What? you didn't think that was funny? I thought it was hysterical!!!!

razr

In Australia you claim that there is no decernable decrease in injury. Easily explained. If while wearing a helmet a cyclist has an accident and his helmet saved him from injury, he probably just went on about his life WITHOUT reporting it.

If that were the case then there would have been a sizable decrease in the number of fatalities and hospitalizations among cyclists - i.e. a discernible decrease in the injury and fatality rate.

Ok, so since cycling is way up in Australia, wouldn't that account for the fact that more cyclists just went on without reporting it and thus the flat line of incidents?

Quoting for posterity. This is the epitome of the problem.

One of the charts I posted here shows the rate of helmet use as well as the time when the law was enacted.

Staggeringly stupid. But maybe not, one has to come to terms with the fact that stupidity is the rule rather than the exception.

chasm

Actually stupidity is the anti helmet cult members that are trying to talk people they dont even know out of wearing helmets. What is their logical gain??? Why not let people decide for themselves.

Because there are people out there who love to argue and fight about stupid things, these forums are representative of that and it goes on up the chain to world politicians.

This goes both ways. And that's the problem. The other side is enforcing their will on everybody without mercy (aka bicycle helmet laws).

BTW, I'm not part of a cult. I'm not anti helmet. I even wear one most of the time. I just don't believe helmets are as great as they are made out to be. Unfortunately people rather call each other names instead of having a constructive discussion. And I'm wondering why I'm a http://randominsultgenerator.com/ and still bother to reply on this thread.

Ignoring political reality is no strategy. Given the states adoption or non-adoption of laws regarding motorcycle helmets tells me that the only group likely to be protected are children.

That being said...my contrarian and cynical view basically puts the consequence of not wearing a helmet directly on the user (the exception being children). In a libertarian driven marketplace solution..if you are head injured while riding a bike and not wearing a helmet why should any insurance pool cover you? At the least raise premiums based on actuarial tables, injury risk, injury, etc.

In my charmed life I've had three motorcycle wrecks and two bicycle wrecks. Out of the five there was one where I wasn't wearing a helmet (bicycle) and it was shear luck I didn't crack my skull. Out of the five...four were potential skull crackers. That was a hard lesson and being of an evolutionary ecologist bent..the odds spoke to me pretty loudly. If there is no legislative solution (state laws) and no marketplace solution (insurance) then the alternative appears to be rants where people call people stupid. I'm fine with that, I just don't want to pay for an adult non helmet wearer's stupidity. Education helps...doesn't stop people from smoking, etc. The people I talk to regarding non-helmet use have two main excuses; Vanity and "I can't be bothered". Let the skull cracking begin.

A final thought. The poll would be interesting if it included a category of helmet users in wrecks where the helmet was worn and damaged as a consequence of the wreck.

I'm still waiting for the first thoughtful thought.

Would you also be fine with insurance being prohibited to be written for anyone who rides a bicycle or motorcycle? Why not Mr. Libertine? You are all about raising premiums on cyclists w/o helmets based on your "thoughts" and in the absence of any "thoughtful" actuarial tables indicating increased risk.

BTW, what type of insurance premiums do want increased for helmetless cyclists? Life, health, homeowners? All premium rate increases of course being unrelated to actuarial data but instead to people with the same thought patterns as yourself.

Or perhaps you would prefer that cyclist injuries suffered in a collision with a car not be compensated by the driver's insurance no matter who is at fault, since your thought is that the cyclist asked for it.

That's because we've been over it before, and you're still putting out the same tired tropes. Of course the study failed to show that helmets prevent concussions or brain damage -- they are not designed to do so.

You want to talk about that particular study, that situation? How 'bout when they claim in the study that helmets do help prevent or mitigate injury where moderate and light head injury is concerned? Y'know, the type of injury where helmets actually do help...? I think it's great that there's finally a study out there regarding less than serious head injury, and what medical experts consider less than serious and what you might consider less than serious are two very different things...

