FarHorizon

Your arguement cuts to the core of what cyclintom wants to discuss: Because something is a good idea, does society have the right to make it mandatory?

Obviously, society does make some "good ideas" mandatory. Seat belt use in automobiles is mandatory in most states, as is helmet use for mototcyclists in most.

The question is, where should that authority end? Should we outlaw skateboarding, snowboarding, scuba diving, and sky diving because they are risky? At what point does a free society's responsibility for the ultimate medical welfare of its citizens outweigh the citizens' right to make personal choices?

These are questions that won't be solved on an internet forum. We can weigh in with our opinions and justifications of comparative risk (as cyclintom does), but in the end, the citizens as a group define what is acceptable and what is not.

One problem with that concept is that the average citizen has a poor understanding of what risk is. The average citizen, consequentally, has a poor concept of acceptable vs. unacceptable risk. Until education can replace superstition, we'll have to live with a series of bad (or at least questionable) decisions from our society.

Dchiefransom

They do.

cyclintom

I do find your posting interesting and I have a few questions:

1) How often do you suppose people are killed by golf balls?

2) How often are people killed falling off of their bikes?

3) Why is it that you propose that the golf course and/or the specific golfer didn't bear responsibility for your injuries and assign them instead to yourself and then onto anyone that happens to ride a bicycle?

4) How many bicyclists do you think are wards of the state after their head injuries?

It would appear from your postings that you believe that people bear no responsibility for their own actions and that the state has the responsibility to provide every protection possible for its citizenry.

Are you also for laws mandating the wearing of four point seat belts and crash helmets in automobiles?

FarHorizon

Cyclintom, you've drawn exactly the opposite conclusion from what the poster clearly said! The poster you responded to said that those who choose to take risk should be responsible for the consequences of their own choices!. How you got to "no responsibility" from that, I'll never know.

You also seem compelled to throw into your posts a plethora of irrelavant-to-the-point-of-being-non-sequitur information about pursuits other than bicycle riding. Your contention seems to be that because these other activities carry more risk than bicycling, either the other activities should be more regulated or that bicycling should be less. These arguments are spurious. Bicycling is a thing in itself (and the sole topic of these forums). Please confine your posts to the topic at hand (bicycling).

DnvrFox

Again, helmet "wars" lead only to hard feeling, never change anyone's mind, and should be banned from all forums.

I must have read 30 "helmet/no helmet/forced helmet/optional helmet" types of threads over the years.

No one, repeat, no one ever changed their mind or their thinking as a result of the discussion - at least that they admitted to in the threads.

FarHorizon

Agreed. I resign from this thread.

Velo Dog

I haven't seen anything that indicates helmets would be of much value for a driver who's properly belted in, particularly in a car with air bags. At low speeds you're already adequately protected by the car and its "crush space," and high speed crashes are rare enough and the impact severe enough that a bike helmet, while it certainly would save some lives, would be worth the hassle.
Plus people just won't DO it. They won't even fasten seat belts or learn to drive, beyond just aiming the car between the lines most of the time. If they didn't take innocent victims with them so often, I could argue that we'd be interfering with natural selection.

Trsnrtr

I'll bet you've read more than that; I know I have!

Digital Gee

As a result of this thread, I am thoroughly convinced.

DnvrFox

Yes, probably

Typical scenario:

Person(s) A has a previously formed opinion about the value or lack of value or required or not required use of helmets, and then goes searching valiantly through the internet and whatever to find every single argument, "fact" or "statistic" in favor of or supposedly supporting his/her position.

Person(s) B - has the opposite viewpoint and also goes searching everywhere for any argument, "facts" or "statistics" that supposedly support Person B's thesis.

Then, eventually, after deriding each other's fact sources and arguments it gets into some sort of disguised name calling and then degenerates further and further, until it becomes personal.

In the meantime, nothing is gained except, perhaps, using some previously unused bandwidth on the internet!

But, I will have to admit, this is the first helmet thread I've read where golf balls were cited as an argument! That's a new one.

DnvrFox

For once I agree with someone on a helmet thread!

cyclintom

Maybe you missed it but the exact quote is: "AS long as they have the financial means to pay for a lifetime of care with a seriously disabling head injury , I dont care if they ride naked!"

I interpret that as saying that UNLESS people have such money in their possession they should refrain from riding a bicycle without a helmet. Are you disagreeing with that reading? If so, why?

