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
#801
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
I'm not sure accidents work like that Cycling, like any athletic activity, necessarily poses some risk of physical injury, unless you just sit at home on your bike in a refrigerator box filled with packing peanuts. Of course, then you'd die of boredom.
If the CDC is to be believed, "Each year, more than 500,000 people in the US are treated in emergency departments, and more than 700 people die as a result of bicycle-related injuries."
https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreation...einjuries.html
And then there are the scrapes, cuts, strains, etc. that don't get any ER visit.
If the CDC is to be believed, "Each year, more than 500,000 people in the US are treated in emergency departments, and more than 700 people die as a result of bicycle-related injuries."
https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreation...einjuries.html
And then there are the scrapes, cuts, strains, etc. that don't get any ER visit.
My experience has shown that normal riding has no greater risk of head injury than many other of my daily activities...but obviously if I choose to make cycling more dangerous...when racing for example, I increase my risk and a helmet might be warranted. It's the same with driving a car....I don't even think about wearing a helmet normally, even though there is a far greater risk of head injury in an auto accident...but if racing a car I'd probably wear a helmet. It's not rocket surgery.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
#802
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
The only person making that grand assumption is you. If you'd take off that helmet, it might have sunk in the first time.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
#803
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
Regarding the last, you say that you have the right as an adult to make your own decision regarding personal safety. Do you therefore advocate that government relinquish all claim on you in that regard? I.e., rescind all laws/regulations regarding consumer product safety, automobile seat belts or airbags, motorcycle helmets, etc.?
Lots of people seem to think it fine and reasonable to have government enforce the use of car child seats or locks on handguns in a home with minors, for example. Do you, as an adult, have the right to choose the level of apparent safety when a third party, like a child, becomes involved? Where does one draw the line? Why? What level/type of evidence is required to approve one but not the other?
#804
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The problem with personal experience, of course, is that it can only account for the past: you never know what kind of misfortune might await a cyclist the next day. S--t can indeed happen.
My experience has shown that normal riding has no greater risk of head injury than many other of my daily activities..
but obviously if I choose to make cycling more dangerous
#805
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Some parents will make bad decisions for their children. Does that mean that no parent should be allowed to make decisions for their children?
#806
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Of course. And I go by mine. I know from experience that you can end up smacking your head on the concrete while riding a bike. I know that a helmet, flimsy as it is compared to, say, a motorcycle helmet, can prevent at least some injury. To me, a helmet is no burden at all, so I'll use that piece of safety gear. I certainly don't expect miracles from it, though.
The problem with personal experience, of course, is that it can only account for the past: you never know what kind of misfortune might await a cyclist the next day. S--t can indeed happen.
Certainly one can get a head injury in all kinds of circumstances. Yet, if one grants the presence of the risk, should one take a simple step to avoid it? At least with a bicycle helmet, wearing one is a normal part of the culture, so you wouldn't create quite the same bizarre impression as wearing one while walking on slippery pavement outside the grocery store (Though maybe one should: would you rather look like a weirdo or get a concussion?)
I wonder if it's not dangerous to believe that so much control regarding safety rests in your hands, that you can control all the variables to a point where cycling poses no risk (or no risk of head injury in particular). That doesn't account for choices by motorists, other cyclists, pedestrians, dogs, potholes or debris momentarily obscured by clouds, a mechanical failure that falls outside your ability to observe or predict, etc. Life is full of surprises. The only way to totally remove all those other variables, I think, is not to cycle.
The problem with personal experience, of course, is that it can only account for the past: you never know what kind of misfortune might await a cyclist the next day. S--t can indeed happen.
Certainly one can get a head injury in all kinds of circumstances. Yet, if one grants the presence of the risk, should one take a simple step to avoid it? At least with a bicycle helmet, wearing one is a normal part of the culture, so you wouldn't create quite the same bizarre impression as wearing one while walking on slippery pavement outside the grocery store (Though maybe one should: would you rather look like a weirdo or get a concussion?)
I wonder if it's not dangerous to believe that so much control regarding safety rests in your hands, that you can control all the variables to a point where cycling poses no risk (or no risk of head injury in particular). That doesn't account for choices by motorists, other cyclists, pedestrians, dogs, potholes or debris momentarily obscured by clouds, a mechanical failure that falls outside your ability to observe or predict, etc. Life is full of surprises. The only way to totally remove all those other variables, I think, is not to cycle.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
#807
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm the guy who knows that we have no control...when your number is up, your number is up...and all the helmets, armor, bunkers, shoulda, woulda, couldas in the world won't make any difference. Cycling doesn't even make the top 100 of things I do or have done that could seriously injure me. If it's different for you, great, you do what you need to do for your own perception of safety...just respect my right to do the same for myself.