Not at all. Figures until recently only reported on serious head injury and fatalities, not less than serious head injury. Helmets are not very effective with forces involved in serious head injury and death, and the figures reflect that.

For less than serious injuries, there is now at least one study indicating that helmets have been effective in preventing and mitigating moderate to light head injuries.

Not being an insurance guy, I'm curious why they haven't weighed in. I suppose you could base insurance premiums based on a "good student" rating or whatever "metric" they have established to measure a risk pool (the non-helmeted). The statistics have to be out there somewhere. Given that bicycle use public infrastructure, I suspect there is plenty of law to license and require any number of safety devices (just look at bike reflectors), I just don't see any will to do that.

I do not see a national law towards helmets (on bicycles or motorcycles). States get to make up their own mind in the current era. I could see cities mandating children wear helmets when using city infrastructure (might already be the case in city parks, etc). But is appears to be left up to adults to decide. Events sure require them and fun events could be part of helmet education I suppose. But if people won't wear them because of any number of issues (vanity, weight, heat, bother, etc) and if persuasion, education is not working and if cycling grows as a trend and if there are low speed head injuries attributable to lack of protection (and again, requires data), under those circumstances, insurance companies might compete for the helmeted and ding the non-helmeted. I've no issue with that.

If you as a cyclist don't wear a helmet..that's your choice and your risk. You might suffer a debilitating neck/back injury that a helmet wouldn't prevent, you may never suffer any injury in your life. Good for you. I wear a helmet because of personal experience. If your in my insurance pool...and you don't wear a helmet..why should I pay for your additive risk (assuming there is an actuarial table that defines that)?. What potential source of risk might be bicycle messengers (and bike rentals companies, LLC's, etc) who work out of a co-op and that co-op buys insurance coverage for all members and it stipulates equipment (happens all the time in the real world of logging, roofing, bridge building, construction in general where safety helmets, harnesses, etc are mandated). Why? Because companies want to to lower claims.

So bike rental companies, bike messenger companies (if such exist) may have policies on helmet wear to reduce insurance claims against them. That would be the location of some interesting stats on telling us what the marketplace is already doing.

Any bike messengers here? I'd be curious if you/they wear helmets by personal preference or policy?

Here's an interesting map and clearly a state trend towards a risk pool is being legislated for protection..that group is childern.

http://www.iihs.org/laws/mapbicyclehelmets.aspx

And this
Not all options for improving bicyclist safety involve paint on pavement.

Helmets, for instance, have been estimated to reduce the risk of head injuries
to bicyclists by 85 percent, but no state requires them for adults. Such a require
-
ment would improve safety, but some worry it would discourage biking. Only 15
percent of fatally injured bicyclists in 2011 were wearing helmets.
Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia require young bicyclists to use

helmets. Helmet laws for children don’t lead to increased helmet use among adults,
studies show. However, one question that hasn’t been answered is whether children re
-
quired by law to wear helmets are more likely to wear them when they become adults.

In this: http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4801.pdf

Why? Because you say so?

Since I have had no personal experience with insurance claims due to my riding, how 'bout the suggestion that YOU be cast out of MY "insurance pool" into the liability wilderness because YOUR record ("three motorcycle wrecks and two bicycle wrecks") shows that you are the accident-prone type. Then again how 'bout all bicyclists and motorcyclists getting their insurance put into a separate pool reserved for those who engage in "risky" activity. Let's include fisherman, boaters and swimmers too with their increased risk of drowning. And don't forget to include all hunters in your "high risk" insurance pool because you know what they have access to!

Insurance pools have (in the past) reduced premiums based on exactly that...accident record, good grades, etc. I had no claims thus the pool was never affected (my HS and college grades reduced premiums for auto insurance).


In a strictly libertarian universe..you pay based on risk and the absurdity would extend to DNA analysis. I'm not for that, I'm not a libertarian either.


