Electric Bike Rider Dies After Dooring

[mlt34]

...over the last 30 years we've gone from 0% to about 50% usage rates, with no significant change at all in injury or mortality rates among cyclists. That's worth questioning and discussing.

Also, while the number of seafaring pirates has decreased, we've seen a simultaneous drastic increase in pollution.

Remember boys and girls, correlation does not imply causation

 

[Chalo]

Bottom line is, correlating your head with a bicycle helmet does not seem to imply any verifiable protection in the real world.

 

[Architectonic]

Are bicycle helmets really debatable if they are useful or not?

We recently had the international Velo-City conference with all the world's leading cycling advocates in attendance and the answer is most definitely yes, it is debatable!

 

[mlt34]

Bottom line is, correlating your head with a bicycle helmet does not seem to imply any verifiable protection in the real world.

:facepalm:

Chalo, you've got an amazing understanding and wealth of knowledge in ebikes. However, statistics is not your strong suit.

Again, correlation does not imply causation.

The fact that the number of cyclist deaths has stayed constant or even risen even while helmet use has risen does not mean helmets don't work. This correlation can be caused by a number of things, including faster speed limits, more cars on the road, more cyclists on the roads, cyclists taking more risks while wearing helmets, etc etc. The simple fact of the matter is that a head covered in a helmet survives much better in a collision than a non helmeted head, all things equal. It's not a perfect world and it's hard to collect perfect empirical data by making someone have an identical crash twice, once with and without a helmet, but suffice it to say that science has proven helmets to be effective.

Anything is debatable. Global warming and evolution are debatable. All it takes is someone to go against scientifically supported evidence and suddenly you have a debate!

I just don't understand how people can think helmets aren't useful. Do those people also buy their eggs without an egg carton?

 

[dogman dan]

All I know is every time I bounce my head on the pavement, it's so much more comfortable to do it with a funny hat on.

Some never do that, but I do from time to time. I just ride that way. I like to corner hard and really lean, laydowns don't scare me. But you may rap your head on the ground going down.

Or another thing I do, run a huge dog with the bike and a leash. Yeah, it's stupid, but I don't crash every time. The other day, the huge dog saw a cat. Bam, whacked my head so hard on the asphalt. Came up laughing about it rather than bleeding.

But I won't tell you what to put on your head. I just learned I prefer it way back in the 70's. I also wore a helmet windsurfing, because in some crashes you whack your head on the mast pretty hard.

It's not a save your life or not save your life deal IMO. So the stats don't mean shit to me. It's just a much milder knock on the head when shit happens that isn't going to kill you. It's like, if the yard is full of thorns, why walk out there barefoot.

 

[cal3thousand]

Again, correlation does not imply causation.

First person here I've seen grasp this basic concept with respect to helmet wearing. Bravo!

 

[Chalo]

I just don't understand how people can think helmets aren't useful. Do those people also buy their eggs without an egg carton?

Wearing a bicycle helmet is more like insisting that your tennis balls be in an egg carton.

The human head has been refined and iterated for millions of years to have a truly impressive suspension and active defense system. It's also pretty tough apart from those things. Non-handicapped people thinking they can substantially step up the odds in their favor by using a cheap foam hat are probably underestimating the protection they already have built in.

That built-in protection is what people are content to rely on when they walk down a sidewalk, or when they climb ladders or do countless other things that are known to be much more of a head injury risk than cycling. Because ultimately, the risk when you do those things is still tolerable. Trying to make cycling more dangerous than it is, by wearing a special helmet for it, does in fact make it more dangerous: by suppressing participation, by promoting risk compensation on the part of both cyclists and motorists, by letting abusive motorists off the hook much of the time when they hurt cyclists who weren't wearing magic hats and are thus presumed to be asking for it.

Anyway, if you wear a helmet to cycle but not to walk down the street or shower, you're not concerned about real demonstrable injury risk. What you are really doing is creating a false impression about cycling and its riskiness. It is that false impression that ultimately does more harm than helmets could ever offset.

