Fort Collins e-bike rider collides with Expedition

[wineboyrider]

Drinking?! Yes, please!

Remember Adolf was a tee totaler. lol.

 

[neptronix]

I think you can differentiate the risks. They are willing to risk their lives working in hazardous conditions. Why they do so is neither here nor there. That is totally different though from being murdered.

You don't drink?

I don't know where being murdered comes into the equation here. Do you mean killing yourself by doing something stupid? that's suicide.

I do drink, only on special occasions though and in public settings. So, a few times a year.

 

[TonyReynolds]

I don't know if I can add much more than what's been said except to relate my own experience.

An analogy: On my motorcycle I wear protective gear mainly because of other people on the roads. Whether it's on a bike or a motorcycle, it's the drivers of cars that I'm primarily worried about, not riding in and of itself. If it was just me, it'd be different, but it's not. There are people in cars and trucks with their attention compromised by fatigue, cell phones or a myriad of other things they have no business doing while driving...

I can understand someone wanting the freedom to decide whether they want to wear protection or not, calculating the risk for themselves. I started riding a motorcycle again 3 years ago after a 28 year hiatus. When I rode in college in the 70's, we wore t-shirts, shorts and a helmet and no gloves. I'd never ride like that today; with age I've grown more cautious. I'm nearly 55, the same age as the man that was injured. I've been told by many friends that it's too dangerous, why would I do it? But it's to me it's partly calculated risk and partly training and experience. Risk can be managed, but it never goes away. My gear makes me feel prepared, but doesn't give me a false sense of security. Ultimately the best piece of gear is what I have between my ears.

I see all kinds of riders on the highways. Some wear the gear and some wear t-shirts and tattoos. Part of it's cultural: the dual-sport riders (like me) generally wear ATGATT. The Harley riders don't. My opinion is that they take a greater risk in doing so, but that's their choice. The ABATE people debate the efficacy of motorcycle helmets in much the same way we've been doing here. Forums are full of posts debating whether leather or cordura is more effective than denim, ad nauseum, the same as other equipment.

To me it all comes down to common sense. What makes sense for me may no make sense for someone else. I don't necessarily like useless laws or big government creatine laws to protect us from ourselves. There's really no answer to this, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Forgive the ramble.

Ride safe.

 

[John in CR]

So like i said, wearing a helmet is smart. If you don't wear one where one could save your life.. that's just darwin's chainsaw of justice

It's exactly those kinds of comments that really stick in my craw. If it's so smart, then why don't you wear one for activities where the risk of dying of traumatic head injury are higher?...like walking on wet floors, walking down a sidewalk or flights of stairs, or riding in a car. If they help so much as you believe they do, then where are the stats now that helmets are quite common?....You know, stats like there are for airbags and seatbelts and how their mandated use improved safety. They don't exist for helmets on cyclists, because the numbers simply aren't there. Bike riders are getting killed or seriously injured with the same frequency per capita as they were before helmets were common, so a seemingly good idea simply doesn't pan out except for the companies selling fear and helmets.

Should accident prone people wear helmets? Sure...no actually they should ride the bus instead of operating any vehicle.

Should stupid people wear helmets? Yes, because they're unable to distinguish between normal extremely low risk riding activities and high risk riding, and they lack the intelligence to make the proper decision of when a lid is appropriate. OTOH they're going to do stupid shit anyway like running a stop sign with an SUV barreling into the intersection or a multitude of other potentially deadly mistakes on a bike, so why even bother with a helmet since one of their stupid actions will get them killed anyway. That's Darwin's chainsaw of justice, and a helmet isn't going to help you dodge the blade.

 

[John in CR]

I don't know if I can add much more than what's been said except to relate my own experience.

An analogy: On my motorcycle I wear protective gear mainly because of other people on the roads. Whether it's on a bike or a motorcycle, it's the drivers of cars that I'm primarily worried about, not riding in and of itself. If it was just me, it'd be different, but it's not. There are people in cars and trucks with their attention compromised by fatigue, cell phones or a myriad of other things they have no business doing while driving...

I can understand someone wanting the freedom to decide whether they want to wear protection or not, calculating the risk for themselves. I started riding a motorcycle again 3 years ago after a 28 year hiatus. When I rode in college in the 70's, we wore t-shirts, shorts and a helmet and no gloves. I'd never ride like that today; with age I've grown more cautious. I'm nearly 55, the same age as the man that was injured. I've been told by many friends that it's too dangerous, why would I do it? But it's to me it's partly calculated risk and partly training and experience. Risk can be managed, but it never goes away. My gear makes me feel prepared, but doesn't give me a false sense of security. Ultimately the best piece of gear is what I have between my ears.

