tallard

It's BS stats like this one that need to be debunked because these are the sort of stats being used my helmet zealouts to justify themselves:

Bicycle deaths by helmet use, 1994-2003 (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)

No helmet Helmet Total*
Year Num % Num % Num
1994 776 97 19 2 796
1995 783 95 34 4 828
1996 731 96 27 4 761
1997 785 97 23 3 811
1998 741 98 16 2 757
1999 698 93 42 6 750
2000 622 90 50 7 689
2001 616 84 60 8 729
2002 589 89 54 8 663
2003 527 85 57 9 619

Helmets zealouts I know personally use these numbers to tell me helmets save lives. What they're disregarding is the more telling aspects of this graph.

1- In those 10 years, non-helmeted deaths have decreased from 97% to 85% and helmeted deaths have increased from 2% to 9%. My take on this is that the decrease in helmetless cyclist fatalities indicates we've benefited from an improvement in behavior (both motorist and cyclist) whereas the increase in helmeted fatalities results from an increase in dumbification of riders.

2-within each year the difference in fatalities simply reflects the difference in actual helmet usage, when 90% of cyclists are bareheaded, of course, 90% of cycling fatalities will involve bareheaded cyclists!

It is mind boggling how the actuaries for this insurance giant can be so dishonest in their mathematical approach. But my helmet zealout helmet friends use exactly these kind of numbers to say, "see, helmet wearers die less than bareheaded" and "the insurance companies have proven it".

TRaffic Jammer

There's alot more DH and dirt jumpers in the latter part of the year spread too. More head bonks.

OH306

Tallard, if you don't work for the government you should ... great spin! There is no concrete data identifying the percentage of riders who wear helmets vs those that don't. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that they estimate helmet usage has increased from 18% in 1991 to 50% in 1998. Assuming that is true, and referencing your 1998 stats that show that 98% of the riders killed in that year were helmetless, while an equal number of riders wearing helmets accounted for only 2% of the deaths, it apparent to me that wearing a helmet is the wise thing to do. True, helmets cannot save a rider in all circumstances but evidence shows they can decrease the probability of you being killed in an accident. Your stats also show the number of deaths of helmetless riders decreasing from 1998 to 2003 while the number of deaths of helmeted riders increased during the same time period. I conclude from this that the trend of increased helmet usage has continued from 1998 to date so naturally more helmeted riders would be killed. Of course, you have the right to go helmetless if that is your choice. It's silly to argue about this because the Darwin theory will eventually apply.

tallard

All studies in mandatory helmet areas show compliance between 30% and 65%. Helmet use in non mandatory areas is much lower. How anyone could publish data showing that overall helmet use by all cyclists 1998 is 50% is completely ludicrous!!!! LOL Actually what I've read is that total helmet use around that time was more like 15%. If we assume that is true, it takes most of the oomph out of your argument

OH306

I guess you didn't do well in math class or you took a spill from your bicycle while you weren't wearing a helmet. The mid point between 30% and 65% is 47.5%. For the sake of argument, I'll give you the 2.5%. Here's my link to the 50% statement. Provide yours to your 15% statement.

https://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/helmet.html

Darwin Rules! Everyone should decide for themselves.

closetbiker

If Darwin rules, how is it that in the Netherlands where nobody wears helmets, they have far, far fewer fatalities of cyclists than areas that have much larger amounts of cyclists who wear helmets?

Point is, in virtually all cases of cycling fatalities, motor vehicles are involved and a helmet can do nothing to prevent those overwhelming forces.

Go to any area that has a high level of helmeted riders and you'll find deaths to cyclists happen with a high level of cyclists wearing helmets.

Just how could a helmet have saved Skindell if his slpeen was ruptured and he didn't have that attended to?

but forget about all that and go with the darwin angle. As i said earlier all tramatic brain injuries by all causes are dwarfed by strokes to people under 65 alone. cycling does much to prevent this and virtually all studies done on the subject show life long cyclists live longer and healthier lives of the over 80% of the population that don't get the proper exercise they need daily, so yeah, dawin rules. Cyclists die of fewer bain injuries even with out wearing helmets than the vast majority of the public.

OH306

If Darwin rules, how is it that in the Netherlands where nobody wears helmets, they have far, far fewer fatalities of cyclists than areas that have much larger amounts of cyclists who wear helmets?

Point is, in virtually all cases of cycling fatalities, motor vehicles are involved and a helmet can do nothing to prevent those overwhelming forces.

"Nobody wears helmets" I don't think so. I'll grant you far fewer wear helmets than in the U.S. Are you alluding that helmets cause fatalities? "Virtually all"? No, the majority of fatalities are likely caused by bike/car encounters. Then, you say that "a helmet can do nothing to prevent those overwhelming forces". How then do you explain the statistics presented by tallard that a minimum of 91% of the bicycle fatalities between 1994 and 2003 were to helmetless riders?