 

[cal3thousand]

I just don't understand how people can think helmets aren't useful. Do those people also buy their eggs without an egg carton?

Wearing a bicycle helmet is more like insisting that your tennis balls be in an egg carton.

your head is much more like an egg than a tennis ball. Your head has nearly 0 elasticity compared to a tennis ball. Drop your 8 lbs straight to the ground and see if it bounces.

The human head has been refined and iterated for millions of years to have a truly impressive suspension and active defense system. It's also pretty tough apart from those things. Non-handicapped people thinking they can substantially step up the odds in their favor by using a cheap foam hat are probably underestimating the protection they already have built in.

The human head has been refined for millions of years, but in those millions of years, it was never possible for humans to propel themselves forward at 5X the velocity of bipedal motion.

That built-in protection is what people are content to rely on when they walk down a sidewalk
Nature only intended humans to walk, we'd have tougher skulls if we were intended to travel at high velocity at birth), or when they climb ladders or do countless other things that are known to be much more of a head injury risk than cycling. Because ultimately, the risk when you do those things is still tolerable. Trying to make cycling more dangerous than it is, by wearing a special helmet for it, does in fact make it more dangerous: by suppressing participation, by promoting risk compensation on the part of both cyclists and motorists, by letting abusive motorists off the hook much of the time when they hurt cyclists who weren't wearing magic hats and are thus presumed to be asking for it.

Anyway, if you wear a helmet to cycle but not to walk down the street or shower, you're not concerned about real demonstrable injury risk. What you are really doing is creating a false impression about cycling and its riskiness. It is that false impression that ultimately does more harm than helmets could ever offset.

What you don't seem to understand is that no one claims cycling to be dangerous. Cycling at pedestrian speeds and wearing a helmet if fairly silly in my book.

But cycling at car/scooter/ebike speeds and NOT wearing a helmet is fairly silly too. To me, your intended speed and risk level should dictate your protection. Biking on the boardwalk or down an unpopulated path slowly, a helmet is unnecessary. But biking in traffic with drivers that can be completely unpredictable has its dangers. Even if you are not struck by a car, just a small and short miscue is all it takes to put you in a compromising position.

In my daily driving, I notice WAY too many people that do not pay enough attention and car for their surrounds. Surroundings that include my soft body and untennisball-like head.

No thanks, I'll keep my brains inside and share the crap with you.

 

[mlt34]

The human head has been refined and iterated for millions of years to have a truly impressive suspension and active defense system.

The grossly overestimated statistic on how long the humans species has been on this earth aside, keep thinking helmets don't help. That's part of natural selection. Survival of the fittest also includes mental fitness. A brain that isn't aware enough to protect itself doesn't have as high a chance of making more cute little brains to pass on its genes.

 

[mlt34]

I just don't understand how people can think helmets aren't useful. Do those people also buy their eggs without an egg carton?

Wearing a bicycle helmet is more like insisting that your tennis balls be in an egg carton.

and to be fair, i buy my tennis balls in the hermetically sealed tube. and not just because i love the smell when it opens, but also because their delicate little fuzzes have been protected from the cruel harsh world. so there. argument officially won. QED.

:wink:

 

[Offroader]

My take is that I wouldn't wear a bicycle helmet on a non-motorized bike. On my E-bike I wear a helmet and without it I feel vulnerable. I get to speeds of 40MPH.

I remember some kid falling back on his chair in high school and hitting his head getting a concussion. I also heard stories about kids falling off a bike and being brain damaged. These slow speed bumps to the head really surprised me about the damage they can do.

 

[PRW]

I had a friend at junior school who was riding (normally) on a Sunday morning, fell off his bike and hit his head on a kerb. He thought nothing of it, went home. At lunch about a hour later, he started convulsing, and was rushed to hospital. He died about 3 hours later.

I still didn't wear a helmet until about 5 years ago - I was riding (offroad motorbike) with my wife, she tried to get her bike over a log, fell and hit her head. She was wearing a helmet, and only fell slowly - but she had headaches for two weeks. After this, I decided to get sensible.