I mean, entirely aside from the fact that he stated that he was almost killed by a golf ball, he believes that he as a rider was responsible for the non-injury and that neither the golfer nor the golf course had any responsibility at all.

https://emj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/19/6/576 It looks like 6 GB children suffered head injuries from golf balls and apparently they were only lacerations. However Chuck5.2_in_CA believes that his helmet saved his life from that golf ball that attacked him on his bike. Moreover, the resulting FALL from his apparent surprise at being accosted by a vicious head non-injury apparently would have been fatal as well


And you seem to want to avoid pointing out that bicycling is so safe that you can expect to ride many millions of miles before having even a 50% chance of a serious head injury? I wonder why that idea is so provocative to you?

Why would bicycling be somehow so dangerous that a person engaging in it be considered stupid and irresponsible for riding without body armor, but pedestrians who stand a much higher chance of suffering serious or fatal head injuries be somehow exempt from the same theory? When studies have stated that safety helmets providing no more protection than a bicycle crash helmet could save up to 15,000 lives per year in automobiles why do you suggest that the statistically irrelevant bicycle helmet is somehow MORE relevant?

Please explain to me why you believe that individuals are subservient to the state and responsible for avoiding expenses to that state, to which they pay a large part of their income to support? Are you suggesting that somehow the 50% of my income which the state has taken from me for almost 40 years gives me no right to be injured?

Oh, wait, maybe you and Chuck5.2_in_CA believe that somehow it is YOUR taxes and not mine which would pay for me? Do you believe that a person who purchases insurance from the same company as you and then legitimately collects on it is stealing money from you?

I'm afraid that it is you who are mixing subjects here. This is not a socialist state and your taxes do not pay my way, mine pay my own way. Bicycle helmets are statistically irrelevant at preventing serious or fatal injuries and people who promote the use of helmets are being illogical and silly unless they're equally anxious to put them on the heads of pedestrians and auto occupants where they would have AT LEAST as much effectiveness.

cyclintom

OK, then here's proving you wrong. I was the safety director of the American Federation of Motorcyclists, a motorcycle road racing organization in the late 60's and early 70's.

I thoroughly believed the literature from Bell Helmets but since it was my position, I actually went out and studied the subject of safety helmets. What I discovered shocked and dismayed me. (Let's remember the words of Dr. Shively, the director of the Snell Memorial Foundation and one of the world's foremost experts on safety helmets, "... it is impossible to build a helmet that will offer significant impact protection")

I spoke to Dr. Shively himself on a couple of occasions and he was an honorable man and one who had no ego tied up in someone else's commercial business ventures. He was interested in safety first and foremost and he would let the chips fly where they would in the interests of safety.

Motorcycle crash helmets were being promoted as completely effective. So effective were they that Bell Helmets were advised by their legal staff that it was only a matter of time before someone's family sued them out of business because motorcycle deaths were so common and helmets offered essentially no protection.

Bell had no other business and asked if bicycle helmets (incidently a much larger business in the long run) would be a safer legal option. They were advised that bicycle accidents were rare and serious bicycle accidents generally involved motor vehicles which normally carry insurance, so it was a far safer bet.

I stopped riding and racing motorcycles in the mid-70's and forgot about helmets. When I started riding bicycles in the late-80's I assumed that although helmets were ineffective for motorcycles that they'd be OK on bicycles.

But being an engineer I actually looked into it. And was again shocked and dismayed at what I found.

And here is the gist of it - a crash helmet was designed to absorb the relatively mild impacts of a racing car driver's head striking the inside of his vehicle while wearing a four point harness and racing on a track. These accidents are generally single vehicle accidents without collision with a solid and fixed object.

EVERY OTHER use of a helmet is ineffective for anything other than very mild loadings. For instance, a fall from your bicycle seat to the road below while stopped - and striking in a manner in which your hands or shoulders or other body part doesn't absorb part of the energy in that fall - can kill you.

This is a feature of the 10% of serious or fatal accidents that do not involve motor vehicles. A rider falls off of his bike and strikes his head on the curb or goes over the bars head first or in any other manner in which the helmet is required to absorb MORE than the 11 lbs falling less than 7 feet of the Snell B-95 standard.

From the Snell B-95 Standard:

E4.3 Test Impacts

Each sample will be subjected to no more than four test impacts. Test impact sites shall be on or above the test line. Rivets, vents and any other helmet feature within this region shall be valid test sites. Similarly, no allowance shall be made for the cut of the helmet either between the fore and rear planes or at the rear centerline; no matter how closely the edge of the helmet encroaches on the test line. However, if a test impact is sited closer than 120 mm to any previous test impact site on that sample, that impact shall be declared invalid.