#808
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
A fatalistic philosophy like that would seem to imply that your choices make little or no difference. But most people, I'd imagine, believe they have some influence on the course of their lives and believe in taking certain reasonable precautions, though what "reasonable" means will obviously vary.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
#809
Senior Member
A fatalistic philosophy like that would seem to imply that your choices make little or no difference. But most people, I'd imagine, believe they have some influence on the course of their lives and believe in taking certain reasonable precautions, though what "reasonable" means will obviously vary.
#810
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
and if helmets had a track record that showed they made a difference, maybe more people would wear them, that is if people thought riding a bike was likely to end in head injury. But they don't, except in isolated areas where cycling is not the norm, so helmet use is not the norm, except in isolated communities that have been convinced cycling is dangerous and the helmet is the answer to that danger, even if the track record shows otherwise.
Last edited by Six-Shooter; 12-01-11 at 08:37 AM.
#811
Senior Member
that would be your neck of the woods, and if you had a broader view of the issue, you'd see that relatively few people in the world wear helmets, except where they been legislated and have had little to no evidence of making a difference except in the minds of those who want to believe they have.
#812
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
that would be your neck of the woods, and if you had a broader view of the issue, you'd see that relatively few people in the world wear helmets, except where they been legislated and have had little to no evidence of making a difference except in the minds of those who want to believe they have.
Fwiw, the law where I live only dictates helmet use for minors, though the majority of adult cyclists I see wear them.
#813
Senior Member
: you can obviously fall off or get in some kind of wreck for various reasons.
I can't imagine anyone seriously believes that a helmet could totally prevent any sort of cycling head injury.
Last edited by closetbiker; 12-01-11 at 09:34 AM.
#814
Senior Member
in terms of helmet use, yes
governments can get in the habit of doing what a few people want them to (and there are always those who want others to do what they think they should, even if there's no good reason for it) so as long as governments follow popular choices, they'll do it
fwiw, I live in an all-ages mhl province where the government has the right of not only fining non-helmet wearers, they can seize the bicycles from them too
Either way, what the majority of the world's cyclists do doesn't directly answer the question about the potential of helmet wearing to prevent injury or the question of whether a government has a right to dictate that behavior.
Fwiw, the law where I live only dictates helmet use for minors, though the majority of adult cyclists I see wear them.
#815
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
as anyone can doing any number of things. If a human body could not endure the effects of a simple fall, humans wouldn't have survived as long as they have
many people who have been convinced a helmet is necessary when riding a bike have an inflated view on what it can do. some of them go on to say that without them, cyclists will surely die
#816
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That's not very charitable. Because I don't echo what you say, or?
Well, a representative democratic government is supposed to do what's popular But I agree special interest groups with the cash and clout can have unreasonable leverage. In the US, we have certain groups fighting to restrict everyone's ability to make choices, even to undermine Constitutionally protected rights, all the time.
governments can get in the habit of doing what a few people want them to (and there are always those who want others to do what they think they should, even if there's no good reason for it) so as long as governments follow popular choices, they'll do it
Last edited by Six-Shooter; 12-01-11 at 12:54 PM.
#817
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
#818
Senior Member
Already noted. But like I said, exposing yourself to certain dangers doesn't imply that a) you should not modify or refrain from that behavior to enhance safety or b) that you should refrain from protecting yourself from certain other dangers. I could slip and fall in the bathroom. Does that mean I should not take measures to protect myself in other arenas?
What statistics/studies are there for the views of these anonymous "many people"? Sounds like that could be a straw man. And as for the actuality of what a helmet will and won't do on the large scale, we'd need a decent body of scientific studies. Looking at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet it doesn't seem like there's a preponderance of sound scientific evidence either way.
what Chip said...
#819
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
Perhaps, but I'm not talking about relative perceptions or relative likelihood of injury, merely the fact that one can indeed get hurt or killed cycling.
Already noted. But like I said, exposing yourself to certain dangers doesn't imply that a) you should not modify or refrain from that behavior to enhance safety or b) that you should refrain from protecting yourself from certain other dangers. I could slip and fall in the bathroom. Does that mean I should not take measures to protect myself in other arenas?
Already noted. But like I said, exposing yourself to certain dangers doesn't imply that a) you should not modify or refrain from that behavior to enhance safety or b) that you should refrain from protecting yourself from certain other dangers. I could slip and fall in the bathroom. Does that mean I should not take measures to protect myself in other arenas?
You could fall off your bike in one of the rare accidents that kill cyclists tomorrow. Or you could fall in the bathroom and bang your head. Just because you wear a helmet on your bicycle, does that mean that you should not wear one in the bathroom?
