Gordo
100 kW
http://cokidswithbraininjury.com/mild-tbi-concussion-info/
Helmets Part 1,489,348 - To Wear Or Not To Wear
- Thread starter knoxie
- Start date
John in CR
100 TW
kriskros said:
Sure, but no accident is a lot better than no accident at all, and no helmet advocate has put forth a single logical argument or reliable statistic that helmets don't in fact result in more accidents.
oldpiper
1 kW
John in CR said:
John, I'm sure that if we were able to get comprehensive statistics on accidents over any time period since helmets first came into the mainstream consciousness, I'm absolutely sure that you're right, wearing helmets DOES cause more accidents.
[pause for effect] ............................. [/pause]
BECAUSE, if you're dead, or vegetatively nonresponding, or a quadruplegic, or the result of a myriad of other brain and/or face trauma incidents, chances are that you are not going to ride a bicycle again, so you will have no further accidents. If you survive with minimal injury, you may well ride again and possibly have another accident or more. (I've done something a bit out-of-control twice over the past 30 years, myself, and if I hadn't had a helmet on the first time, even though neither most likely would have been fatal, I would probably not be riding an ebike now.)
Something similar to the well-known prediction that "if your parents didn't have children, neither will you."
Cameron
John in CR
100 TW
LOL Nice one, but the numbers are so small that they can't skew the results in the manner you suggest. You're right though that for those who are accident prone, their odds are quite likely better wearing a helmet, however, the average rider must not be accident prone or reliable statistics would exist for helmet advocates to hang their helmet on.
Sheriff Jon
100 W
John in CR said:
IMO the flaw in your logic (or lack there of) is that those who wear Helmets by choice do not need any numbers or statistics to see the wisdom in taking such a small and simple precaution. And it is my belief that those who need statistics will either become one themselves....or do not have much upstairs worth protecting.
Gordo
100 kW
A couple of facts I remember from reading stats the last few days;
Cheap foam bike helmet cuts the G force of a fall, by 50%, usually enough to avoid a concussion.
2008 US sports injuries resulting in concussion of 14 years old and younger;
football=12,000
bicycles=36,000
I agree totally meaningless without knowing the number of participants, type of helmet, if any, etc.
Huge number of NFL player's wives reporting that their young husbands loose the car keys, the car and direction home daily. This is now, after many years being taken seriously to the point of study. The effects of bangs to the head, even in a helmet appear to be cumulative.
Could this explain why people who do not wear a helmet, do not want to?
Cheap foam bike helmet cuts the G force of a fall, by 50%, usually enough to avoid a concussion.
2008 US sports injuries resulting in concussion of 14 years old and younger;
football=12,000
bicycles=36,000
I agree totally meaningless without knowing the number of participants, type of helmet, if any, etc.
Huge number of NFL player's wives reporting that their young husbands loose the car keys, the car and direction home daily. This is now, after many years being taken seriously to the point of study. The effects of bangs to the head, even in a helmet appear to be cumulative.
Could this explain why people who do not wear a helmet, do not want to?
John in CR
100 TW
Sheriff Jon,
Since you insist on yet another unfounded derogatory comment I'll spell it out for you, and I challenge you to support your view with a meaningful and logical argument.
I'll save you time with the statement that helmets obviously offer significant protection from serious head injury in some crashes. Those types of crashes may even be common as far as serious crashes go. It's only common sense that anyone wishes they had a helmet on when they crash. The problem is that they shouldn't have it on until the moment of the crash.
Helmets are used commonly enough and for enough years, that common sense also dictates that if helmets really made riders safer, then reliable numbers would prove it through significantly reduced serious head trauma and death numbers for cyclists per capita. The problem is those stats don't exist despite best efforts of the helmet advocates. An intelligent person has to ask how this is possible, and there are only 2 possibilities. Either helmets offer only insignificant protection, or wearing helmets must result in a greater likelihood of getting into a serious accident. I think we can dismiss the first one just based on common sense, the fact that helmets have gotten better, and even just the anecdotal evidence from ES members who've crashed on their helmets. That can only mean on average that wearing a helmet makes bicycle riders more likely to get in a serious accident.