But I did spend some quality Internet time studying the helmet no helmet debate. Fascinating. The debate rages on though the data for children appears to support children (~16 and under) wearing helmets and i didn't say anybody ranting that childern shouldn't wear helmets. I suspect as more aging boomers enter cycling, there will be more accidents of the low speed type and it'll be interesting to see those results and I'd predict that helmets will help protect some head injuries though there could be other (arm, etc) due to aging bone structure. Increased use always drives new law and I suspect that if there is a bike growth spurt, trend, whatever...you'll see more MHLs.


I wear a helmet because it makes sense, just as it made sense wearing one while operating a crane, backhoe, chainsaw, supervising a construction site, etc. Maybe I'm in a higher risk accident prone pool or just lucky or know how to fall and roll or stay out of serious trouble. I did not wear a cycle helmet until fall of 1976 and then I bought the best highest rates one on the marker (MSR) and I still have it. My excuses for not wearing back then were "ugly, hot, can't be bothered, heavy". My technical rock climbing friends wore them. I started wearing (back then) because of one accident that I escaped serious injury on.


Locally, we are starting a club and to get insurance...we will likely have to adopt and ensure policy that some won't like..like wearing helmets. So I'd say that the marketplace is inexorably moving towards that despite the minority who don't wear helmets. But I doubt state legislation will mandate helmet use by adults on bicycles. Cities maybe, states no.


I'm a serious advocate for MUP construction and road safety improvements and those have outstanding positive safety benefits to the cycling community irrespective of helmet use.


Given the evolution of study around football helmet use and a greater awareness of concussion, I suspect there is a lot more to learn about bicycle accidents and concussions. The irony of the helmet thread is it appears to be mostly a helmet no helmet rant....appearantly that's what it's for.

I predict that the bean counters ultimately win based on a growth trend in cycling that arises as a consequence of the baby boomers retiring. That rise will have a commiserate rise in low speed accidents by aging hot dogs and tort claims against municipalities (I fell because of your ..........., (enter one: street, road, path, stop box) hurt me.

The non helmet users will merge with the NRA to protect their freedoms and attempt to pass mandatory carry laws. Then one town will pass mandatory carry and helmet laws. Political nirvana will have been reached.

If you are head injured while driving a car and not wearing a helmet why should any insurance pool cover you?

If you are neck injured while riding a bike and not wearing a neck brace why should any insurance pool cover you?

If you drown while swimming in your pool and not wearing a life jacket why should any insurance pool cover you?

If you are injured in any way while performing any activity in a way that someone, somewhere thinks you shouldn't, why should any insurance pool cover you?

That has not happened, and repeating it after being shown that it has not happened makes it a lie.

And you don't even see the irony here.

I'm SO glad to know that riding a bike is as beset with mortal danger as a heavy construction site; makes me look forward EVEN MORE to getting back on it tomorrow! (You cannot be SERIOUS!)

Non-helmet-wearers are not IN the minority, 'professor'; and the passage of MHL's is NOT 'inexorable', or inevitable. States have been trying to pass MHL's for motorcycles for decades, with little success. The REASON for this isn't knee-jerk emotionalism, but cold hard FACT: motorcycle helmets are ineffective above 30-35mph. This is a PURE PARALLEL to bicycle helmets, which are only tested to 11mph, the speed your head achieves when falling over WHILE WALKING! Further, the bike helmet offers NO protection below the temples (full-face downhiller's helmets have no CPSC rating above that of a commuter's helmet, BTW).

Your pathetic strawman of NRA equivalence is beneath contempt, and you are fast approaching that status.

Today when I ran intervals I didn't wear a helmet.

Begging the question.

Why would that be interesting? What do you think this would tell you? Because it isn't going to tell you what I think you think it will tell you. :p

Truly a harbinger of death!!!

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=317503

Danger!

When I use to run I didn't wear a helmet either!

You must not value your brain. Or your insurance premiums should go up. Or something.