I see all kinds of riders on the highways. Some wear the gear and some wear t-shirts and tattoos. Part of it's cultural: the dual-sport riders (like me) generally wear ATGATT. The Harley riders don't. My opinion is that they take a greater risk in doing so, but that's their choice. The ABATE people debate the efficacy of motorcycle helmets in much the same way we've been doing here. Forums are full of posts debating whether leather or cordura is more effective than denim, ad nauseum, the same as other equipment.

To me it all comes down to common sense. What makes sense for me may no make sense for someone else. I don't necessarily like useless laws or big government creatine laws to protect us from ourselves. There's really no answer to this, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Forgive the ramble.

Ride safe.

That makes sense Tony, but what I don't understand is if you feel so unsafe that you have to wear a cage, they why not just ride in one? I wouldn't ride if I saw that level of risk. Instead I feel perfectly safe as long as I pay strict attention, since the risk in the event of an accident are so much higher, but being so small and nimble on my ebikes I can more easily avoid cager mistakes than in a cage myself. In wet conditions or at night I see far higher risk, and first try to avoid riding altogether, but when it's unavoidable I put on a helmet and better footwear.

 

[Joseph C.]

I think you can differentiate the risks. They are willing to risk their lives working in hazardous conditions. Why they do so is neither here nor there. That is totally different though from being murdered.

You don't drink?

I don't know where being murdered comes into the equation here. Do you mean killing yourself by doing something stupid? that's suicide.

I do drink, only on special occasions though and in public settings. So, a few times a year.

Drug-related murders. I sure those living close to Mexico know exactly what I'm talking about. I'd legalise cannabis, alcohol (there are states where you would be put in prison for drinking) and mushrooms/natural hallucinogenics but no way would I do the same for heroin or cocaine.

Of course if I have such hypothetical control - people in my world would have to have a permit to smoke the gange. Everyone would be entitled to get one as long as they got their DNA tested. If people have a genetic propensity for psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia that can be triggered by smoking they should at least be informed so they can have a free choice knowing the risks. The second stipulation is that you would have to be at least 18, maybe 20 that way the developing canabinoid system would be ready to take what would be otherwise dangerous amounts of THC.

People often forget that drinking is one of, if not the, most harmful drug(s) of all. I'm not advocating tee-totalism, I don't drink because it doesn't suit me, but one should be made aware of the risks of alcohol. I think my location speaks for itself. By the way,well-done to Ireland on hammering the Russians - should have been a lot more but it was worth getting out of bed.

 

[Joseph C.]

Drinking?! Yes, please!

Remember Adolf was a tee totaler. lol.

I think whether or not Adolf Hitler drank was the least of his problems.

Though I do love the way that Austria always gets away scot-free from having any sort of responsibility for the man. Afterall, it's not as if he, or his parents were Germans.

 

[neptronix]

Drug-related murders. I sure those leaving close to Mexico know exactly what I'm talking about. I'd legalise cannabis, alcohol (there are states where you would be put in prison for drinking) and mushrooms/natural hallucinogenics but no way would I do the same for heroin or cocaine.

Legalizing all drugs will create problems, but making them illegal actually causes more deaths to occur.
I know you're from Ireland but if you read up on what happened when America tried to prohibit alcohol, well, tons of people died of alcohol poisoning, the mafia rose to power in a massive way, and it generally created a shitload of crime.

It's the same thing with mexico - our prohibition of particular drugs has created a serious crime problem there because the market is so lucrative here - we've busted our domestic production really hard and moved the criminal element into their country! South America also does not have much in the way of opportunity either so in absence of people actually being able to make a living, they do shit like grow cocoa, traffic the stuff, and such.

You'll notice it's the same thing with your part of the world. A good section of Africa + the middle east = a total dump where people will do anything for cash because they are just desperate. Well that's mexico and it's southern parts.
If they weren't selling drugs, god knows what else they'd be doing but it probably wouldn't be pretty either.

As for alcohol, i defeated methamphetamine and marijuana addiction 9 years ago, and haven't touched anything else since.. so the bi-monthly drink i have here and there, and coffee are the last vices i have, i'm OK with that. Alcohol is definitely worse than pot but... all things in moderation... !

 

[dogman dan]

Sorry if I misquoted you John, part of the problem with communication, whatever you wrote is then filtered through my paint fumes affected brain. I just meant to identify the camp you seem to be in that sees helmet as little safety value, as opposed to the camp I'm in that thinks they have personal experience with a helmet saving thier life.

I don't know about statistics, I just know I looked at two helemets I took off my head, and said WOAH! Glad all that damage wasn't to my head.

