Now we need a hockey goalie mask for the dangers of airbag deployment. That would make much more sense.

Ok, here is a pic of my newest helmet.....

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...2B99F804D2.jpg[/IMG]

Yah, about what I suspected. Myself I only started using a helmet when I moved to Oregon and joined a bike club. To participate in their group rides a helmet is mandatory. At the ripe age of 50 I bought my first helmet ever. I've been riding since age 12. Hardcore between 16 and 24. Did not ride for about 10 years but commuted daily in NYC from age 35 to 50 when I left NYC. Without a helmet! I have the same helmet I bought eight years ago. I've had 3 major tumbles in that time due to darkness, storm drains or other road surface issues. My helmet has never been so much as scratched. For most rides over a mile I usually wear a helmet these days. It is a handy place to mount lights and mirrors. Drivers treat you (slightly) better. But you will never see me start a thread on BF to the effect of: "a helmet saved my life today!" because I honestly can't say that. YMMV.

And if had saved your life, why was it in danger in the first place? I'm sure in the right circumstances a helmet can save an individual life, but how much lives are endangered by widespread use of helmets?

It would be nonsense to compare cycling in America with cycling in the Netherlands or Denmark and blame helmets for the American death toll, because there are too much big differences and a lot of things will have more influence on safety than helmets, positive or negative. But the strange thing is that in comparison cycling in the Netherlands is safer than in Denmark.

Both countries have great cycling infrastructure, both have safety in numbers, both have cycling from a very young age and as means of transport. In both countries people eat, drink, smoke, phone, text, and carry stuff in their hands while riding, and both ride upright. The only differences I can think of is that the Danes have newer and better maintained bikes, they ride less often drunk and probably less drunk, they are more civilized (including the motorists), more law abiding and less anarchistic road users, Danes even signal when they're about to stop. So you'd expect cycling in Denmark to be significantly safer in Denmark. But it isn't, it's worse. Oh Yes, 40% of the Danes wears a Helmet. So apperantly, there's something about helmets that makes cycling less safe.

Uh, this is important. In *fact*, getting struck by a car at ~20 mph ~30 km/h you will *NOT* "likely die." Helmet or no helmet. Most of the studies on the effect of impact speed on vulnerable road users are studies on pedestrians.

See Rosén & Sander 2009, Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed - also see their presentation about the paper.

At 30 km/h over 97% of pedestrians survive. The cross over for the speed where you will "likely die" is around ~70 km/h to ~90 km/h (~45 mph to ~55 mph). (Nota bene - there is a risk to being an older pedestrian too. The cross over for the speed where older pedestrians will "likely die" if hit by a car is just below ~50 km/h or ~30 mph. The good news, older pedestrians fare almost as well as the general population at lower impact speeds.)

THIS IS WHY THERE IS THE MOVE TO SLOW MOTOR TRAFFIC IN AREAS OF HIGH PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLING to 20 mph / 30 km/h. (And which is why in Nirvana (København and Amsterdam) these are the speeds where people on bicycles mix with people driving cars.)

So now that you know that you got the facts wrong about motor vehicle speed, would that change your opinion on what is insane?

-mr. bill

I wear an automotive sport helmet. As does Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

-mr. bill

Found another good reason to wear a helmet when I scuffed by cowboy hat last week. I could buy three WalMart Bell helmets for what that hat cost.

I saw that in a TED Talk on Youtube. I learned that the bicycle helmet was a political move by the automobile industry to give the impression that riding a bicycle was inherently dangerous. Bike helmets were never a requirement until the automobile came along. And can you imagine the impact on the auto industry early on if it were legislated to wear a motoring helmet? Just legislating the seat belt was a big step in itself.

In Europe where the driving is different, cyclists don't need helmets. We need them in North America because the driving here is so bad. And even then, the bike helmet may be designed suitable for a pedestrian.

No, because you essentially said exactly what I said, albeit with far more effort expended...

And you selected the most valuable part of the talk too!

What TEDx talk were you watching where you "learned" that? Even Colville-Anderson, with all his wonderful propaganda, didn't go there. You certainly can't get it from his single sentence on the matter. "What I did discover was that the automobile industry is one of the main promoters of bicycle helmets."


Anyhow, the bicycle came from the dangers of the bicycle. Well before the automobile. (Translating, the "Safety Bicycle" or Diamond Frame bicycle came from the dangers of the Penny-farthing or High-wheeler bicycle.)

And yet, today automobiles have required collapsible steering columns, required padded surfaces, required lap belts, required lap/shoulder belts, required head restraints, required front driver and passenger airbags, required child-seat anchors, required....

That's not even COUNTING the passive safety equipment MARKETED by automobile manufacturers such as side torso airbags and side curtain airbags and knee/leg airbags, *PEDESTRIAN* airbags....

And that's not even COUNTING the other safety equipment MARKETED by automobile manufactures such as anti-lock brakes, active braking systems, traction control and stability control, lane departure warning, "Tesla Autopilot."

So the very premise that automakers won't talk about safety because that would be bad for automakers is clearly *NOT* true, let alone that they talk about how dangerous bicycles are because that would be good for automarkers.

