Here are a few images John sent me...

...

Maybe she has a BIG insurance policy on you that you don't know about?

I never ride without a helmet. Not even a quick ride down my street after an adjustment to something on the bike.
I'd like to be around to ride again tomorrow. ;)

I rode both bicycles and motorcycles without a helmet for years. I then smarten up at about 32 and started wearing a helmet all the time when biking. About a year later I had my front wheel pop off (older Cannondale road bike) while crossing some railroad tracks at about 26 MPH. There was no way for me to react fast enough to put my hands down. I landed on my head and slid on the helmet and my left shoulder for a ways. I only had minor road rash and no injuries to my head. The helmet was worn right down to through the shell and into the foam. I am quite sure I would have been badly hurt without the helmet.

Like most arguments, it all comes down to the math:

wear helmet = smart

not wear helmet = not smart

Not very original Ron and no I don't have any life insurance. I doubt you can buy a life insurance policy on someone without their consent but I could be wrong.

interesting that insurance has come up.

since i'm both a biker (motorized) and a biker (pedaler), i figure i'm in an especially high-risk group, so i've taken out a substantial supplemental life insurance policy, should my wife and son need it. i assume all the helmet evangelists have done likewise? i mean it IS the responsible, intelligent thing to do, right?

right?

judge not lest you be judged, brothers ....

The real responsible, intelligent thing to do would be to get a sizeable disability insurance policy as well. Unfortunately, head injuries are not black (bash your head and it's over) and white (slight bash, no injuries). There is a vast gray area of head injury disability ranging from slight memory loss to vegetative state.
I hope wearing a helmet reduces my chances of injury of any kind.

Ah, so you wear a helmet to walk down the street and to climb a ladder.

Examining the math, to do otherwise would be stupid.

It appears to me that the helmet pictured above cracked.

Helmets are supposed to compress; I can't tell from the pics whether this one did.

With the negligible amount of tensile strength of helmets, no significant amount of energy is dissipated by it cracking.

Aside from this, the hyperbole which rolls in, while amusing to some degree, only reflects the ignorance of the subject on the part of the writer.

There is no doubt that helmets can help prevent or reduce certain injuries.

That they have 'life saving' cababilities is absurd.

Yes, this is the crux of the issue. Helmet zealotry has very little to do with helmets and everything to do with a character of smug self-righteousness on the part of the lecturer.

It seems like a waste of time to continue the debate, but unfortunately there are those who would choose to make a law for manditory helmet usage (only for bicycles). Presumably it will have the same startling statistical effects as it did in Australia and New Zealand (this is sarcasm). It also projects the image of cycling as a dangerous activity, an image readily encouraged by cyclists, some of whom purport to be cycling 'advocates'. Any incident involving a cyclist is clear to mention whether he was wearing a helmet, regardless of the circumstances.

It's asinine.

A quote from this article

http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/helmet.html

sums it up for me:

"And why, in allegedly liberty-loving America, where handguns are easily available, gun control is repeatedly defeated, universal healthcare is barely on the political radar, and Less Government is the motto of the day, is there such popular support for Big Brother helmet laws? It just don't seem Amurrican, nohow."

What is it the Europeans call it, the 'American Obsession'?

To answer a question above, the helmet pictured did compress over my right temple area about 1/3. The helmet also shattered. The second impact left me with a cut on my head which required three staples, located on the top, back area of my head. I've heard that helmets should not shatter like mine did; but I've also heard that helmets in hard crashes do shatter too. I don't know the answer to this, and would appreciate anyone else's insights here. I will try to get a photo put in here to show that aspect of my helmet more clearly.

To those who continue to harp (carp??) about us for saying it is smart to wear one, go ahead an not wear one. It is your choice. However, this is a forum, where opinions are aired, comments made and ideas discussed. The aim is to convince people of the need to change habits. If we were the ones who wanted to force everyone to wear helmets, not choose to do so, then we would not waste our time here. We'd be out circulating petitions to get laws on the books.

So, if you insist on not wearing a helmet, that's your choice. You can also ride the opposite way of traffic, or do any number of what safety professionals sometimes call "unsafe behaviors."

To those who feel that simply taking out insurance will fill the bill, realize that insurance simply "spreads the risk." Those of us who do not have insurance claims will pay for those who do. That's what this "pool" of money called insurance is all about. How is this pool of money developed? By insurance premiums, based upon risk.

The risk is determined by people called "underwriters," who look at the activities covered, and make a reasonable attempt to see how much money they will need in the future to cover the claims. As the claims costs raise, so to do the insurance premiums. So, in effect, you will be relying upon those who remain either without a claim, or who keep claims costs low with appropriate protective equipment, for you insurance rates.

Underwriters sometimes give rate breaks for those who use good safety practices (you see that all the time in car insurance). Maybe sometime this will happen for those of us who choose to wear helmets too.