But I always have defended New Mexicos lack of an adult helmet law for motorcycles. ( there is one for kids though bikes and motorbikes) However, back when we did have an adult helmet law for motorcycles it never affected me much, since even in my 20's I wore a helmet 95% of the time. I'd been thrown from motorcycles enough times by the time I turned 15 while riding pillion to already appreciate a helmet. It simply never occured to me to not wear one going 50-60 mph.

Bike helmet is another story. I don't think I ever considered wearing one till they became mandatory in the TDF. But I'm older and more fraidy now, and never go for a ride where I can't see my house without the helmet on. And sure enough, I ended up smashing one in a goofy low speed one time in a million crash.

Re drugs. Hard drugs will always be a problem, and I consider distilled alcohol one of them. The drug, or it's legality is not the problem though, it's the addicitve personality that makes the difference. They can't help themselves, but it does help if they can get what they need from less harmfull stuff than the worst examples, coke, speed, heroin, distilled liquor. Demonetarizing weed in the usa would help a lot. If every third backyard had a pot garden, it would cut the money flow to the cartels quite a bit. And open up a whole pandoras box of other problems, like every 10 year old in the country sneaking into the neighbors yard and getting blasted.

It's quite a bit of oversimpliying to say legalize pot in the us, and mexicos drug cartel problem would go away. Or enforce drug law better here for the same effect.

The real underlying issue is the way the government has been run in mexico since the times of the spanish rule. The whole all wealth is in the hands of the patron, all opportunity is controllerd by patronage, and all govt money is siphoned off by the current ruling gangster. It leaves few other options besides criminal activity for the rest of the poplulation. Another good example of this is Egypt. If anybody thinks mexico is not in the process of another armed revolution right now, they are not very aware. It's 1910 all over again, northern mexico controlled by gangs of bandits, and the US grinning away selling them guns as fast as they can.

 

[dnmun]

no matter what the witnesses said, where is the stop sign in that picture? i see a fat car stopped dead in the bike lane one car length away from the intersection. where is the stop sign that he transgressed? there is no way the driver could not see the biker because it is open 100 feet from side to side because there are no trees or other buildings close to the street on LeMay there near prospect down by the lake. the driver just hit the guy for no reason, imo.

how is marijuana addicting? i know of no addictive compounds in marijuana. cigarettes, alcohol, all the legal drugs are addictive, but marijuana is not, i repeat, NOT, addictive because of any compound in the smoke.

it is not personality, but genetics that determines whether a person develops addictions. the receptors in the brain are able to cause changes to the internal cell regulatory mechanisms and create more receptors on the surface of the neurons. this is a greater problem for some than for others who do not get the same good feeling from using the drug or alcohol. these stimulative affects can last for 30-50 years so that one who develops dependence will be burdened by it for a lifetime without changing their own behavior and personality, if you will, to prevent themselves from losing control once they reorient themselves to their challenges.

 

[nuevomexicano]

Do you realize who gets killed or seriously injured the most in daylight riding? It's kids, so you guys need to redirect your focus from helmets to teaching kids the rules of the road and safe riding techniques, and whatever you do don't put helmets at the top of that list, because it truly doesn't belong there.

Do you have a cite for this? I ask because I've heard other people cite that night riding is involved in the majority of accidents (equally unsubstantiated as your claim).

The push for helmets has proven to return no measurable benefit, so helmet pushers just give it up and focus your efforts on worthwhile pursuits.

Again, as I asked before, does anyone actually have a study that says helmets have no measurable benefit or even a negative benefit? For instance, an '09 IIHS study recorded that, "Less than two percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. The most serious injuries among a majority of those killed are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent. " There's a bunch more studies out there, many with even stronger language, on the BHSI website.


Too much unsubstantiated opinion is being thrown around here for this to be much more than blowing hot air and patting oneself on the back.

Not unsubstantiated, do your own research. Australians had to pay their taxpayer money twice for studies trying to come up with the answer supporting helmets with statistics and came up nil, and other studies concluded similarly, with only those paid to get the answer desired coming up in favor of helmets. Flaws in those have been demonstrated to be just statistical manipulations, like what you quoted. There's no question that there's a benefit IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT, however, it doesn't equate to marked improvement in public safety. There are quite a few factors that combine to a result that wearing a helmet increases the odds of crashing. Major examples are "safety equipment" making you feel safer, so you naturally ride less safely, and cars driving closer to helmeted riders than those without helmets.

Here's a good start if you have any interest in no longer being part of the ridiculous fearmongering about bikes being unsafe. http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

I'm not going to spend too much time on your quip about "do your own research". You made the claim, its yours to back up, not the least because you make such a big deal about personal responsibility.

So thanks for citing a source. I really mean that. I hadn't seen that website before and I read through most of it. It has some interesting facts about kids and daylight riding. Now I need to get the guy who claimed that night riding was the major cause to show me his source. Maybe the night riding was linked to kids or something. Until them I'll go with your stats about child injuries and fatalities.

