Nobody, except you, is claiming what is "thought to be impossible".

Responsible Hazard Analysis and Risk Management Plans are evaluations and subsequent plans to deal with hazardous events and their credible results. The risk evaluation process and its results are worthless if only the worst case scenario (catastrophic severity of injury) is considered as the only credible outcome, no matter what the probability. The resulting recommendations are even less than worthless when the recommended control (bicycle helmet) is incapable of mitigating the severity of that worst case scenario.

That is not how Oregon OSHA and Federal OSHA look at things:
Concerning these ways of thinking, you can state that they don't apply to bicycling, but there are many of us who feel otherwise. What is the worst case injury which could reasonably be expected from a bicycle accident? Heads do hit the pavement, and that is a reasonable outcome from a worst case fall off a bicycle.

If we want to preclude bicycle/auto collisions, then we look at different types of management strategies. These, if you accept the Hierarchy of Controls, would be engineering controls by separation of bicycles from traffic. Those types of engineering controls are very expensive, and are best put into place at the design phase of a project. This is called Prevention through Design (PtD), and is one of the best practices for safety. Administrative controls could also be used, but are less effective. These include training, bike lanes (which cars ignore sometimes), and rules (passing at three feet, for instance). The lowest level of control is PPE, and bike helmets fit here. But in auto/bike collisions, because other types of injuries can be life-threatening in these cases, they may be less effective; however, in leu of other controls, bicycle helmets can help. Someone above described being hit by a car on his back wheel, thrown for 20 feet in the air, and not having a head strike--that is the luck of the draw. He could easily heave been killed by that accident too.

By the way, no more pronouncements from you...if you have documentation to back up your assertions, show them, link to them; otherwise, your input here is useless.

John

So, 10,000+ falls off a bike in 1 month where the person gets up, looks around embarrassed and gets back on the bike and rides off should count more than...
say 100 that result in going to the emergency or
say 10 deaths or brain injury sufficient to alter ones life...? :rolleyes:

You can "say" anything you like with any numbers that come to mind and you might come up with the right ones. You might even guess a perfect bracket on basketball pool. When your mind is made up before hand what the conclusion AND solution should be, you probably qualify for the Ratliff School of Hazard Analysis Smoke Screens.

Well, it obviously went completely over my head, and still does. In the past, I have often felt that you are wrong but still well-intentioned. Now, I don't know. One of us has taken a turn off into some pretty outrageous territory, and in all candor, I don't think it's me. As always, you are welcome to whatever protective gear you feel appropriate, but as an argument for everyone else to use it, I think you are farther away than ever.

Worst case is being hit by a semi at freeway speeds. So in worst case, using a bicycle helmet as mitigation is laughable.

So what the pro-helmet crowd is actually doing is not "worst case" analysis but rather "particular case" analysis. IOW, "If an accident happens in a very particular way, with not too much energy involved, but not too little either, and really just for certain kinds of blunt (not too acute, now!) impacts, where rotational forces aren't significant, and the face, neck, vital organs, etc. are not involved, a bicycle helmet can help, maybe, not that you'll really be able to prove it one way or another. Therefore, you are an idiot if you don't use one."

I personally find this less than compelling, especially when accompanied by the usual ration of smug helmeteer bull****.

But hey, maybe another study will finally convince me.

In a previous life, I taught an EMT course. One of my more "special" students one day asked how he should treat a head injury caused by a fall. I explained it to him and then he asked, "What if he fell from a great height?" I explained that to him, and then he asked "Well, what if he fell from an overpass, and then got hit by a car?" So I again went over the likely injuries and how to treat them. Then he asked "And what if he fell from an overpass onto a train track and then was run over by a train?" I made some comment about bending over and kissing one's ass goodbye. He did not really see the humor in that, although it shut him up, which was largely the point by then. I now wish that I had simply recommended the use of a bicycle helmet, as they obviously are suited to even the wildest of worst case scenarios.

I mean, hell, it was on a chart and everything, right?

Again, you (plural) need to read what I have written. Let me re-quote it:
We both have something in common; we have both taught EMT classes. I was a USAF Pararescueman for almost ten years too. During that time, we would have UTAs (or Unit Training Activities). We would be given a problem, and we needed to penetrate into the accident scene (either by helicopter hoist or parachute), render medical aid, and evacuate the injured. We had trainers who would go around and give us scenarios on-the-spot. One would call himself "Fate," and one would call himself "Luck." We would be treating, and Dave would say, "As Fate would have it, your victim started vomiting..." Or George would say, "As Luck would have it, your victim just stopped breathing..." They would impose these worst-case scenarios into our problems, so that when we really had to render aid, we would be prepared.

This is what I am trying to do here, prepare people for the worst-case scenarios for bicycling. There are many things that can be done, as outlined in the quote above. But wearing a bicycling helmet helps avoid what to me is unnecessary injury potential in the event of a fall, whether it is because of a bicycling mistake, equipment failure, fellow cyclist's bump (happened to my son while racing--threw him into a fence and onto the ground, which broke his helmet), or a car/truck interaction.

When I was in the USAF, we wore helmets all the time except on water missions (where we went into the water). They really do help in numerous situations.