John

as ive posted before it should be a matter of personal choice for adults, like smoking, we are all well awear of all the facts & make our choices according to our own priorities & preferences. may be for kids it should be encouridged:eek:

this same disscusion is happening in advocacy & safety!!!!:confused: :confused:

At the risk of inflaming the tone of the board, I have to agree here. That is, cycling w/out is a helmet is closely comparable to walking on a sidewalk near traffic without a helmet, riding in the back seat of car without a helmet, or backpacking without a helmet. Who here reacts with disgust seeing a backpacker on a steep trail without a helmet?

The hold that helmets have on the imagination of even many cyclists is weird. Cyclists are a freethinking lot, usually, particularly those who mix it up in traffic. Yet on this issue there's so much unthinking pro-helmet commentary it's puzzling.

"The aim is to convince people of the need to change habits. "

resistance ist futile, comerade. you vill vear your helmet. und you vill vear it NOW!

Speaking for myself here, I don't 'harp' on people who say wearing one is smart, since this would be difficult to disprove, but I do take exception to those who state absolutely that those who choose not to are 'idiots', 'organ donors',...ect and that insist that I should wear one, who of course are assuming that they have put more thought into my decision than I.

These invectives usually turn out to be offered by people who have a limited knowledge on the efficacy of helmets.

Currently, where I live it is a choice for adults, though this was nearly not the case 7 years ago. This does not mean that it will stay this way and helmet laws are quite easy to sell to the general public, especially as they are sold on mainly false premises to a public who sees bicycling as a children's activity and who just love to be spoon fed a quick fix.

However, that MHLs were implemented and studied in Australia and NZ will prove to be benefical for other jurisdictions considering these same laws. It was a key factor in the British Medical Association's decision to not endorse a law there.

Well, I guess this is where the fundamental disagreement is and helmets (bicycle only) just happens to be the battlefield as it were. I take 'change habits' to mean 'wear helmets' or '<insert single issue here>'.

I don't feel the need to save people from themselves. If I did, I would probably concern myself with issues such as smoking, overeating and driving where the resulting amount of illness and death is staggering. That those who behave as safety zealots choose not to do so makes me seriously question their motives and the logic of their approach.

I'm not sure who 'we' is here. These laws are pushed by a helmet lobby who has managed to brainwash a majority of the population that helmets save lives without actually going so far as to say so.

There is money to be made here.

There is no money to be made by pointing out the drawbacks of helmets, except by the cycling cap industry (if it's still around).

Well thanks for a backhanded pat on the back.

Perhaps it is just cynicism but to me, in practice it seems that the term 'Safety Professional' in the context of bicycles simply means helmet promoter. I see a fair number of 'tipped back' helmets being worn by safety concious families who are deathly afraid of riding on the road. That a far, far greater number of injuries and deaths would be prevented by addressing where people (especially children) ride, how they ride and specifically having them use lights at night seems to be lost on those who have an insatiable need to lecture others on safety, but then I have come to realize that it is not a logical compulsion but an emotional one, hence the endlessness of these debates.

From what I have seen both on and off the internet, the current strategy by a majority of cyclists and non-cyclists alike is to project bicycling as a dangerous activity and to treat a helmet as a cure-all and the usage/nonusage of one as a judgement of intelligence or character.

I want no part of that, sorry.

Bikerider says:

I can see where you may have this opinion, but it is not the case. I am a Board Certified Safety Professional (CSP), certified in Comprehensive Practices. When I spoke of some safety professionals speaking of "unsafe behaviors," I was referring to one of the first safety theories from Dr. Henry Heinrick called the "Domino Theory" of accident causation. It basically said that an accident was like a set of dominos, which began hitting each other, one after the other. Dr. Heinrick basically divided the causes of accidents into two groups, "unsafe conditions" and "unsafe acts," or now "unsafe behaviors." His study found that about 80% of the accidents he investigated could be attributed to "unsafe acts." Recent behavioral theories state the figure is closer to 100%.

Other theories exist, and to some extent discredit the Domino Theory. These include Dan Peterson's Theory of Multiple Causation, and Dr. David DeJoy's Human Factors Theory of Accident Causation.

How do these tie into the present discussion? Well, bicycling without a helmet is the same as a logger in the woods without a hard hat, or a timber faller without ballistic chaps to protect against chain saw cuts, or someone grinding a metal tool without safety glasses. In each case, personal protective equipment is protecting a part of the body from a known hazard. The safety glasses protect the person's eyes. The chaps protect the timber faller's legs from being cut (cut off?) by a chain saw. The hard hat protects from overhead hazards (limbs falling from trees, flying debries, etc.).

So when I discussed bicycling helmets, I was talking about a piece of personal protective equipment (PPE) meant to protect the head, the person's brain, from massive injury potentials that always exist when falling from height. Face it, when riding a bicycle (except recumbants), if you fall you are falling from height. The surface you are falling upon is not soft (usually either pavement or concrete).