Plausible reasons:
1. Wearing a helmet emboldens riders to higher risk behavior on a bike
2. Wearing a helmet results subconsciously in riding in a less safe manner
3. Motorists take less care around helmeted cyclists than around those without helmets
4. Helmets can reduce field of vision
5. Helmets can reduce hearing
6. During an accident a rider without a helmet falls differently making the injury less serious
7. Helmets can lead to overheating, reducing reaction times or simply being hot distracting the rider
8. In some accidents the helmet itself increases injury - I've seen this argument put forth in different manners,
but I don't buy into it, and even if true it's incidence has to be so low as to be statistically irrelevant.
Personally I think it's all of the first 7 to varying degrees, and some riders more than others. No doubt number 1 is true and this same factor shows up in a number of other sports where safety equipment has improved, however, I think this is more off road and the helmets are protecting enough people that it hasn't changed the fact that crashes with vehicles still account for most deaths.
I know number 2 to be true, because I sense it in myself. When I do put my helmet on my brain feels more cozy and safe, tuning out the outside world to some extent leading to thinking about other things just like while driving in a car. Some of that effect is probably due to far greater wind noise with my helmet on, leading to a greater sense of isolation. Without my helmet on, I feel far more exposed with a heightened sense of my surroundings and almost a paranoid focus on everything. I think this is what leads helmet opponents to statements about a greater sense of freedom without a helmet. Before anyone cries BS, please do explain why LiveForPhysics road in a safer manner while down here with no helmet than he would have with his fancy expensive helmet at home. You helmet preachers think a helmet makes you safer, so it only makes sense that you'd feel more exposed and ride with more care without one. Trying to argue it isn't true, however small a difference, is like trying to say you wouldn't walk more carefully along a cliff than you would on a sidewalk.
Number 3 is common sense because the rider looks more protected with his helmet on and may subconsciously believe the cyclist will move more predictably. This is born true by the study that showed motorists give those without helmets more room. I've noticed this to be true in my own riding with and without helmet. The same could be accomplished though by some weaving or zigzagging within your space, making the helmet part irrelevant. I haven't seen anyone suggest this, but it does work, I do it all the time for perfectly valid reasons for better vision, visibility, and position in my lane. Cars give me wide birth to the side and behind as a result, sometimes such a big space that it makes me laugh.
Number 4 makes sense not only for those using full helmets, but I can imagine that some percentage of the time an improperly adjusted helmets result in blocking vision or otherwise distracting riders' focus.
5 may not be an issue most of the time, but even at lower speeds they're noisy going into a headwind, and that noise reduces a rider's ability to hear his surroundings.
6 probably comes into play a very small percentage of the time, but I know if at all possible I'll make some effort to protect my head in an accident.
This discussion isn't about the types of riding where going down with some frequency is almost a given, whether it's racing or mountain biking, or whatever. I'd wear a helmet then too. In fact, I wear my helmet riding on the road when I perceive higher risk, like when it's wet or that very rare night ride. Instead the discussion is about normal riding on paved surfaces, where most of the deaths occur. The simple fact is that it's quite safe with very low chances of death or serious head injury, where a helmet might help. Because it is so safe, it only takes very small % benefits from the items in the list to offset the gains helmets offer.
Other than for the accident prone, wearing a helmet doesn't pay dividends for normal riding, so you guys really should stop pushing the fear mongering that you've fallen for. Your ridicule of someone who doesn't wear a helmet is laughable, because our goal in terms of safety is to avoid accidents altogether, not just protect our head in case we land on it, especially when doing so would make us more likely to get in an accident. If you're really so fanatical about safety, push for people to not ride at night, something that really does pose a far greater risk.
Since you insist on yet another unfounded derogatory comment I'll spell it out for you, and I challenge you to support your view with a meaningful and logical argument.
I'll save you time with the statement that helmets obviously offer significant protection from serious head injury in some crashes. Those types of crashes may even be common as far as serious crashes go. It's only common sense that anyone wishes they had a helmet on when they crash. The problem is that they shouldn't have it on until the moment of the crash.
Helmets are used commonly enough and for enough years, that common sense also dictates that if helmets really made riders safer, then reliable numbers would prove it through significantly reduced serious head trauma and death numbers for cyclists per capita. The problem is those stats don't exist despite best efforts of the helmet advocates. An intelligent person has to ask how this is possible, and there are only 2 possibilities. Either helmets offer only insignificant protection, or wearing helmets must result in a greater likelihood of getting into a serious accident. I think we can dismiss the first one just based on common sense, the fact that helmets have gotten better, and even just the anecdotal evidence from ES members who've crashed on their helmets. That can only mean on average that wearing a helmet makes bicycle riders more likely to get in a serious accident.