But, alas, your source is all about not fearing bicycles, something I entirely agree with, and really says nothing about helmets. In fact, the biggest parts about helmets are entirely opinion and not backed up by any if the kind of data, even anecdotal data, used in the rest of the essay. For instance, he claims:

However, during the mid-80's, there was a shift in the message going out. Many of these newer riders did not learn that they had an equal right to use the road. And cycling magazines and brochures no longer explained how to behave in traffic but started preaching, "Wear a helmet at all times!" This new message did not teach the newcomers how to avoid accidents, and it emphasized how dangerous cycling was. At the same time, mountain bikes were introduced, making sidewalk riding more practical and making useful road speeds more difficult due to their heavy tires.

I find the author making a huge leap without any data. He fails to show evidence of the decrease in cycling skills (no measured tests, not even a link between miles ridden and accidents), claims unsubstantiated causality between helmet messages and road skills (can't someone both wear a helmet and have road skills?), and links tire weight to the argument without any data at all (what about the big balloon tires that were the antecedents of mountain bike tires?). I find his to be piss poor argumentation at this point; poor enough to think he might be so dogmatic as to not be trusted. He sounds like one of those folks who never was comfortable with the fact that mountain biking edged out his precious road biking in popularity. He marshals hard data for much of the rest of his claims and, yet, is so lacking in hard data for the point that you find so crucial that the lack is glaring.

He presents an opinion without fact. So, I'll present some data. Its mostly anecdotal, but in this case anecdotal data for all its failings still trumps his genuine lack of data. Also, point 2 is not anecdotal.

1. I took a Boy Scouts bicycle safety course more than once in the early and mid '80's (the time period the website talks about). There were specific sections about road skills and specific sections about avoiding accidents based on preparation (checking the road worthiness of one's bike) and learned skills (watching for changes in traffic, understanding the proper distance to ride to avoid car doors, learning to control around turns and corners, and various stopping procedures and swerving skills practiced with cones and around painted lines). My old merit badge books and scout handbook are somewhere states away in my parents house. So I do apologize that I don't have them to cite or quote right now. But the course was far more about skill and becoming road-worthy rather than frightening us to give up biking. It told us that we indeed had a right to the road.

2. Laws and rules have become more explicit about rider's rights to the road since the '80's. There has been a push not just by riders, but by government to get riders on the road. Various laws and regulations at the state and federal level were written to build more bike lanes as part of roads rather than sidewalks; to specify that cars have to give riders specific distances when passing rather than follow unwritten rules of thumb; and to install signage that notified people of biker's presence on and rights to roads. Share the road campaigns became wide spread and better funded. Bicycle maps in my city are now printed with road laws on the back and highlight rights to the road, not the sidewalk. The author of the website is plain wrong.

3. I had a completely opposite experience with mountain bikes than that the author makes claims uncited claims about. Mountain bikes made the roads safer for me and increased my desire to get off the sidewalk and onto the road. Road bikes (the classic 10 speed) with their thin tires, short handle bars, light duty components, and poor brakes made dealing with any potholes, debris or changes in the road a real pain. Their hunched over riding position made it hard to be seen by drivers and harder for me to make eye contact with drivers. I found 10 speeds to be so unsatisfying as to not ride much in the road. Mountain bikes and their beefy frames, shock absorbing tires (later, even shock absorbing suspensions), taller riding positions, and quick stopping brakes made road riding much, much easier for me. Road hazards were suddenly mostly cars rather than both cars and the road itself. My first mountain bike was a real eye-opener for me and I moved from just occasionally riding for pleasure to consistently riding as a commute and to do chores once done by car. My riding followed a trajectory: miles of riding on streets as a kid on BMX bikes including consistently riding to school; a noticeable drop off in riding, including rarely riding to school, when I moved up to a 10 speed; and a return to riding a lot, for school (college) and shopping and work, when I got a mountain bike that was an adult version of that BMX bike.

Again, 1 and 3 are just my anecdotal experiences. But anecdotes are a form of data and certainly trump unsubstantiated opinion. And 2 is fact. The laws and rules weren't always there before the '80's and were in years after.

 

[gensem]

I havent read all posts but I gotta make a small comment.
I can understand when people dont wanna use motorcycle closed helmets, because they are utterly heavy, hot as hell and you lose alot of field vision and cant hear properly. Seens like too many minus for a eventual crash that ll probably not even happen.

But a motocross helmet is a completely diferent beast... Its light, really really light, its not hot all, you dont lose any side vision and you can hear and talk without issues too.
With almost no operational flaw having your chim covered is awesome.

Now the minus, they are usually very colorfull (i was luck to get a black one)
The good ones are usually pricy at 300 dollars and up.

