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
02-28-12, 11:36 AM
#1626
Senior Member
Yup. As shocking as it may seem to you, it's not uncommon for a bare header to be questioned why they are riding without a helmet. Even judged for their choice
not by all. There are a few examples of people right here on this thread that prove that.
Last edited by closetbiker; 02-28-12 at 11:43 AM.
02-28-12, 12:21 PM
#1627
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
New Zealand. Widespread helmet use has negative effects
Here's an interesting paper from Colin Clarke which claims that New Zealand's mandatory helmet laws ( which may be taken as a surrogate measure for helmet use) have resulted in overall negative effects.
Clarke, Colin F. (2012) New Zealand Medical Journal 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349; ISSN 1175 8716
https://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/abstract.php?id=5046
Clarke, Colin F. (2012) New Zealand Medical Journal 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349; ISSN 1175 8716
https://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/abstract.php?id=5046
02-28-12, 12:25 PM
#1628
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
That would be true in the case that helmets provide little protection from serious brain injuries whether said injuries are provoked by being hit by a bus or are the result of coming off your bicycle while travelling downhill at a high speed. Helmets are designed to mitigate minor injuries ...
02-28-12, 12:35 PM
#1629
Senior Member
Yes, and one cannot forget or ignore that helmets provide only partial coverage of the head, and leave a large portion of the brain both exposed, and vulnerable.
Coupled with this is the sad fact that even when a death is attributed to a head injury, the vast amount of times there are other injuries that would also lead to death. Fewer than 20% of deaths are from head injury alone, so even if a helmet completely covered the head, and was 100% effective in collisions with motor vehicles travelling at any speed, more than 80% of the deaths would still occur.
Coupled with this is the sad fact that even when a death is attributed to a head injury, the vast amount of times there are other injuries that would also lead to death. Fewer than 20% of deaths are from head injury alone, so even if a helmet completely covered the head, and was 100% effective in collisions with motor vehicles travelling at any speed, more than 80% of the deaths would still occur.
02-28-12, 12:58 PM
#1630
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 fully aware of that. In fact, I asked sudo biker to please supply more pursuant to one aspect of this discussion.
02-28-12, 01:04 PM
#1631
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 true in the case that helmets provide little protection from serious brain injuries whether said injuries are provoked by being hit by a bus or are the result of coming off your bicycle while travelling downhill at a high speed. Helmets are designed to mitigate minor injuries ...
02-28-12, 01:23 PM
#1632
Senior Member
if you are aware of that, with the posts you've been putting up, you certainly are dismissive of the contrary research, to the point of accepting inferior research over superior research.
As to why you are pursuing such a myopic view I can only guess that you do so because it jives with your position that cycling is dangerous, and the helmet is the cure for that danger.
I'm also curious as to how you think a helmet can provide protection below it's test line, in impacts greater than 12mph, and from the forces that cause a brain to rotate within the skull, independent of of the movement (if any) of the skull.
As to why you are pursuing such a myopic view I can only guess that you do so because it jives with your position that cycling is dangerous, and the helmet is the cure for that danger.
I'm also curious as to how you think a helmet can provide protection below it's test line, in impacts greater than 12mph, and from the forces that cause a brain to rotate within the skull, independent of of the movement (if any) of the skull.
Last edited by closetbiker; 02-28-12 at 01:30 PM.
02-28-12, 01:44 PM
#1633
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
Wouter Weylandt was wearing a helmet in last year's Giro d'Itaila.
02-28-12, 02:09 PM
#1634
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 don't know, either, what contrary research I am supposedly dismissive of. You mean the editorial you posted from some cycling group?
02-28-12, 02:49 PM
#1635
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
As to standards, Snell B-90A, for example, says, "The proper use of protective helmets can minimize the risk of death or permanent impairment." https://www.smf.org/standards/b/b90astd
Helmet design is a trade-off between being rigid enough to be able to cope with massive impacts (the original 500G deceleration limit for helmets, later lowered to 300G for the SNELL standards was based on the fracturing of the skull) or being elastic enough to absorb the energy of a lower velocity fall.
So yes, the proper use of protective tennis-balls on your head can minimize the risk of death or permanent impairment. However, it's much more likely to be effective in bouncing tennis rackets off it, than it is to stop a motor-vehicle collision from causing your brain to accelerated rotationally ... that's apart from your other internal organs being damaged to a point where life is unlikely to continue. You could protect a bit against this by wearing a motor cycle helmet.
The good news is that you're about as likely to have one of these incidents while walking or slipping on a tiddlywink while rushing downstairs to post another paean to magic-hattery.
02-28-12, 06:34 PM
#1637
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
. Anymore I don't bother citation hunting unless I'm getting a grade for it. I do far too much of that to be charitable. 
But, as I said, I know the Aussie study was posted here, and IIRC the first few pages had some good summaries going.
EDIT: Found this on the first few pages.
Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws
D. L. Robinson
AGBU, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
Accepted 6 February 1996. ; Available online 26 February 1999.