There is no restriction regarding test anvil selection except that each anvil shall be used at least once for each helmet sample tested. The impact energies for each test impact are as follows:

a. For each impact against the flat anvil, the impact energy shall be 110 J for certification testing and 100 J for all other testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 2.2+ meter drop of a 5 kg headform and supporting assembly.

b. For each impact against the hemispherical anvil, the impact energy shall be 72 J for certification testing and 65 J for all other testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 1.3+ meter drop of a 5 kg headform and supporting assembly.

c. For each impact against the kerbstone anvil, the impact energy shall be 72 J for certification testing and 65 J for all other testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 1.3+ meter drop of a 5 kg headform and supporting assembly.

d. If the impact energy for any test impact exceeds the energy specified by more than 3%, that impact shall be declared invalid.

Let's put this in normal everyday terms - if you fall and your head falls 4'3" (the height of a man quite bent over on a bicycle) and your head hits a curb AFTER your shoulder so that the weight of your body doesn't add to the mass of the head strike you have maxed out the protection capacity of your helmet.

If you go over the bars and land squarely on your head the helmet is essentially worthless. If you fall sideways sitting up and you turn so that your head strikes first thereby adding the mass of your neck and body to the blow you are sunk.

The fact is that under MOST conditions in which a helmet would be expected to offer some service it simply is so inadequate that promoting helmet use is contrary to common sense since it leads people to falsely assume that helmets are more effective that they truely are and causes a form of risk compensation that actually increases many people's chances of injury or death.

How many people have you seen over the years that claimed that a helmet saved their lives? This despite the fact that there are the same numbers of deaths and injuries each year? Are we to assume that all of a sudden the possible deaths and injuries took a sharp increase that was mitigated ONLY because Bell Sports magically began making helmets at the same time this increase in danger began?

The fact is that most people do not strike their heads squarely. The human reaction system is designed to protect the head and face and in most cases works. You put out your hands or turn your boy in mid-air or whatever other gymnastic is required to keep from making a direct impact on your face or head.

Personally I have crashed motorcycles hundreds of times in some 10 years of off-road riding and racing. I have crashed on my bicycles a couple of dozen times mostly off road but some on road. In every one of these falls I have hit my head twice. Once when sliding down a race track at 80 mph and I ALLOWED my head to touch the ground since it was "safely" inside of a helmet and the helmets was getting heavy. The other time I went over the bars in a paceline accident, did a complete flip and the very back of the helmet touched the ground making the slightest of dents in the foam liner. The same sort of helmet damage that so many people proclaim as having saved their lives.

My point is that I believed in helmets. So did Franks Krygowski and so did Ken Kifer. But we looked into the engineering positions behind helmets and discovered the fraud involved NOT by the Snell Memorial Foundation and generally not by the actual commercial interests who know better than to make patently false claims about their products but by so-called "safety" organizations.

I am not sure what the hell is behind the idea that somehow we need to follow the advice of Big Brother or be condemned to hell but that IS the mani message from the helmet supporters.

DnvrFox

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyclintom

OK, then here's proving you wrong

Quote:

I actually went out and studied the subject of safety helmets.

Quote:

I spoke to Dr. Shively himself

Quote:

But being an engineer I actually looked into it.

and many other similar statements by cyclintom

Sorry, your proved me right, not wrong. it wasn't a "helmet war" that proved or disproved or changed your mind or whatever, it was your own research.

Again, helmet wars are non-productive and change no minds. It is individual research such as yours that is more likely to change someone's mind.

cyclintom

So, Fox, you appear to be saying that your mind is made up and you have no intentions of learning anything on the chance that you might be wrong in your original assumptions?

What do you suppose made me go out and learn about helmets?

stapfam

I am a complete "For Helmet" person. I know that I have had several accidents that have wrecked a helmet, and the worst I have had as an after effect is a headache. The rest of the body and clothing has been cut and torn, but Still usable.

But then- I have yet to know of anyone killed by a head injury on a bike. Several reported in National and regional papers, but then it was never reported if they were wearing a helmet. They died of "Multiple injuries" or "received severe Head Injuries", but there has never been the highlight of as to whether they were wearing a helmet or not

What I do know is that within my small cicle of riding companions, we have a significent number of helmet changes in a year after falls. If a helmet can be damaged by a relatively minor fall, then all of us are going to keep using helmets, keep replacing helmets when they get damaged, and hopefully stay away from the hospitals and doctors for as long as possible.