Pleople should have freedom to chose wherever they want to use a helmet or not. Im not worried about me when I put a helmet, because Im a fairly skilled cyclist with many years of experience riding in traffic. But believe me when I say there is too many jackasses with smartphones and they always assume you are doing 15-20mph and not 40mph.

Edit: Before the eletric convertion of my bike I never used any kind of helmet, but I did use gloves, not because of crashs but it was more confortable with half-gloves on.

 

[Starson]

There are worse things in life than getting your head ripped off due to a helmet. Try going into a long-term care facility and see head injury victims. Imagine laying in a bed for over 20 years, unable to move, or communicate. You've had a feeding tube inserted into your stomach because you will aspirate the food into your lungs if you chew it up and try to swallow. So three times a day they pump food into your belly to quelch your hunger. Imagine that someone finally manages to find a way to do some basic one word communication using a letterboard system, and after all those long years, the first word you communicate is "eat", because that's all you've been thinking about for decades. But it doesn't matter, because they can't give you any food as you will breath it in and get pneumonnia. During all that time you've been hooked up to a catheter which runs into your genitals to drain urine into a bag. When you have to pass feaces, they turn you onto your side and give you an enema and manual stimulation of the inner rectum, so you can pass the results into a bedpan. You develop bedsores which eat their way down to the bone. They clean them and pack them with gauze every day. And three times a night they come into your ward, and turn you, to stave off more bedsores from occuring. They have to do all these things, because you can't move an inch without their help, and for the rest of your long life, you can't even really complain about it, because your brains have been scrambled because of a head injury. But the horror of it all is that you are laying there fully aware of every single thing that is happening to you. Oh, yeah ... Once a month, your aging parents come to see you, and they are now spending a lot of their time trying to figure out how they can get their other middle-aged children to take over visiting you, before they die.

You can practice safe, defensive driving/riding till the cows come home, but you can't totally account for chance (Murphy's Law) and idiots on the road. If helmets reduce head injuries by up to 85% (not death), then it is to avoid catastophic, tolal, life-changing injury. Even relatively minor head-injuries can screw up your memory, and totally interfere with your life. Imagine that you are just fine in every other way, except that you can't do your job anymore, because the information that was so easily and automatically available before the accident, just doesn't pop up like it did. Imagine that you can't participate in ES anymore, because a month ago you could brilliantly elaborate on the efficiencies of various battery technologies, but now when you write anything down, it's just bullshit and doesn't make any sense. And that's just they way it's going to be for the rest of your life!

I've known three people in my lifetime who had bad, bad, head injuries from accidents. Two from my personal life and one through my work. One from a car accident, one a motorcycle and one skateboarding. Two no helmets, and the third unknown. Two I only knew many years after their accident. The other person died after spending time in a coma.

So my point is that most people think in terms of helmets protecting from death, which they may or may not do. However, what they really do is help protect the grey cells to lessen the extent of a head injury, up to and including death. The less injured the better.

Gary

 

[TonyReynolds]

There are worse things in life than getting your head ripped off due to a helmet... You can practice safe, defensive driving/riding till the cows come home, but you can't totally account for chance (Murphy's Law) and idiots on the road. If helmets reduce head injuries by up to 85% (not death), then it is to avoid catastophic, tolal, life-changing injury... So my point is that most people think in terms of helmets protecting from death, which they may or may not do. However, what they really do is help protect the grey cells to lessen the extent of a head injury, up to and including death. The less injured the better.

Gary

I couldn't (and didn't) say it better. My choice to wear a helmet (and other gear) is to lessen or mitigate personal injury, not death. I've no problem in dying, I'm at peace with that, it's being a quad or a vegetable for the rest of my days that give me willies. I was a care giver for a quad in college, and was that ever an eye-opener. I've done all the stuff that Gary notes for the guy I was taking care of, who lost almost all of his mobility in a freak wrestling accident with his brother when he was 15. A helmet wouldn't have helped...

The difference now (in advanced middle-age) than when I was in my teens or twenties is not so much that I've gotten smarter and wiser (I have...), but that I have so much more responsibility, responsibility to my wife and daughter and a hope to be able to enjoy grandkids some day. When you're younger, responsibility has a different flavor and you think you're going to live forever. If you survive you find that responsibility is different than you would have imagined.

As for the gear being a "cage" like a vehicle, well, yes, John's partly right. I do feel less freedom having to wear all of the gear, and it does lessen the amount that I ride my motorcycle, which I do primarily for commuting. Sometimes it just doesn't seem worth the effort to put on boots, coat, gloves and all the rest for a quick 2 or 3 mile trip, but statistics note that its specifically THOSE kind of trips where most accidents occur, not during my 30 mile commute. I'm FAR safer on the freeway than I am on city streets. Do I miss having the freedom to simply jump on a motorcycle with nothing but tennis shoes, helmet, t-shirt and cut-offs? Yeah, I do, but I accepted the responsibility, so I've had to curb my freedom(s).