Abstract
The first year of the mandatory bicycle helmet laws in Australia saw increased helmet wearing from 31% to 75% of cyclists in Victoria and from 31% of children and 26% of adults in New South Wales (NSW) to 76% and 85%. However, the two major surveys using matched before and after samples in Melbourne (Finch et al. 1993; Report No. 45, Monash Univ. Accident Research Centre) and throughout NSW (Smith and Milthorpe 1993; Roads and Traffic Authority) observed reductions in numbers of child cyclists 15 and 2.2 times greater than the increase in numbers of children wearing helmets. This suggests the greatest effect of the helmet law was not to encourage cyclists to wear helmets, but to discourage cycling. In contrast, despite increases to at least 75% helmet wearing, the proportion of head injuries in cyclists admitted or treated at hospital declined by an average of only 13%. The percentage of cyclists with head injuries after collisions with motor vehicles in Victoria declined by more, but the proportion of head injured pedestrians also declined; the two followed a very similar trend. These trends may have been caused by major road safety initiatives introduced at the same time as the helmet law and directed at both speeding and drink-driving. The initiatives seem to have been remarkably effective in reducing road trauma for all road users, perhaps affecting the proportions of victims suffering head injuries as well as total injuries. The benefits of cycling, even without a helmet, have been estimated to outweigh the hazards by a factor of 20 to 1 (Hillman 1993; Cycle helmets—the case for and against. Policy Studies Institute, London). Consequently, a helmet law, whose most notable effect was to reduce cycling, may have generated a net loss of health benefits to the nation. Despite the risk of dying from head injury per hour being similar for unhelmeted cyclists and motor vehicle occupants, cyclists alone have been required to wear head protection. Helmets for motor vehicle occupants are now being marketed and a mandatory helmet law for these road users has the potential to save 17 times as many people from death by head injury as a helmet law for cyclists without the adverse effects of discouraging a healthy and pollution free mode of transport.
Author Keywords: Bicycle; Head injury; Helmet; Legislation
D. L. Robinson
AGBU, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
Accepted 6 February 1996. ; Available online 26 February 1999.
Abstract
The first year of the mandatory bicycle helmet laws in Australia saw increased helmet wearing from 31% to 75% of cyclists in Victoria and from 31% of children and 26% of adults in New South Wales (NSW) to 76% and 85%. However, the two major surveys using matched before and after samples in Melbourne (Finch et al. 1993; Report No. 45, Monash Univ. Accident Research Centre) and throughout NSW (Smith and Milthorpe 1993; Roads and Traffic Authority) observed reductions in numbers of child cyclists 15 and 2.2 times greater than the increase in numbers of children wearing helmets. This suggests the greatest effect of the helmet law was not to encourage cyclists to wear helmets, but to discourage cycling. In contrast, despite increases to at least 75% helmet wearing, the proportion of head injuries in cyclists admitted or treated at hospital declined by an average of only 13%. The percentage of cyclists with head injuries after collisions with motor vehicles in Victoria declined by more, but the proportion of head injured pedestrians also declined; the two followed a very similar trend. These trends may have been caused by major road safety initiatives introduced at the same time as the helmet law and directed at both speeding and drink-driving. The initiatives seem to have been remarkably effective in reducing road trauma for all road users, perhaps affecting the proportions of victims suffering head injuries as well as total injuries. The benefits of cycling, even without a helmet, have been estimated to outweigh the hazards by a factor of 20 to 1 (Hillman 1993; Cycle helmets—the case for and against. Policy Studies Institute, London). Consequently, a helmet law, whose most notable effect was to reduce cycling, may have generated a net loss of health benefits to the nation. Despite the risk of dying from head injury per hour being similar for unhelmeted cyclists and motor vehicle occupants, cyclists alone have been required to wear head protection. Helmets for motor vehicle occupants are now being marketed and a mandatory helmet law for these road users has the potential to save 17 times as many people from death by head injury as a helmet law for cyclists without the adverse effects of discouraging a healthy and pollution free mode of transport.
Author Keywords: Bicycle; Head injury; Helmet; Legislation
Also, this is a really great video.
Last edited by sudo bike; 02-28-12 at 06:48 PM.
02-28-12, 06:36 PM
#1638
Senior Member
It seems he thinks his contributions are worthwhile, when other contributions are not, and result in confusion.
Last edited by closetbiker; 02-28-12 at 06:48 PM.
02-28-12, 07:04 PM
#1639
Senior Member
I'm battling a cold and stuck inside, so I took a little bit of time to go over some of the posts six has made just to be sure I wasn't missing something.
I've selected a few posts of his I have some problems with. He's entitled to his opinion, but I don't think he can't pass these statements off as facts for everybody else.
You can guess where this is going
I find his dismissal of cyclings positive effects disturbing
distubing as well are his dismissal of the negative effects of helmet laws
He does say some things that I have no problem with (and actually very much like)
The issue here is where on the priority pole he places a helmet. Top, middle, or bottom? I fear he (and others like him) place the priority of helmet use at the top.
