't be having this extended discussion and no one would be proclaiming that one must wear a helmet on every bike ride. If we were only concerned with non-serious cuts and scrapes then knee and elbow pads would be more effective safety measures. Presumably the reason that people tout the need for helmets rather than protection for other, more often injured, parts of the body is because serious injuries of the head can be so life-altering (or ending).
I realize that you are not (or at least no longer) making such claims about the need for helmets. But those who do think that helmets should be worn by cyclists on all rides as protection against serious head injuries should also want the same protection for pedestrians since the risks are similar.
I realize that you are not (or at least no longer) making such claims about the need for helmets. But those who do think that helmets should be worn by cyclists on all rides as protection against serious head injuries should also want the same protection for pedestrians since the risks are similar.
Which is all well and good, but ya'll making the argument know full well that the type of accidents where it's silly to to think a helmet will protect on a bike also wouldn't protect a pedestrian. It's not a good faith comparison
However (my assumption/belief...): since the majority of crashes which involve head injury are not serious, since rate of non-serious head injury and degree of injury in the result of some mishap is lower with pedestrians than cyclists, the pedestrian/bike comparison is just not valid. Cyclists are more apt than pedestrians to be in a position where a helmet might mitigate less than serious injury. <-- no data to back this up, just assumptions and hunch; prove me wrong with actual figures, please.
#3770
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
When I was hit by a car a few months ago (previously reported in here - still grieving for the vintage Raleigh) one of my more trivial injuries was a bump on the head. Would a helmet have mitigated that? Maybe, but really, it didn't matter. The fact that I wasn't wearing one made no difference to the outcome. Shoulder pads would have been much more useful. And no, I don't plan on buying any of those, either.
#3771
Senior Member
You know perfectly well that such figures aren't available, because there is little data on trivial injuries and anyway, most won't have been recorded because of their triviality. If you want to justify your assumptions, it's your job to find the information that would do so.
When I was hit by a car a few months ago (previously reported in here - still grieving for the vintage Raleigh) one of my more trivial injuries was a bump on the head. Would a helmet have mitigated that? Maybe, but really, it didn't matter. The fact that I wasn't wearing one made no difference to the outcome. Shoulder pads would have been much more useful. And no, I don't plan on buying any of those, either.
When I was hit by a car a few months ago (previously reported in here - still grieving for the vintage Raleigh) one of my more trivial injuries was a bump on the head. Would a helmet have mitigated that? Maybe, but really, it didn't matter. The fact that I wasn't wearing one made no difference to the outcome. Shoulder pads would have been much more useful. And no, I don't plan on buying any of those, either.
The whole reason I put such a disclaimer out there, at the beginning and end, is to let people know that it's only my personal view, nothing backed up with hard figures. Most people posting here don't do that, they present their beliefs as facts; they are way too loose with language when it comes to their own position, while busting on the same thing regarding statements of those who disagree with them.
Maybe there's not studies out there with hard figures, OK, fine, I can accept that -- then challenge my statement. Is there anyone out there who thinks that pedestrians who suffer some mishap while walking will be injured at a higher (or even, or insignificantly less) rate or severity, compared with a rider who crashes their bike? Why?
Your second paragraph is useless, anecdotal, and therefore dismiss-able. You're probably lucky you weren't wearing a helmet -- might have led to DAI, or if the rotational force transmitted and aggravated by helmet use was enough, could very well have snapped your neck right on the spot!
Glad you're OK; sorry to hear about your Raleigh.
Last edited by mconlonx; 10-21-12 at 10:13 AM.
#3772
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
Give me a reason to readjust my worldview; it's happened before, right in this very thread.
[SNIP]
Maybe there's not studies out there with hard figures, OK, fine, I can accept that -- then challenge my statement. Is there anyone out there who thinks that pedestrians who suffer some mishap while walking will be injured at a higher (or even, or insignificantly less) rate or severity, compared with a rider who crashes their bike? Why?
[SNIP]
Maybe there's not studies out there with hard figures, OK, fine, I can accept that -- then challenge my statement. Is there anyone out there who thinks that pedestrians who suffer some mishap while walking will be injured at a higher (or even, or insignificantly less) rate or severity, compared with a rider who crashes their bike? Why?
The "helmet people" have focused on bicycling activities; data and/or results are irrelevant, belief in "doing the right thing" trumps both data and rationale thought in this process.
#3773
Senior Member
You are missing the bottom line about the rationale behind the "ardent helmet people's" promotion/proselytization for the use of bicycle helmets for all cycling activity. For these "helmet people", data about head injuries and the risk involved with cycling and/or data about the actual effect of helmet use is seldom, if ever cited as a reason. They believe there is a significant risk, that might be reduced by helmet use, and THAT belief is enough. Bicycling risk data is irrelevant in this argument, reduction of risk is irrelevant, comparison with risk data from other activities (such as walking or showering or roofing or anything else) is also irrelevant.
The "helmet people" have focused on bicycling activities; data and/or results are irrelevant, belief in "doing the right thing" trumps both data and rationale thought in this process.
The "helmet people" have focused on bicycling activities; data and/or results are irrelevant, belief in "doing the right thing" trumps both data and rationale thought in this process.
Belief that cycling is dangerous is not limited to the helmet issue. But if people believe that a helmet will provide some kind of magic protection, and that gets them on a bike where otherwise they'd still be too scared, where's the downside regarding helmets...?
#3774
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
Many organized rides and tours or government organizations gratuitously prohibit participation or cycling activity unless the cyclists are wearing helmets. This is due to social pressure (and not mysterious "insurance requirement" that can never be documented) and discourage participation from those not in the helmet choir; the effects of helmet promotion are all downside.
Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 10-21-12 at 11:50 AM.
#3775
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
All I'm saying is that when talking to people like that, those who pose the pedestrian helmet scenario are engaging in faulty argument. Happens a lot here the moment you get some newb helmeteer posting for the first time. They don't have an answer, but they don't need one because the comparison is whack to begin with.