How that all translates into riding an eBike is that some things carry over. Years of experience and training (especially having commuted in heavy traffic on both bicycles and motorcycles), situational awareness, knowing my limitations, not riding while impaired, wearing enough protective gear without having movement restricted, wearing bright colors, etc. all add up to (for me) a safer ride. There's always Murphy's Law, and that nagging thought that the ONE TIME I don't wear a helmet will be the time I take a freak tumble on my bike or have some jerk turn left into me at an intersection on my motorcycle. I'd far rather go over the hood of a car wearing the gear than not; at least I could live with myself laying in a hospital, knowing that I did my best to take precautions. But hey, that's just me.

Tony

 

[John in CR]

New Mex,

That was just one link, not a primary source at all. My research was pretty broad, and I didn't record the links. I remember I got most of the links to real data starting from The Great Debate among cyclists. The bottom line is that far more cyclists wear helmets in the US than in the past, but there's been no corresponding decline in per capita fatalities and serious injuries. That should be a pretty outlandish statement to anyone who feels strongly about helmets. It seems like you might be able to look with an open mind, so go digging and discover that you've been sold a bill of goods by those with an agenda, and worst of all you've probably been helping them.

If helmets helped keep people safe there would be raw statistics to support it, and you can bet your ass that the helmet pushers have tried to come up with real stats. If they had hard numbers, then of course they would be referenced in their sales pitch of fear. Instead it's always tricky wording that is used, typically with meaningful info omitted. Your 85% quote is a good example of that, because it omitted the narrow angle used in the bike helmet tests for them get assigned the effectiveness %.

 

[gensem]

John do you really never use a helmet?

I find my cross helmet so good even without accounting for the "supposed" security I would still use it.
Its good to use it in the sun because it blocks the sun rays, its good in the morning cold because my ear dont hurt, its good in the rain... its good all around.

 

[John in CR]

Gary and Tony,

You'll get no argument from me that helmet improve survivability in the event of a crash on a bicycle. While I'm sure there are cases where the helmet physically caused greater injury, those numbers have to be so small as to be statistically insignificant. Since helmet use is so common now on bicycles, but weren't before, that statistics should be readily available showing the safety payoff like there are for seatbelts and airbags. Since the numbers don't support the increase in overall safety that helmet wearers assume, the logical conclusion is that wearing a helmet must increase the chances of being in a serious accident.

I believe the major causes are:

Human natural- If you feel more exposed you will naturally exercise more care consciously or subconsciously. You can walk down a sidewalk without a care in the world, but but a 1000ft dropoff at one side, and you'll tread with greater care. When LFP was down last year he had no helmet, and I guarantee he rode at least a bit more safely than at home in full gear. In my case, when I wear my helmet, I can sense my mind wandering more since my brain feels nice and safe cradle in that lid, along with the far greater wind noise the tunes out the outside world.

Cars ride closer to cyclists wearing helmets- There was a study done that came to that conclusion, and since reading about it, I've noticed it to be true with my own eyes. The speculated cause is that the unhelmeted cyclist is perceived to be less predictable.

Helmets reduce the effectiveness key senses of sight and sound.

Helmets make your head hotter, which reduces your sharpness. Being hot also distracts your focus, and leads to redirection of your focus like reaching for a water bottle (like happened to dogman), a drop of sweat blurring your vision or getting on your eyewear, or simply wiping the sweat from your brow.

While these things may individually have a very small effect, the odds of getting into a serious accident are tiny too, so it's quite reasonable that on average the benefits of having a helmet on in the event of an accident are offset by the act of wearing a helmet increasing the odds of getting into an accident.

It's quite similar to the fact that I have no doubt that I am far safer riding my bikes at speeds that match traffic instead of riding slower. Sure my survival odds in the event of an accident are much lower because I'm traveling at a much greater speed than cyclists or even most ebike riders, but riding faster I am on the road for less time and cross paths with far fewer cars, and most cycling fatalities involve crashes with cars.

All this doesn't mean I never wear a helmet and never ride slower. When I perceive greater risk like slick conditions or riding at night, but I'm forced to ride anyway, I put on a lid and slow down.

John

 

[Starson]

Gary and Tony,

You'll get no argument from me that helmet improve survivability in the event of a crash on a bicycle. While I'm sure there are cases where the helmet physically caused greater injury, those numbers have to be so small as to be statistically insignificant. Since helmet use is so common now on bicycles, but weren't before, that statistics should be readily available showing the safety payoff like there are for seatbelts and airbags. Since the numbers don't support the increase in overall safety that helmet wearers assume, the logical conclusion is that wearing a helmet must increase the chances of being in a serious accident.