 

[cal3thousand]

I had a friend at junior school who was riding (normally) on a Sunday morning, fell off his bike and hit his head on a kerb. He thought nothing of it, went home. At lunch about a hour later, he started convulsing, and was rushed to hospital. He died about 3 hours later.

I still didn't wear a helmet until about 5 years ago - I was riding (offroad motorbike) with my wife, she tried to get her bike over a log, fell and hit her head. She was wearing a helmet, and only fell slowly - but she had headaches for two weeks. After this, I decided to get sensible.

Reminds me of the kid that fell of his bike and bumped his head. Thought nothing of it either and was dead in hours.

Makes me think about helmets a little more. If I do fall and hit my head to the point that the helmet took damage, I'm going to get checked out at the hospital. Self preservation is near the top of my list.

 

[TheBeastie]

Interesting stories, seems to be a common issue of people dying a few hours after being hit on the head. That's the issue behind what the media these days call "one punch thugs" who hit a person once then walk away thinking it's all over then the person dies up to 24 hours later.
Used to be called "king hit" but there has been a movement to stop using that term as it kind of sounds glorious.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/27/one-punch-killing-no-big-deal_n_4864615.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/465144/One-punch-justice-Thug-killed-soldier-with-one-deathly-blow

 

[Eskimo]

I"m not the guy who tries to force anybody to do anything, but you just gotta love this one

 

[Sunder]

Again, correlation does not imply causation.

First person here I've seen grasp this basic concept with respect to helmet wearing. Bravo!

Wot?!? I stopped eating organic and downloaded Chrome because of the below graphs!

I don't really want to argue with anyone who doesn't want to wear a helmet, but 6 weeks ago, I high sided my pedal powered road bike in a corporate race. I was "only" doing about 35/40km/h when I came off, but the helmet was split through and through. Me? Not a scratch or a bruise on my head. Knowing how tough the helmet was, I suspect I would have been lucky to get away with just concussion instead of a fractured skull.

I understand there are some rare types of injuries which are statistically more likely to occur with a helmet, and some drivers get closer to you when you are wearing a helmet, but I believe when the dice are being rolled, I'm better off with a noggin protector than not, even if it only stops me getting gravel rash on my face.

 

[cal3thousand]

Again, correlation does not imply causation.

First person here I've seen grasp this basic concept with respect to helmet wearing. Bravo!

Wot?!? I stopped eating organic and downloaded Chrome because of the below graphs!

I don't really want to argue with anyone who doesn't want to wear a helmet, but 6 weeks ago, I high sided my pedal powered road bike in a corporate race. I was "only" doing about 35/40km/h when I came off, but the helmet was split through and through. Me? Not a scratch or a bruise on my head. Knowing how tough the helmet was, I suspect I would have been lucky to get away with just concussion instead of a fractured skull.

I understand there are some rare types of injuries which are statistically more likely to occur with a helmet, and some drivers get closer to you when you are wearing a helmet, but I believe when the dice are being rolled, I'm better off with a noggin protector than not, even if it only stops me getting gravel rash on my face.

Question is: Did you report the incident so that the guys who use statistics to determine their own risk and safety levels have a fair shake?

They lack data in the incidence category, giving them incomplete data with which to extrapolate.

 

[Sunder]

Question is: Did you report the incident so that the guys who use statistics to determine their own risk and safety levels have a fair shake?

They lack data in the incidence category, giving them incomplete data with which to extrapolate.

That is actually a very interesting point I hadn't thought of before. As the helmet worked, all I did was put antiseptic on the grazes on my hands and shoulder/hip. If it hadn't worked, I would have gone to hospital and it would have been recorded as a bike accident where the helmet didn't really help.

Perhaps this is why helmets appear to work in test labs, but don't show up in public statistics?

 

[John in CR]

Even extremely experienced cyclists get killed by dooring. The only way to be sure to avoid it is not to ride within reach of a door. I'll never get doored because I own the lane, and most of the time 2 lanes are mine and mine alone, so even side traffic entering the road would have a difficult time hitting me, even intentionally. I ride fast enough to create huge spacing for safety, so I never inconvenience drivers and they have no issue with me on the road. It wouldn't matter if they did, because to me they're just a slow (relatively speaking) moving object to avoid.