GrannyGear

Society does tend to look over our shoulders, breathing down the neck...sometimes overbearingly so, sometimes because the majority in fact do know better. No one of adult and discerning age is required to wear a helmet. You can proudly assert your individuality and freedom by cycling in your bald head. Of course such sometimes arrogance may be paid for by loved ones who will be changing your bedpan, or staring at your vacant chair. But then it was your risk...while others shared the consequence.

Anecdotal: I watched a friend endo going downhill. Skidded on his head. Crushed the top of his helmet but not his head...only a mild concussion and a hell of a headache. Scary to watch, worse to experience. His wife now barely tolerates his bike but loves his new helmet.

DnvrFox

Not being you, there is no way I would know. Why don't you tell us.

But, I really don't care about the issue. In my view of life and priorities, the issue is way down at the bottom of my list. I mean WAY down.

I am going to wear my helmet, I don't in the slightest care whether or not you nor anyone else (except my wife) wears a helmet, and I think the issue is highly overblown and can't imagine spending the amount of effort that you, Frank, Ken and others have put into it.

What is the big deal? I simply don't understand it.

I spend my energy and time on efforts to improve laws, funding and conditions for those with disabilities - which I think is a much more beneficial use of my time for society than worrying about helmets.


Actually, in some jurisdictions, there are mandatory helmet laws for adults. This is the true BIG fear of the anti-helmet crowd, IMHO. There are also mandatory requirements in some countries or parts of countries other than the USA.


Interesting. Around here, that is generally mentioned in the second sentence of the news article. Something like:

"Joe Blow was killed when his bicycle was hit by a bus at 3rd and Elm today. Authorities reported that he was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident."

The automatic implication being that if he had been wearing a helmet, he would now be fine!

cyclintom

Now Dnvr, you don't think that I hold you in contempt do you? I'm trying to point out that helmets like most other things that people use for no good reasons are connected to something other than rational thought.

As for the importance of the subject of bicycle helmets I posted earler:

When helmet laws were passed in California for minors I personally observed the results. I was just returning to cycling and had a route I'd ride after work each day that was 10 miles in length. It passed by three local schools - a grade school, jr. high and highschool. Outside the jr. high and the highschool there were hundreds of bicycles. The paths leading into the school buildings were lined with bike racks and overflowing so that there were bicycles leaned against the buildings and on the lawns.

The helmet law was passed about mid-year and then was to come into effect on January 1. For over a year I had noted this huge number of bicycles and was curious as to what would happen with the helmet law. Well, it couldn't have been more dramatic. Before Christmas vacation there were these hundreds of bicycles and after the new year there were about a half dozen bicycles. Those too soon disappeared. The bike racks were forlornly empty for a year and then were removed.

Now the children are all driven to school. At the high school they've even started building PARKING LOTS for the kids!

Don't you see the importance of that?

DnvrFox

I doubt that is news to anyone. Humankind is a mixture of rational thought, irrational thought, physical, emotional and spiritual (and certainly some other things). To believe that only one of these aspects governs our actions would be foolish. Just think about "love." Nothing rational there (except perhaps for engineers? )

And if you are successful in getting kids back on bikes as they traverse to school, more power to you. As I understand it, the logic is:

1. Get rid of any requirements for helmets.
2. Then kids will ride bikes to school.

Good luck.

Chuck5.2_in_CA

This thread is making my head hurt. By the way I am suing the golf course ! I couldnt catch the !@#$^&**()!@!!! golfer as I was busy taking business cards from passing PI attorneys....

roccobike

Its just like you to come up with a really good observation cyclintom! No argument here, I have never understood why school buses don't have seat belts. Good Point

DnvrFox

And I have never understood why bicycles don't have seat belts.

If helmets are good in cars, then seat belts ought to be good on bikes!

Here's why school buses don't

Cyclepath

I'm curious to know why the helmet requirement discouraged everyone from biking, if that is what happened. Also how then all the parents were prevailed on by this to drive their kids to school instead ofd simply making sure they had helmets & telling them to ride.

I've read that cycling overall has declined
as a % of the population, but is this demonstrably traceable to helmet laws? Seat belt laws don't seem to have reduced the # of motor vehicles on the road.

cyclintom

Well, gee Dnvr, let's use the helmet promoter logic - if it saves just ONE life aren't seat belts on school buses worth it? If you are in an accident would the kids be safer with or without seat belts?