Plausible reasons:
1. Wearing a helmet emboldens riders to higher risk behavior on a bike
2. Wearing a helmet results subconsciously in riding in a less safe manner
3. Motorists take less care around helmeted cyclists than around those without helmets
4. Helmets can reduce field of vision
5. Helmets can reduce hearing
6. During an accident a rider without a helmet falls differently making the injury less serious
7. Helmets can lead to overheating, reducing reaction times or simply being hot distracting the rider
8. In some accidents the helmet itself increases injury - I've seen this argument put forth in different manners,
but I don't buy into it, and even if true it's incidence has to be so low as to be statistically irrelevant.
Personally I think it's all of the first 7 to varying degrees, and some riders more than others. No doubt number 1 is true and this same factor shows up in a number of other sports where safety equipment has improved, however, I think this is more off road and the helmets are protecting enough people that it hasn't changed the fact that crashes with vehicles still account for most deaths.
I know number 2 to be true, because I sense it in myself. When I do put my helmet on my brain feels more cozy and safe, tuning out the outside world to some extent leading to thinking about other things just like while driving in a car. Some of that effect is probably due to far greater wind noise with my helmet on, leading to a greater sense of isolation. Without my helmet on, I feel far more exposed with a heightened sense of my surroundings and almost a paranoid focus on everything. I think this is what leads helmet opponents to statements about a greater sense of freedom without a helmet. Before anyone cries BS, please do explain why LiveForPhysics road in a safer manner while down here with no helmet than he would have with his fancy expensive helmet at home. You helmet preachers think a helmet makes you safer, so it only makes sense that you'd feel more exposed and ride with more care without one. Trying to argue it isn't true, however small a difference, is like trying to say you wouldn't walk more carefully along a cliff than you would on a sidewalk.
Number 3 is common sense because the rider looks more protected with his helmet on and may subconsciously believe the cyclist will move more predictably. This is born true by the study that showed motorists give those without helmets more room. I've noticed this to be true in my own riding with and without helmet. The same could be accomplished though by some weaving or zigzagging within your space, making the helmet part irrelevant. I haven't seen anyone suggest this, but it does work, I do it all the time for perfectly valid reasons for better vision, visibility, and position in my lane. Cars give me wide birth to the side and behind as a result, sometimes such a big space that it makes me laugh.
Number 4 makes sense not only for those using full helmets, but I can imagine that some percentage of the time an improperly adjusted helmets result in blocking vision or otherwise distracting riders' focus.
5 may not be an issue most of the time, but even at lower speeds they're noisy going into a headwind, and that noise reduces a rider's ability to hear his surroundings.
6 probably comes into play a very small percentage of the time, but I know if at all possible I'll make some effort to protect my head in an accident.
This discussion isn't about the types of riding where going down with some frequency is almost a given, whether it's racing or mountain biking, or whatever. I'd wear a helmet then too. In fact, I wear my helmet riding on the road when I perceive higher risk, like when it's wet or that very rare night ride. Instead the discussion is about normal riding on paved surfaces, where most of the deaths occur. The simple fact is that it's quite safe with very low chances of death or serious head injury, where a helmet might help. Because it is so safe, it only takes very small % benefits from the items in the list to offset the gains helmets offer.
Other than for the accident prone, wearing a helmet doesn't pay dividends for normal riding, so you guys really should stop pushing the fear mongering that you've fallen for. Your ridicule of someone who doesn't wear a helmet is laughable, because our goal in terms of safety is to avoid accidents altogether, not just protect our head in case we land on it, especially when doing so would make us more likely to get in an accident. If you're really so fanatical about safety, push for people to not ride at night, something that really does pose a far greater risk.
John in CR
100 TW
Gordo said:
No Gordo, never any concussions however mild, and I find your suggestion offensive.
MitchJi
10 MW
Hi,
http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=23862
kriskros said:
John in CR said:
http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=23862
I think wearing a helmet is a good idea but be sure:Kingfish said:Negative Traits:...
My senses are moderately dulled from the padding and the vision restricted over a bicycle helmet...
Fogs easily, but then so do all shielded helmets...