On the face of it, the claims are laughable. Well, the E in TED does stand for Entertainment.

• UK
• DE
• FR
• IT
• Need I go on?

You might want to drive or ride in "Europe." Lots of *somebodies* are buying (and wearing) all these helmets certified for EN 1078. Yes you can see lots of people on bicycles not wearing bicycle helmets "in Europe". But you can also see lots of people on bicycles wearing bicycle helmets "in Europe." (Just like in the US.)

-mr. bill

If "thought" is "effort" than I agree I used more of it.

That you think that I said exactly what you said indicates to me the level of your effort.

-mr. bill

Not always in the same country though. In the Netherlands, which is has the most cyclists, you won't see helmets in traffic. The odd sports cyclist on his way to the woods where he plans to hit a tree, a foreign student just after arrival, an American tourist, people cycling to a space themed fancy dress party, but not a commuter or a shopper. It's not just like in Europe, in some countries in Europe it's like the USA, in others it's a different world. Comparing Europe to America does not do justice to the unity of the USA, to put it nicely.

None of the above, outside of seat belts, actually requires the driver to do anything different or be any more restrained. And that's the beauty of marketing them. They're easy to sell a consumer because the consumer need not do anything and it's hard to justify not gaining some modicum of safety by doing nothing.

A helmet is an entirely different story. Not only does the driver need to actually do something else, they need to remember to bring it with them (can't leave it in the car or else the heat could damage it), they need to remember to put it on, they need to accept how they look in it, they need to accept that they'll be less comfortable with it on, etc. You can't even compare trying to sell a consumer a feature that they need to know nothing about and do nothing to garner the benefit from to trying to sell them a helmet.

What is the threshold for risk reduction for an activity at which helmets are recommended?

I asked this a few weeks ago and was told this has been posted here many times. I searched and came up empty. I've been following helmet science since they were first introduced and do not recall this info being discussed before.

Can someone give a backlink or other?

Someone also mentioned that this is about bike helmets not other sports, but that's insane. Helmet safety and human activity are a seamless continuum: approaches to one area would be mirrored and evaluated in light of other areas. Safety interest isn't segregated.

Helmets to go with ice skate rentals would see to be a case of huge injury rate reduction: head clonk is very common in rink skating and of a scenario and kinetic energy level where a helmet would deliver perhaps 100% benefits: nearly the ideal scenario for helmet protection. So why hasn't it happened?

Then there's the idea of injury reduction no matter the %. Certainly car driver helmets would save billions$ regardless of the % stat. Same with walker, runner, and shower use. Perhaps thresholds are not applied. If it saves one child it's worth it...right?

Anyway, at what injury rate / risk point / benefit ratio are helmets typically suggested for an activity? How does cycling fit in? Right on par? Handled like other activities? (We've seen helmets adopted widely in alpine skiing and in whitewater kayaking. Rafting? Nordic skiing?)

Recommendation for helmet use are different depending on the perspective of the recommender. For some, if there is any possibility of a life saved or incapacitation avoided, it helmet is recommended. For others, there is a factoring of the potential of injury saved. The reason that other sports are not directly applicable to bicycling is that not only do risk profiles vary, but the perception of risk varies by a huge amount as pointed out by WPHamilton. In other word, you are trying to apply rationality to an inherently irrational topic. Furthermore, there is no overall amount of risk reduction that would result in the recommendation of helmet use across differing activities. Nor is there any organization that would take on such a mission.

Do you think there could possibly be any consensus between Bike makers, cyclists, downhill skiers, kayakers and brain surgeons on how much risk reduction is needed to foster a recommendation?

it seems like they have been working in concert so far with biking, downhill skiing, climbing, roller skating, and whitewater kayaking. ...probably lots of crossover with motosports as well.

...altho in biking millions of the world's most regular cyclists are escaping the scenario and at this point only two fringe scenes are adopting: racing, and a technocratic-oriented demographic in the USA.

Who is "they" thats working in concert? There certainly is no consensus on how much risk is acceptable, and at what level it should be mitigated.

Helmet makers? Helmet safety label org? Or is it really catch as catch can? Maybe nobody has thought to bring ice rink rentals into the picture?

Anyway, someone replied to me a few wks ago that risk thresholds were old news, posted here many times, and so didn't answer me. Can anyone provide a backlink?

Biking is presently booming as a "big tent" activity with many facets in the USA. Casual citybike social riding is a huge new aspect. Yet some of the sub-groups are very segregated and at least one sub-group is behaving badly to some others. This needs to stop.

What I still see/hear constantly is performance/lycra riders who do no other type of cycling YELLING at or otherwise trying to DICTATE to ALL other riders with "Where's your helmet?!" They simply see someone toodling along on a three-speed with a grocery basket and they SCREAM at them. Then they tell me things like "I won't ride with anyone who doesn't have a helmet." Well, they don't have to worry about that because they only do one kind of riding: fast group drafting. That kind of rider is in the 90+% helmet use category already. But these riders SEE other KINDS of riders and SCREAM at them. They don't get it that biking has variety. This kind of person as a rule does NOT do short, casual riding.