The head is suddenly stopped by a hit on a hard surface, but the brain doesn't stop. It abides by Newton, and continues forward motion until it hits the skull in a hard hit. This can lead to the brain, which is the consistency of well-set Jell-O, to be injured. The injury can be very minor, in which case the person "sees stars" or may be simply knocked out. Or it can be much more devastating. There are several types of brain injuries, which include terms like concussion, contusion, brain laceration, and subdural hemorrhage. The latter three can be life-threatening.

I have investigated many fatal industrial accidents, including falls. One was a fall from three feet of height onto a concrete floor. The worker had a hard hat on, but it did not fit well (your comments on fit are well founded) and came off in the air. This was a fatal accident with no forward momentum except the falling motion.

Think of the momentum onto a solid surface, or worse a curb, at twenty mph. The forces can, and probably have, been calculated. That little form-fitted piece of styrofoam we call a helmet is designed to take that impact, and reduce the momentum of the brain inside the skull so that the impact is within the tolerance of the tissues.

Helmets can, and do, save lives. Mine is one of them.

John

somehow this thread has wandered off point.

i don't think anyone is disputing the fact that helmets will help protect your head in a fall. they will reduce (but not eliminate) the risk of serious injury. to me, this point is not in dispute.

what IS in dispute is the notion the people who choose to ride without a helmet are somehow stupid or ill informed. that their habits need to be modified. i take exception to this, and only this.

I have heard this from other than bicyclists.

So what do we say to those employees who insist on not wearing their eye protection when working with Class 4 lasers? "Don't look into the beam with your one good eye!"

What should we say to someone who insists on not wearing respiratory protection in an environment with fine particals (asbestos, silica, etc.) and vapors that are hazardous to the lungs (NYC Fireman)? I don't have a good answer here, because I don't want to tell these national heros that they were jeopardizing their future; however many are finding this a reality.

What do I tell a timber faller's wife when her husband has nearly cut off his leg for want of chaps and bled to death for want of a radio, or another two wives whose husbands were lost while staying uphill of a wildfire trying to move expensive logging equipment? We don't use words like stupid here, as they only hurt. But the people are still dead, and all we have to show was two melted aluminum hard hats.

What do we say to bicyclists who refuse to wear a helmet? If we say it is stupidly, we loose them. If we say they are uninformed, then we get similar resistance. Should we simply let them learn their own lessons; this would be okay, as long as there were no other people involved. But others are always involved. They include family (wives, husbands, children), friends and family, coworkers and society itself. Have you thought of what the EMT/Paramedics would say when they go to pick you up?

And what do you suggest we say at a funeral? Do we eulogize the individual's spirit of adventure, courage, guts, etc.? This is what happened during the funeral for a scout who died in a skiing accident. The troop continued skiing very difficult conditions, conditions I didn't even think they would travel under, much less ski under (we stayed home; I was assistant scoutmaster and thought the event was canceled, as even driving to the site (some 200 miles over a mountain range) was itself hazardous). The scout was skiing alone, did a face plant in deep snow where he could not move, and suffocated. He was found dead over an hour after he was missed by his fellow scouts. I attended the funeral, and the way it was handled made me sick, as the scouts should not have been there in the first place.

I am on record elsewhere on this forum that helmets are not the end-all; they are the last line of defense, as is all personal protective equipment. But, without them, a nasty accident can become a tragedy. A safety professional, member of the American Society of Safety Engineers in Eugene, Oregon, died while bicycling this summer without a helmet when he hit a fence going down a hill.

I have my life experiences to share, and choose to do so in this forum. Perhaps I have lived longer, and seen more, than some of you. Please take heed.

John

what do we say? "adios."

is it possible to die on a public freeway inside a car, wearing a seatbelt? happens all the time. "adios."

is it possible to be killed sitting on a park bench in the Washington D.C. area? tragically, yes. "adios."

is it possible for YOU to die on a bicycle despite wearing a helmet and riding safely? of course it is. "adios."

and what will people say at your funeral, should that happen? will they say you were an idiot in tights who insisted on taking chances by riding a bicycle instead of driving a car "like the rest of us?" or will they say "his was a life well lived, he took some risks, and it bit him in the end."

it's not up to you, me, or the guv'ment to decide how much risk is too much. it's up to the individual. no amount of handwringing will change that simple, basic fact.

I feel naked without a helmet.

I had a motorcycle wreck about 5 years ago when I wasn't wearing a helmet. on dirt... on a little bike. I was going ~20mph at the FASTEST. Considering I easily hit 45mph on pavement while cycling this is nothing. I lost a weeks worth of memory, ended up in ICU in serious condition, 3 days in the hospital. $14000 worth of medical bills.