My biggest risk is small quick animals large enough to take me down, which won't be easy with moto rims and tires. I went down once trying avoidance, so from now on it's plowing straight through and braking to the extent possible.

 

[Dauntless]

The human head has been refined and iterated for millions of years to have a truly impressive suspension and active defense system.

The grossly overestimated statistic on how long the humans species has been on this earth aside, keep thinking helmets don't help. That's part of natural selection. Survival of the fittest also includes mental fitness. A brain that isn't aware enough to protect itself doesn't have as high a chance of making more cute little brains to pass on its genes.

Oh come now, the softer, more easily damaged heads have long ago been weeded out by Darwinism. The hardier are those out there now.

Reminds me of the kid that fell of his bike and bumped his head. Thought nothing of it either and was dead in hours.

Reminds me of Mark Donohue, one of the greatest race drivers ever. I read over and over that it is insisted he didn't even hit his head (Or his helmet) in the wreck, hours later he was in a coma he never woke up from. Ask a football player, helmets don't prevent concussions, because they don't prevent what CAUSES them. NASCAR drivers flip the car without touching their head to anything and miss races for a concussion.

Oh, I forgot, the GOVERNMENT says helmets protect you. That obviously makes it true or the GOVERNMENT wouldn't say it.

A helmet does make a great place to mount a camera.

 

[Dauntless]

Also, while the number of seafaring pirates has decreased, we've seen a simultaneous drastic increase in pollution.

And yet, even after you've offered proof that pirates prevent pollution, the U.S. government opposes the Somali pirates. Makes one suspicious about their commitment on this global warming thing.

Remember boys and girls, correlation does not imply causation

Didn't Homer Simpson say that?

Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there’.
-Randall Munroe

Question is: Did you report the incident so that the guys who use statistics to determine their own risk and safety levels have a fair shake?

Perhaps this is why helmets appear to work in test labs, but don't show up in public statistics?

No, but that's what they WANT you to believe. Right now some government mind programmer is saying "Excellent, number 431,565,849,027. Keep trying to convince them that you're an individual. Pay no attention to that 'Monty Python' joke."

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
-Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

Ack, noone learned wants you to run around saying 'Correlation does not imply causation.' They keep quoting against you.

Most of you will have heard the maxim "correlation does not imply causation." Just because two variables have a statistical relationship with each other does not mean that one is responsible for the other. For instance, ice cream sales and forest fires are correlated because both occur more often in the summer heat. But there is no causation; you don't light a patch of the Montana brush on fire when you buy a pint of Haagan-Dazs.
― Nate Silver,

 

[kudos]

The most important statistic about cycling deaths is that well over 90% of them occur in the 'rush hour' commute in the morning and evening.

If you don't ride at those times you minimise, nearly eliminate the chance of this happening to you.

 

[Chalo]

The most important statistic about cycling deaths is that well over 90% of them occur in the 'rush hour' commute in the morning and evening.

If you don't ride at those times you minimise, nearly eliminate the chance of this happening to you.

The other two things you can do to nearly eliminate the likelihood of being killed on your bike are not to be intoxicated or a minor when you ride.

 

[liveforphysics]

Anyway, if you wear a helmet to cycle but not to walk down the street or shower, you're not concerned about real demonstrable injury risk. What you are really doing is creating a false impression about cycling and its riskiness. It is that false impression that ultimately does more harm than helmets could ever offset.

+1

If you want the most benefit from wearing a helmet, wear it while inside the multi-thousand-pound absurd steel cages some people foolishly choose to use to transport there body around with.

If you want to make the world a safer place and do everyone a favor, ride a bicycle. You are free to wear a helmet while doing it if it makes you feel better, but it's certainly not critical for enabling successful and safe use of a bicycle IMHO.

 

[evolutiongts]

This is why I wear a DH full face helmet and take the whole lane.