I was on a training group ride last night with a guy who screamed at a passing lady casual biker. I was shocked. He was worked up. He crashed last spring while sprinting widly at 33mph! He is a sloppy rider who kind of knows that he is at risk. But he could not recognize that this lady riding at 10mph was doing a whole different kind of biking and didn't need to use hardly any of his safety protocols (most of which he doesn't use, which is why he crashes).

Casual city bikers globally by the millions do not wear helmets. Maybe 5% do. If our fast/lycra rider ever found themselves in a city in another country, would they just spend their whole day screaming at helmetless bikers?

Here in the USA people are just rediscovering the casual fun of biking. They do not ever need anyone to scream at them. Not abuse from a car-driver. And not abuse from a fast lycra biker. (Sure, if they're present danger, holler at them "look out!" But helmet use is theoretical: "someday you might be glad," etc.)

Now, I also see the attempt to dictate to others coming from bike commuters to casual bikers. All of it, to me, comes from misguided do-gooder notions. They've given themselves permission to be rude and hostile for the other person's "own good." Bizarre.

I would suggest that if someone has biked casually in the urban areas of other nations -- even those with wild traffic conditions -- that when they come back to the USA that they do not scream at their fellow bikers or threaten to ostracize them, etc. I think the screaming comes from ignorance and strange "I give myself license to be rude" and from misapplied anecdotalism ("this happened to me so i can be rude to you"). ...And they've seen others do it.

Lastly, I see the rudeness coming from ignorant non-riders. A non-rider will see someone toodling along and say "where's your helmet?" as an expression of knowledge posing as a bizarre anti-greeting. "Um, have a nice day, yourself!"

I suppose the general culture has somehow modeled to them that this is OK for biking. It's not done otherwise.

Agree, but there's also something awkwardly simular about the story of passive car safety. Until the 70's cars had all kinds of interior fittings that could have been designed to do maximum damage to the human body in case of strong decceleration. Steering wheels couldn't be made softer or mirrors have less sharp edges, because a customer might notice the purpuse of that, and the idea was that cars shouldn't be associated with danger at all, because it would hurt sales. Only after the car had conquered the whole world, passive safety became a selling point.

Now from all sides there's pointed to the dangers of cycling by promoting the helmet, with probably the same effect on enthousiasm for cycling. Contrary to active safety devices like good brakes and handling, the message is 'probably something bad will happen to you and there's nothing you could have done about it'. And not everybody who is promoting the helmet does that with good intentions towards cycling and cyclists, a car driver shouting that you should wear a helmet is probably not genuinely concerned about your safety. He's claiming the road for contraptions that can bump into eachother without serious injury, he's claiming his right to be careless without serious consequences, based on a false notion that a helmet is an easy fix for all dangers. That's extremely selfish.

That would be funny I an American would do that where I live. The helmet might prove very useful when he gets hit on the head by a granny on a bike.

If you do sports in a public space you should be careful with communicating with others anyway. You have your hart pumping, you're heated, you're going fast, you have adrenaline, you're in a different stat of mind anyway. That's not the state of mind to be in if you want to be reasonable, judge other people's behaviour and communicate with them effectively. I'm much ruder, more impatient, more hot tempered and louder during sports also, nothing wrong with that, but you have to keep in mind that not everyone is doing sports at that moment. And the message itself.... well I would respect a different opinion on my personal choice which doesn't hurt another human more if it was at least well thought through.

In the Netherlands, you have fietser or wielrenner. Fietsters are more *unlikely* (honestly, almost completely unlikely) to wear a helmet. Wielrenners are more *likely* to wear a helmet.

The US is not monolithic either. Greater Boston isn't even monolithic.

What we wear while riding a bicycle often changes, even the same person on the same bicycle or the same person on different bicycles.

BTW, one of the helmets Bekka appears to be wearing is a Yakkay Helmet, which is from Copenhagen. Of course, not many people on bicycles wear helmets in Copenhagen, but a few do - even *gasp* locals who aren't dodging trees. From one informal poll at an intersection near the Dronning Louises Bro(OR)*, 1/5 people were wearing helmets. Which in some cities in the US would be about the same ratio.

-mr. bill

*original research - literally counted heads in the picture attached to the wiki article.

For example, a subgroup of one who makes broad generalizations about other people on bicycles?

I think the stereotype you are attempting to spread are called "Lycra Louts" in the UK.

My advice to you is if you don't like riding with louts, don't ride with louts. No matter what they are wearing.

-mr. bill

"Now"? As in not yesterday, not last year? Not last decade? What are you talking about?

What "attempt"?

IMO, just so much baseless ranting, based on what you see, or wish to see.

The reports of thousands of helmet clad people terrorizing millions of people on bicycles are greatly exaggerated.

BTW, in Frankfurt, lots of adults wear helmets, lots of adults don't, about 50/50. In one informal survey(OR)*, one out of four tourists wore a helmet while bicycling.

-mr. bill

*original research, four tourists, one of whom wore a helmet.

Oh dear, there was so much lycra bashing in the rant, I missed the commuter bashing too.

-mr. bill