How small of an investment is a helmet compaired to $14k or more?

How much is your life worth?

I notice that, despite your mention of them, Heinrick's "theory of accidents" and your safety certification don't play any important role in your remarks. The substantive claim you make is that cycling without a helmet is comparable to chain sawing without chaps, breathing asbestos without a mask, or skiing in remote areas alone. In other words, it's taking an excessive risk.

Well, that's exactly what is at issue, isn't it? And what have you said to convince us that cycling helmetless really is as dangerous as you suggest? Loggers' funerals and workers compensation reports aren't any help, unless you're already assuming what it is you're trying to show.

One might as well write a post in which cycling without a helmet is compared not to being trapped in a forest fire(!), but to walking on a sidewalk without a helmet. Is that an excessive risk? Should one consider what one's eulogy will be like if one walks near traffic bare-headed? Should we post to the jogging forums, wondering how we can get runners to don helmets without calling them stupid?

What about riding in cars without helmets? Is that cause for reflecting on one's life, one's loved ones who will be left behind?

Well-meaning reflections on dangerous occupations aren't to the point when we're considering the very small risk of serious head injury or death while cycling. What evidence there is doesn't show anything like the important benefits of cycling helmets that would justify their comparison to radios in forest fires.

Again, this disdain for helmetless riders, and the feeling of pride that comes from lecturing about cycling helmets, is just weird. Why does it happen? It happens in no other gear discussions, even the lighting discussions. But in terms of expected benefits, we ought to be nagging everyone on the forum instead about wearing a reflective vest in addition to their rear reflector and blinky. We ought to talk about the funerals we can expect if they don't heed our advice. But no one adopts such a heavy handed tone on these other topics. Why here?

I feel that I can weigh in on this with a recent (one hour ago) personal experience of mine. I was riding through a parking lot on campus, hit a patch of gravel, and went down hard. What I remember most was the force of the side of my head hitting pavement. The helmet is probably toast, the side is scraped very badly, but at least it wasnt my head. No one should be forced to wear a helmet, but lets not deny the fact that helmets do save lives, or at least that they save the wearer from getting more serious injuries.

If you are dumb enough not to wear a helmet, be my guest. I'm glad the gene pool will be cleared up. This doesn't apply to no-helmet wearing parents. You will burn in hell for not being a good parent.

bumba, bumba, bumba ....

Not to pick on you, but this is a very common sentiment. It would be difficult to prove in a given individual but it seems that cyclists are more wiling to be aggressive if they have a helmet on (a known effect elsewhere) and if they were to be caught without it for some reason they would ride overcautiously until they were safely off the bike.

It is one possible explanation for a statistical trend reported here:

http://www.topica.com/lists/massbike...t=d&start=4140

From what I have read, they have not had the overwhelming positive effects that were projected in NZ or Australia either.

I submit that putting helmets on inexperienced riders heads by telling them 'a helmet saved my life' (or 'my friend's life', etc) encourages them to take more risks while cycling. Yesterday while at a bike shop I noticed that Bell bicycle helmets still come in a box with the slogan 'Courage for your head'.

That this projection might actually contribute to more injuries or deaths seems to escape the grasp of many (bicycle only) helmet zealots, but given their general ignorance on the subject, this is hardly surprising.

To quote from the article above, "You would be well advised to wear a helmet provided you could persuade yourself it is of little use". Or, to go from the specific to the general, know the limits of your safety equipment; start by understanding how they work.

It's not my desire to preach it, but I do believe it.

How telling.

Not me, that's for sure. Like several others who responded, I always wear my helmet every time I'm out on my bike. Even if I'm just going a few yards down the street to check that an adjustment I've made on the bike is working correctly. Since they are MY kids I make my kids wear their helmets as well. However, if I see someone riding without a helmet I don't say anything to them. I may think they are foolish and taking unneccsary risks, but --- hey --- that's their business, not mine.

You haven't hit your head, so maybe you've just been lucky. This year alone I know of two instances where, IMO, wearing a helmet saved the individuals involved from serious head injury. In one case, the helmet was merely dented. In the other, the helmet shattered during impact. That's just not a risk I'm willing to take for myself and people who are dear to me.

Just my $.02

Snell, who has the highest standard, shows their drop test with a 5 kg headform against a flat anvil to be from a height of 2.2 metres, with the stipulation that 'the peak acceleration of the headform shall not exceed 300 G's for any valid test impact'. Doing some calculations, a drop from this height would work out to be a final velocity of 14.7 MPH. I usually see the number 14 MPH used in the countless helmet wars (where the numbers get brought out) so I am fairly confident in that figure.

More to the point, Snell also does a similar test with what they call a kerbstone anvil with a drop from 1.3 metres. I work this out to be a Vf of 11.3 MPH.

The standard can be found here: http://www.smf.org/standards/b95std.html