I've selected a few posts of his I have some problems with. He's entitled to his opinion, but I don't think he can't pass these statements off as facts for everybody else.
... at the end of the day, it's about the facts: cycling is obviously and incontrovertibly dangerous in the literal sense in that it exposes you to the risk of bodily harm or death. Indeed, there are hundreds of thousands of annual bicycle-related ER visits in the US alone.
... a supposedly "simple fall onto the ground at zero speed" is what hospitalizes or kills hundreds of thousands each year--you needn't be moving at 30mph or get hit by a car to hurt your head from a fall. Further, what appears at first to be a minor bump on the head can in fact be a more serious or even fatal condition...*
https://www.chp.edu/CHP/P03008
"Bicycle helmets can reduce the risk of a head injury by 85 percent and brain injury by 88 percent."
"Bicycle helmets can reduce the risk of a head injury by 85 percent and brain injury by 88 percent."
...*What I disagree with is underhanded scare tactics that casually throw out the notion that helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists, implying in the process that if someone supports helmet laws, he must therefore be against cycling... We're also supposed to casually assume that fewer cyclists is inherently problematic...
The issue here is where on the priority pole he places a helmet. Top, middle, or bottom? I fear he (and others like him) place the priority of helmet use at the top.
Last edited by closetbiker; 02-28-12 at 11:03 PM.
02-29-12, 07:29 AM
#1641
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 battling a cold and stuck inside, so I took a little bit of time to go over some of the posts six has made just to be sure I wasn't missing something.
I've selected a few posts of his I have some problems with. He's entitled to his opinion, but I don't think he can't pass these statements off as facts for everybody else.
I've selected a few posts of his I have some problems with. He's entitled to his opinion, but I don't think he can't pass these statements off as facts for everybody else.
Simple fact is, I've looked into the data and science on the issue extensively and continue to do so. I try to base my tentative conclusions on reliable sources. I cite those sources. I notice that the same handful of "anti's" here mostly just resort to snide name-calling instead of making comparable arguments with comparably reliable sources, which says a lot about both their positions and their character.
02-29-12, 07:44 AM
#1642
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 frankly, I just don't have time anymore to dig around and fulfill that want. Working while being a full-time student and all that... . Anymore I don't bother citation hunting unless I'm getting a grade for it. I do far too much of that to be charitable.
But, as I said, I know the Aussie study was posted here, and IIRC the first few pages had some good summaries going.
. Anymore I don't bother citation hunting unless I'm getting a grade for it. I do far too much of that to be charitable. But, as I said, I know the Aussie study was posted here, and IIRC the first few pages had some good summaries going.
FYI, Robinson is one of about three or four authors in the science known for articles questioning helmets and helmet laws and also writes for helmet-skeptic website cyclehelmets.org. https://cyclehelmets.org/1121.html
02-29-12, 09:16 AM
#1643
Senior Member
I don't think you understand how ironic this sentence is, but I should let you know, it is.
02-29-12, 09:56 AM
#1644
Senior Member
Good for you. So do others. Different people see things in different ways. I find it sad that there are those who conclude riding a bicycle is dangerous and can't see it's benefits outweigh it's risks, but hey, that's life. There will always be some who worry, but it does become an advocacy issue when that worry is extended out to others, making riding a bicycle a little more difficult, and yes, a little more dangerous.
02-29-12, 10:40 AM
#1646
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
FYI, Robinson is one of about three or four authors in the science known for articles questioning helmets and helmet laws and also writes for helmet-skeptic website cyclehelmets.org. https://cyclehelmets.org/1121.html
Last edited by sudo bike; 02-29-12 at 10:43 AM.
02-29-12, 11:27 AM
#1647
Senior Member
I got my own thing going on here -- sniping from the sidelines -- not really paying much attention to the Six-Shooter vs. the bare head brigade posts: tl;dr. The dueling studies thing is the "sausage fencing" I referenced on p. 3 of this thread...
02-29-12, 11:32 AM
#1648
Senior Member
For the record, I make the claim that cycling becomes less safe when the perception of cycling becomes one of being dangerous.
You know the reasons, less cycling, over dependence on foam hats...
02-29-12, 12:06 PM
#1649
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
AFAIK, the current standards do not specify type/severity of injury prevented against, but rather acceleration forces the helmets must withstand (see e.g., https://www.smf.org/standards/b/b90astd or https://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr98/10mr98r.pdf).
As to the science, there is abundant scientific research that helmets can protect against more than "minor injuries." See my previous posts for links.
02-29-12, 01:08 PM
#1650
Senior Member
Ah. I get it. Maybe if you were more attentive, your snipes would be more effective.
For the record, I make the claim that cycling becomes less safe when the perception of cycling becomes one of being dangerous.
You know the reasons, less cycling, over dependence on foam hats...
For the record, I make the claim that cycling becomes less safe when the perception of cycling becomes one of being dangerous.
You know the reasons, less cycling, over dependence on foam hats...
Dude: cycling isn't dangerous. Whether or not you're wearing a foam hat.