John

I was trying to gauge what you thought was more important/benificial to concentrate on as in "trying to increase safety"...
1; no need to worry, something like 1,000,000+ people ride every month.?
2; 10,000+ fall but nothing happens so no need to worry.?
3; 100 people go to emergency...? Not nessearially a problem?
4; 10 deaths or brain injury sufficient to alter ones life...? 10 deaths out of a 1,000,000 is nothing,(more people die in the shower)?

Is that so? And if I don't comply with your command to not critique half backed baloney from people "who feel otherwise" about sticking to the subject?

Here is documentation of controls implemented by people "who feel otherwise" just like you, and as relevant (actually more relevant) than your insertion of a OSHA "documentation" smoke screen into the discussion.

There is no compliance, and no command; simply logic. Some cowboys are now using helmets too.

By the way, the OSHA Cowboy has been around at least since the early 1980s. Posting the OSHA Cowboy shows that you really don't have a serious point of view; you'd rather mock things than discuss them. The OSHA Cowboy is somewhat off the subject too.

John
http://www.thirdage.com/files/origin...-louis-528.jpg

Perfect! Off the subject? ha,ha. As if YOUR introduction of OSHA Compliance rules for job sites, and worst case scenarios for Industrial complexes with an almost unlimited capacity for colossal disaster in the discussion of bicycling risk was not weird enough. Now it is helmets for riding Bulls in the rodeo.

I previously decided that discussion with the dingier posters on this thread a waste of time. I think I gave you too much credit.

You brought up cowboys, not me.

John

........:love: .... I think I pee'd myself a little bit.:roflmao2:

It Monday. I still believe the ave cyclist is safer if they wear a helmet. It time for the usual anti helmet types to post their personal insults towards me. Have at it boyz make yourselves look silly!!!

Sillier than a 70+ year old man using "boyz"? ;)

zman

At 75 most others here are boyz when compared to me.

I wear a helmet when cycling because the law says I have to, but probably wouldn't if it wasn't mandatory. I understand wearing a helmet is about mitigating risk, not eliminating it. I also know from my personal experiences riding motorcycles a helmet can provide useful protection if you go down, and always wear one by choice.

That said, I can't see any reason or logic in the arguments against wearing a helmet other than simply not wanting to.

OK, I credit you as a logical, intelligent person aware of the implications of your choices. Therefore (discounting the law) I suspect your reasons, like mine, are more than simply "I don't want to" and involve an assessment that the risk of head injury when bicycling is low enough not to warrant needing a helmet. Said risk assessment is made in the context of other risks you manage daily.

BTW- I know that many here would put folks who pass on helmets on the spot and ask us to justify not wearing one. IMO- this turns logic on it's head, because not having a helmet is the status quo, so the burden is for helmet advocates to demonstrate the risk level, and the reduction that helmets offer. For my part, I don't concern myself with the 2nd part because I don't feel the first hurdle has been cleared.

OTOH- this is a strictly personal decision based on an assessment of my own risk levels. When folks ask if they should wear a helmet, my standard answer is that if they're asking, then they don't know, so they should wear a helmet until they decide that they're safe enough without one.

That's funny, nobody here really has to prove anything, just posting personal choices. I'm thinking the anti-helmet crusaders just want to keep that right. I'm ok with that.

With maybe an exception here and there, I don't think the term anti-helmet applies to anyone. Those dubbed anti-helmet, simply aren't pro helmet, or not pro helmet enough.

For that reason I consider the concept of anti-helmet a nonsense way to try to put people on the defensive here. It's akin to call those who aren't 100% anti-abortion pro abortion.

I wear a helmet when cycling even though there's no law saying I have to. I have a very good understanding of the protective capabilities of bicycle helmets. I know from my personal experiences riding and crashing motorcycles that a motorcycle helmet can provide useful protection if you crash. Also, that there is no correlation between the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets and bicycle helmets.

There's a big difference between cycling and motorcycling, between bicycle helmets and motorcycle helmets. I don't compare the protective qualities of one against the other because it would be ludicrous. I wore a bicycle helmet out of habit because I came from a motorcycling background, but was soon here disabused of the notion that bicycle helmets provided even a fraction of the protection a MC helmet does.

Still, what meager protection a bicycle helmet might afford in the rare case that I crash on a bicycle, and in the rarer case that said crash involves a headstrike, is worth it to me.

I've been called anti-helmet even though I wear a helmet nearly every time I ride...

"Do as I do, not as I say."

Please name two "folks" here who ask you to justify not wearing a helmet. I ask for two because you mention "many here" and I can only think of one here.

I think that most of us helmeteers have no issue with anyone making the helmet decision for themselves. We do object to the Bare-Head Brigade occasionally telling inquiring noobs that they are better off without a helmet. It is rare. This statement shows you not to be one of "those."

I don't disagree with this statement. However, I think your characterization of what the pro-helmet posters demand or think of you is based on a similar delusion, just from the other side.

I may be wrong here, and may be projecting the constant (more than once per day in season) harangues from cyclists met on the road onto this thread. But without scrolling back, I'm fairly confident that more than one posters here has characterized "anti-helmet" posts very negatively.