Go to any area that has a high level of helmeted riders and you'll find deaths to cyclists happen with a high level of cyclists wearing helmets.

Well duh, if all the riders were helmeted and one was killed then 100% of the helmeted riders were killed. A telling statistic.

Just how could a helmet have saved Skindell if his slpeen was ruptured and he didn't have that attended to?

You're grasping at straws. Ever hear of multiple injuries?

tallard

Oh I so new you'd do that!!!!! That's the point already said, because 90% of riders were helmetless (any slight variation in exact percentages need not be necessarily due to helmet use but behavior) Because in your little unsourced survey reference, it's people sometimes wearing their helmets. Ask the other question, do you always wear your helmet, then the stats drop to near zero in non legislated areas.

BTW, I posted a previous answer to your references query, put in 5 references to support my numbers, closed by research windows, hit submit, then closed the window. Unfortunately that post is not there, and that's happened to me a few times in the last few weeks. I get the feeling there's an occasional blurb in the programming. And I don't feel like spending another hour searching for the same Bl references again. So there

closetbiker

you're trying to grasp at reality and not doing a very good job of it. I think you need to learn a little bit more on the subject

OH306

Since you and closetbiker will never be convinced I'll end the debate. However, I will defend to your death your right not to wear a helmet. Darwin rules!

tallard

You are so generous

closetbiker

actually, the vast majority world wide go without helmets and seem to do quite nicely so I guess Darwin does rule.

there's nothing wrong with wearing a helmet but to have a realistic idea of what it can and cannot do is a good thing so, so far, I'll keep it up.

Don't mean to try to convince anyone of anything, but mean to bring up points that others seem to miss so people get a better idea of the problem. Nothing wrong with information people can use to decide for themselves.

tallard

That is an interesting take that I've seen mentioned a couple of times. I've been riding on streets for 31 years and have banged my head only once, the car was at fault. I was going down a seriously steep and long downhill, with only one intersection near the bottom, followed by an equally big climb right after. If you ride the down fast enough, momentum allows easy legwork up the first half, and a much harder work the second half. So everyone zips down that hill at car speeds or above. Actually I like going just a little faster than cars on downhills because it keeps me ahead of them. So everybody in Sherbrooke does this.

Unfortunately, 2/3 on my way down, probably doing 65 km/h, while smack dab in the middle of my lane for maximum visibility, a little ole near sighted lady on her way up took a left turn for a driveway and cut my path off at the very last instant. 10,000 in damages to her car, and multiple injuries to myself, I eventually was compensated 10,000 by the government for injuries, but could not sue her for more on negligence as automobile insurance in Quebec is nationalised and "depenalised", costs and compensations are shared equally and fairly. Interestingly, of the 10,000, most was for "disfigurement" a horrible scar/lump on the knee, nearly ripped off toe, nearly riped off finger, a bulging bad clavicle repair, and an ever so slight bump on the back of the head. Next in money was loss of motion, to wrist, toe. My head injury was the least compensated item of all injuries. I had destroyed her right fender and her windshield, then continued my flight 20' farther to the pavement, where there was lots of blood, but my head required the least stitches and recovered the fastest. My bike, a 2-300$ mountain bike, had actually broken in two, the cross-bar and the diagonal bar were broken in two, and my shoes were both found near the bicycle, 30 feet away from me.

NATURE MADE SKULLS VERY HARD AND RESILIENT, with the caveat that they become harder AFTER youth.

I've cycled 365 days a year most of my life, through ice, snow, mud, gravel, down mountains and in races. Yet only one collision in 31 years. I too believe that these crazies who are continuously colliding their heads should not be cycling!!!! It's a disgrace to serious cyclists!!!

DougHillman

It doesn't matter if the odds are a 2:1 or 1,000,000:1 if you're that one.

That being said, I must admit that I don't wear either my bicycle or motorcycle helmets 100% of the time. I weigh the, as you say, relative risk. If I'm pedaling down the gravel bike trail down the block from my house on a leisurly ride, I often leave the helmet hanging. If I'm riding the city streets of Chicago to the Lakefront Trail where I'll then be barrelling around at high speed in & out of other folks walking, riding & skating, the helmet goes on.

boilermaker1

"I'll then be barrelling around at high speed in & out of other folks walking, riding & skating, the helmet goes on."