John

Ok, I get it now. The key phrase is "overall safety". When wearing a helmet, due to distractions, or the senses being diminished, and other environmental/social factors, the risk of being in an accident increases. However once in an accident the risk of head injury increases, and therefore a helmet at that time can sometimes significantly reduce the extent of said injury. Got it! Rings true for me.

Gary

 

[Chalo]

Whenever anyone says "I would never do XXX without wearing a helmet", they are subtracting against whatever small protection that helmet offers. (And the protection is small; basically mitigating a fall from a standing position at zero mph.) Therefore, whenever someone says "I'd never ride in traffic without a helmet" or "I'd never do aerial stunts without a helmet" or "I'd never ride drunk without a helmet", they're saying they'll more than offset the helmet's protection if they're wearing one; that they'll partake in greater relative risk because they have a helmet on.

That's why the increase in bike helmet use in the USA from approximately 0% to approximately 50% has not been matched by any reduction in head injuries or fatalities per capita. There are too many people with belief in the helmet's magical powers who will do things while wearing a helmet that they'd never do bareheaded, and those things put them at more risk than the helmet can offset,

A helmet only works for you, if you believe it's doing nothing for you.

¡Behold my cat helmet! ¡He does nothing for me!

Chalo

 

[Starson]

Whenever anyone says "I would never do XXX without wearing a helmet", they are subtracting against whatever small protection that helmet offers. (And the protection is small; basically mitigating a fall from a standing position at zero mph.) Therefore, whenever someone says "I'd never ride in traffic without a helmet" or "I'd never do aerial stunts without a helmet" or "I'd never ride drunk without a helmet", they're saying they'll more than offset the helmet's protection if they're wearing one; that they'll partake in greater relative risk because they have a helmet on.

That's why the increase in bike helmet use in the USA from approximately 0% to approximately 50% has not been matched by any reduction in head injuries or fatalities per capita. There are too many people with belief in the helmet's magical powers who will do things while wearing a helmet that they'd never do bareheaded, and those things put them at more risk than the helmet can offset,

A helmet only works for you, if you believe it's doing nothing for you.

¡Behold my cat helmet! ¡He does nothing for me!

Chalo

Ouch! ... Helmets offer big protection, not small ... once an accident occurs! Yes, pretend that you don't have a helmet on and stay super alert, but don't kid yourself, once in an accident they significantly reduce head injury. It's not small protection when that happens ... it's big!

Respectfully,
Gary

 

[gensem]

I think Chalo and John do have their points.

Wearing the full motocross helmet does lead me to do more dangerous things because im "protected" and cars do get closer to you when you have the helmet on.
Im tend to think they dont get too close when I dont use a helmet because they are scared to ran over me and kill me. Sounds odd, but people dont think straight. Or because they think im crazy to ride without a helmet...


I tend to like my cross helmet because he is overall good doing other things aside protection but I dont expect it to save me in an accident car vs bicycle.

 

[Solcar]

Whenever anyone says "I would never do XXX without wearing a helmet", they are subtracting against whatever small protection that helmet offers. (And the protection is small; basically mitigating a fall from a standing position at zero mph.) Therefore, whenever someone says "I'd never ride in traffic without a helmet" or "I'd never do aerial stunts without a helmet" or "I'd never ride drunk without a helmet", they're saying they'll more than offset the helmet's protection if they're wearing one; that they'll partake in greater relative risk because they have a helmet on.

That's why the increase in bike helmet use in the USA from approximately 0% to approximately 50% has not been matched by any reduction in head injuries or fatalities per capita. There are too many people with belief in the helmet's magical powers who will do things while wearing a helmet that they'd never do bareheaded, and those things put them at more risk than the helmet can offset,

A helmet only works for you, if you believe it's doing nothing for you.

¡Behold my cat helmet! ¡He does nothing for me!

Chalo

Indeed, I don't want car drivers to have any distraction get in the way of them realizing that they must not ever hit me.