Or are both of these events so rare and unlikely that it's a bit bizarre to wear a helmet in anticipation of either of them?
#820
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Not concerned with regard to that specific point. As to myself, I am moderately concerned with the likelihood Since a helmet is no imposition or burden on me, and I know from experience they can prevent certain head injuries, I wear one. In that practical sense, it's a non issue for me, though the broader philosophical or political implications raised in this thread I find interesting.
For me, there's no expectation of a bike helmet preventing death, which is what you mention. But certain lacerations, contusions, or concussions? Quite possibly. Barring incontrovertible evidence suggesting that helmets increase the likelihood or severity of head injury, for me wearing one will continue to be a simple and easy bit of common sense precaution, akin to wearing shoes and gloves and sunglasses.
That's what I was saying: one situation doesn't necessarily imply behavior in another, unless your primary object is uniformity or consistency of behavior. Something could fall of a shelf and hit you in the head at home. You presumably don't wear a helmet in your closet. Should you therefore neglect to wear a helmet in other circumstances? Do you need to study statistical tables and have a cutoff percentage that determines when something is dangerous enough to warrant protective measures?
"Bizarre" is a loaded term. Is it indeed strange to take a precautionary measure in an athletic activity, a measure that imposes no unreasonable physical or financial hardship? (Leaving aside for the moment the question of having this enforced by someone else.) Nowadays, it's generally acceptable in many sports/athletic activities to wear helmets, pads, cups, gloves, mouth guards, etc. Are these people engaging in "bizarre" or paranoid precautionary behavior since the likelihood of injury might not be as great as in other situations?
You could fall off your bike in one of the rare accidents that kill cyclists tomorrow.
Or you could fall in the bathroom and bang your head. Just because you wear a helmet on your bicycle, does that mean that you should not wear one in the bathroom?
Or are both of these events so rare and unlikely that it's a bit bizarre to wear a helmet in anticipation of either of them?
#821
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
well, if there's not a clear preponderance of scientific evidence that show helmets are needed or helpful, why do some people seem to think they're an important part of cycling safety?
Because there is not a clear preponderance of scientific evidence that shows helmets are not needed or helpful
Because of anecdotal/experiential evidence supporting their benefits
Because of reasoning by analogy from other athletic or vehicular activities
Because of a "better safe than sorry" attitude
Because of the willful dissemination of false information (though I doubt there's a helmet-maker cabal that leaks false statistics to boost sales )
what Chip said...
#822
Senior Member
It may be an outlook, but it is a problem
A logical sequence of order is needed to deal with issues. If you don't want to be logical, there's little point to discussion
A logical sequence of order is needed to deal with issues. If you don't want to be logical, there's little point to discussion
Last edited by closetbiker; 12-01-11 at 02:43 PM.
#823
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
Looking through this thread a bit, I've seen that argument put forth a number of times. Yet it doesn't quite wash. Because you expose yourself to risk in some areas, does that mean you should not try to mitigate it in others? Is it perhaps not better to reduce the risk of injury in at least some activities than to adopt a consistent stance of "I do everything dangerously"? "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
That's the way society normally works, though, for better or worse. Someone perceives a real or imagined potential for harm, and a rule or law then gets put in place to regulate everyone's activity in that sphere. There's usually not a clause that says, "If you personally feel that you're not at risk, or dislike government intervention, or simply don't give a damn and want to be contrary, then you can ignore this statute."
#824
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
That's what I was saying: one situation doesn't necessarily imply behavior in another, unless your primary object is uniformity or consistency of behavior. Something could fall of a shelf and hit you in the head at home. You presumably don't wear a helmet in your closet. Should you therefore neglect to wear a helmet in other circumstances? Do you need to study statistical tables and have a cutoff percentage that determines when something is dangerous enough to warrant protective measures?
#825
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You imply that people approach this, or any, issue logically As you know, lots of decisions are based on emotion, and that includes public policy decisions. While logic has its uses, if you expect logic from everyone all the time, you will be waiting in vain, and this obviously seems to be a hot-button emotional issue to some people here. Of which, I haven't read this whole thread, but I so far haven't seen posts saying, "Helmets are devices designed to offer injury protection, irrefutable evidence shows helmets to have no ability to afford any injury protection, therefore there is no safety benefit in wearing one, therefore I don't wear one." Rather, I see statements along the lines of "I don't personally feel there's a benefit, the costs outweigh the potential benefits to me, cycling seems safe to me, I make cycling safe, etc." Is that hard facts and cold logic or an explanation/justification of personal choice?
Last edited by Six-Shooter; 12-02-11 at 08:00 AM.