What a self-centered jerk. If you want to ride at high speeds you should be out in the boonies not along the Lake. My wife was knocked off her bike along the Lake by a jerk like you (who took off) and has a metal knee on account of it.

closetbiker

well, we all make our choices. I prefer to assess a problem and take appropriate steps to deal with it rather than worry about some remote possiblity and use something ineffective to deal with the problem.

Take a reasonable measure for a reasonable risk

crtreedude 

If the odds are that large - an asteroid will probably get you.

This in many ways is a hopeless debate. People don't understand the significance of math and probabilities. If you are honestly afraid of things in the category of one million to one, stay in your house and hide under the bed. Wait, the bed might fall on you!

The chance of dying from any kind of Transport Accident during the next year: 1 in 6,050
https://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

The chance of dying while riding a bike is 1 in 381,693 (for one year)

Just as a comparison - Death from Alcohol is 1 in 779,759 (for a year) - put down that beer if you are worried about 1 in a million!

What is really rich is that "Fall involving bed, chair, other furniture" is roughly the same as dying from riding a bike. (347,076 to 1 for a year)

Okay everyone, strap that helmet on before you go to bed tonight!

billew

That's it I'm just going to crawl around on the floor from now on.

crtreedude 

Make sure to wear your helmet just in case!

crtreedude 

I can't believe it, I think I killed the thread! (do I get a Noble Peace prize for this?!)

SweetLou

Good to hear that news. I was joking about the bike helmet on a motorcycle. I don't wear either. Helmets are not required in Ohio. I was just thinking that when living in California, bike helmets were not DOT approved. I figure being hit by a car on my motorcycle or my bike would be about the same. Now, I have no proof, but I would think most people would say a bike helmet is not enough protection on a motorcycle. So, why would it be enough on a bike?

Six jours

The only time I've ever hit my head during a two-wheeled fall was on a motorcycle. I was surprised at how much more energy is involved in a motorcycle crash than a bicycle crash. I've never had a bicycle fall where I felt utterly out of control, even in some pretty fast and violent incidents. I've always had some say on how my limbs and head are articulated while falling from a bicycle, and have always managed to keep my head from bouncing.

Falling from my motorcycle, however, has been a ragdoll affair where I just end up laying on the ground, wondering how I got there, and wondering how hurt I am.

I personally choose to wear a motorcycle helmet on the motorcycle, as I believe they are large and strong enough to be somewhat effective. Other people choose not to, and that's fine by me. It's just not my business -- and I'm against motorcyle helmet laws like those in my home state of California.

I do believe, though, that serious and fatal head injuries would be reduced if cyclists wore motorsports helmets -- which is why I think the hardcore "Something is better than nothing" bicycle helmet advocates are full of it. If they were really serious about minimizing their risk of severe head trauma, they would wear motorcycle helmets. That's kind of ridiculous, of course, as motorcycle helmets would be hot, heavy, inconvenient, and silly-looking on a bicyclist's head. The sensible cyclist says "Yeah, if I were to fall, a motorcycle helmet would be better than a bicycle helmet, but during the 99.99999% of the time I'm on my bicycle and not falling, the motorcycle helmet would be an unnecessary encumbrance."

IOW, every cyclist on a bike is making an individual cost/benefit analysis and acting from there. It's just that some of them think the results of their personal cost/benefit analysis should be enforced upon everyone. The classic "I'm cold so everyone put on a sweater" paradigm.

tallard

Although I'm vehemently against the the illusion peddling cycling helmet, I believe you when you say you don't support "mandatory use" legislation, I'm also under the impression that there are indeed very few people pushing it to be mandatory, even in Canada. The REAL PROBLEM ARISES when the number of people buying into the illusion (ideologically, not in actions) passes midpoint in society. That's when "mothers against this and that" who are the main safety lobbyists on all sorts of issues rub their hands together for they know they have won. They've managed their objective to put the fear of god in enough people, that when the legislation part of their strategy comes along, all these helmet wearers who "say" they're against legislating of mandatory helmets don't actually "fight" for what they're "saying" and that's how society ends up with laws it doesn't deserve, because what people "say" and what they actually "fight for" are unfortunately two different things. When it comes time to fight this kind of legislation, only the very few stand up.

Reminds me of this little philosophical poetry:
First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Cheers

closetbiker

well, it may seem a little extreme but no more so than some of the attitude a number of people display about cyclists who question a helmets need or worth.

The disdain that some diplay towards others sure looks like nazi-ish, so it's no wonder they get that moniker.

People should keep things in perspective and realize a helmet-nazi approach is a minority one and the use of helmets has been shown to be debatable, so to insist that some should ask something of others, maybe it should be asked on the requests merits and not someones ideology

tallard

So I'm to understand by the paucity of your response that you have no quibbles with my helmet legislation content... only my poetic contribution?

Why thank you, that's such a compliment