 

[NeilP]

I fail to see what/why there is always a big drama over wearing a helmet, KiM

For me it is not so much the big drama over wearing it...it is just having to carry it..keep it look after it...keep it dry, remmeber to pick it up, hope no one steals it while you are away from the bike, just damages it fo the sake of it. ...somethin else to have to consider ...just having the thing around is a right pain in the backside for me...I got a real good one a Casco Warp IIi carbon fibre one...and when I do have it, I am constantly worried about where to leave it so it does not get scratched, damaged/dropped...also something else to store in the small apartment..plus one for the girlfriend.
Also for me it is the thin end of the wedge...as soon as helmets become common and every one wears them..it becomes the norm...and the do gooders move on to the next thing.
You can see what I mean in all different areas of life...what was once acceptable 30 years ago, is no longer acceptable...so then the next stage become the target...be it smoking..shooting ..hunting animal welfare...it starts off small...with making one thing 'bad' then once that is accepted by the majority that that thing is bad...then the next worst thing become the target.

many years ago there was dog fighting, cok fighting, bear baiting etc..now all outlawed...bull fighting still goes on but that will be next...hunting of any sort is thought of as evil and bad by most townies in the UK.those that have never lived int he country... Hunting foxes with dogs now banned..but for now hunting on horse back still allowed..there are calls for horse racing over jumps to be banned...what happens once that is banned..they will only move on to wanting to ban horse racing on the flat......then maybe another 50 years down the line it will be ...'What? do you really keep that horse in a stable and actually put that nasty saddle on its back and a bit in its mouth and ride it for pleasure......you actually keep birds in that small cage...and fish in that little tank ...
OK, I know that is all a long way off and all the 'do gooders' will deny it because it is not even on their agenda...but the ones that come after them...that see what they created as the norm wil have a different tolerance level to what is cruel or not and start wanting to restrict things from there.


no one can deny that a helmet will prevent injury in most cases and I do occassionally wear one, It is just the whole principle and hassle issue that does it for me.

I have riden motorbikes all my life, have come off many times in small falls around the farm, have done many stupid things on motorbikes (sitting pillion backwards with a shotgun shooting tin cans out of trees in the orchard while being driven aroudn at high spee by my mate springs to mind as beign one fo the most fun afternoons )
have never worn a helmet while off road on one and never would on the trials bike. If I was on a motorcross bike doing high speed jumps etc, then that would be a differnet thing, and I would wear a helmet.
If it was not law here, i would not wear helmet generally while out on the Harley..but would if I was doing a 70-80mph blast down the motorway or other high speed roads ( or if it is raining) :lol:

Same goes for riding a horse. generally would not wear helmet ( If riding without one is good enoguh for the Queen then it is good enough for me). If I was horse racing or riding an unknown mount ...same thing would wear protection

 

[dogman dan]

I still say you earn one stupid, if your wearing protection IN TRAFFIC does make you ride less safe.

Man, I don't trust them huggers one bit. I never sacrifice any situational awareness of those distracted vehicle operators. Same as I never ever ever trusted a crane operator.

On the track or trail, with some armor I'm quite willing to hang it out there and perhaps crash more often. I know the risk, I controll what happens, or accept the risk of the other racer on the track. It's somewhat safe to get bumped and lay er down on the track.

But out on the street, it's dawinland, and you better be always looking out for that tiger or great white shark. If you stop paying attention because you have a helmet or a blinky light, you stupid stupid stupid. So the stats that apply to the stupid majority are as meaninless to how I ride as they are for anybody else who pays attention out there.

I simply choose a helmet myself, because my personal stats indicate I'll destroy one from time to time. Wierd shit does happen, and it's why they are called accidents.

I just keep my helmet on my head if in a place I can't leave it on the bike secure. I never did give a shit about how I looked.

Re the pic of the crash, are you looking at the same photo I am? I see an intersection. Is it the one he rode through? Is it the one he was tossed closer to? If it is the intersection he ran the sign on, then it appears to me the SUV, which may or not be the one involved, is on the through street. The spot where a stop sign would be for a vehicle coming down that hill is cropped out of that shot. All we have is the info in the article, and witnesses could be full of shit. We don't know if the car was hauling ass, or doing anything. All we know is we are told the bike rolled through the stop sign. Maybe he blew through at 20 mph, maybe he did a creeping track stand. Maybe he saw the car, and trusted it to give him space. I wouldn't trust any car. EVER.

 

[nuevomexicano]

Why doesn't the anti-helmet crowd expand the argument of better gear making worse riders to other biking gear, rather than gun ownership, cockfighting, building safety, and bull baiting? Keep on topic will ya!

Here's the list of possible anti-helmet talking points, based on recent thread topics here on ES, you could be arguing instead:
Responsive and tuned brakes makes your stopping distance longer.
Hi intensity head and tail lights makes you a bigger target for cars at night.
A seat that doesn't leave you impotent or infertile leaves you too complacent in the saddle.
A frame that doesn't flex like a wet noodle means you'll forget to avoid road hazards.
Tires that grip the road on turns surely leads to lack of turning.
Riding a long tail cargo bike means you lose the ability to carry heavy and bulky loads.
Torque arms increase the likelihood of fork failure.
Thorn proof tires mean more flat tires.
Lighter battery technology equals shorter trips ridden at slower speeds.