One important thing to consider, and I don’t know if this has to do with the holidaze traffic, but I noticed an immediate effect in traffic wearing a “motorcycle†helmet over a bicycle helmet in that cars assume you are street-legal and will cut you right off, whereas they’d think twice if you were a bicycle (provided they saw you in the first place).
- it doesn't cause you to drive less safely.
your appearance with the helmet isn't causing increased risk.
it doesn't impair your hearing or vision in an unsafe manner.
John in CR
100 TW
MitchJi said:
Mitch,
I would agree with you, and I believe leaving the last one off the list would likely still tilt the scale in favor of helmets. The problem is I think the first 2 are results that have subconscious causes. While I'm a safe defensive driver and helmeted rider, when I ride without a helmet my focus is heightened significantly. My case is probably an exaggerated difference over the norm, because I ride faster matching traffic speeds. The extra speed means my risk in the event of an accident is much higher, so those riding slower may not notice the difference as readily, but it must exist. Higher risk in the event of an accident does not mean the same thing as being less safe, and helmet advocates appear to confuse the two.
I know my helmet decisions are based on intelligent choices, just like I know my choice to match traffic speeds makes me safer than the cyclists I fly by, despite my higher risk in the event of an accident. That's because the chances of an accident are reduced enough to offset the added risk in the event of one.
etard
100 kW
Hasn't this been discussed here somewhere before? It is relevant, and there are valid points on both sides. I do hate when some guy in a suit tells me what to wear, as does anybody. However, it is the reality we live in, no use fighting it, it's not so bad, at least we don't have to ride around on hot pink bikes, or wear reflective thongs when riding (some of us do regardless I'm sure). Living in California, we see motorcycle deaths on our freeways daily, helmets are no match for 2 tons of steel. Sure, we like to blame teenagers on cellphones and soccer moms texting, but accidents happen and life is unpredictable at best. The fact is, you just have to arm yourself with road scanning skills, protective gear, distance, judgement, reflexes, and hope that this is not your time to go. Besides that, anybody who has gone OTB (Over The Bars) knows how quickly accidents happen, sometimes you don't even know if you hit your head or not, well that is if you were wearing a helmet. If you were not wearing a helmet you would definately know if you hit your head or not. :wink:
It is relevant, and there are valid points on both sides. I do hate when some guy in a suit tells me what to wear, as does anybody. However, it is the reality we live in, no use fighting it, it's not so bad, at least we don't have to ride around on hot pink bikes, or wear reflective thongs when riding (some of us do regardless I'm sure). Living in California, we see motorcycle deaths on our freeways daily, helmets are no match for 2 tons of steel. Sure, we like to blame teenagers on cellphones and soccer moms texting, but accidents happen and life is unpredictable at best. The fact is, you just have to arm yourself with road scanning skills, protective gear, distance, judgement, reflexes, and hope that this is not your time to go. Besides that, anybody who has gone OTB (Over The Bars) knows how quickly accidents happen, sometimes you don't even know if you hit your head or not, well that is if you were wearing a helmet. If you were not wearing a helmet you would definately know if you hit your head or not. :wink:
Sheriff Jon
100 W
John in CR said:
John I am not going to argue with you over a personal 'choice', nor do I feel the need to explain my logic in making that choice. If you do not want to wear a Helmet.....that is your choice.
John in CR
100 TW
Sheriff,
While there is no argument about personal choice, you did make the argument that personal choice should be taken away by government mandate.
You also made statements that I lack common sense, that I lack logic, and that I don't have anything between my ears worth protecting, so I'm sorry but you have to step up to the plate and take a swing.
And no, twisting what's been stated like in your post containing "NOBODY" isn't gonna fly. I made my choices without being aware of any great helmet debate. I did it soley based on my perception of insignificant risk, and when I perceive higher risk I wear one, just like how I choose not to wear a helmet around the house. It wasn't until these discussions that I dug deep to realize that not only were my decisions justified, but that for the times that I decide against wearing a helmet that my odds are likely to be better without it. Thank goodness I was never exposed to the fear mongering pitch about helmets or I might have been adversely influenced by it too.
The bottom line is that helmets have little impact on overall cyclist safety, and in fact they may detract from it in some common types of riding. In other circumstances, with certain types riders, types of riding, and probably even on some types of bikes helmets are warranted, and riders seem to make that correct choice despite no government mandate. On top of that you can add that government helmet mandates and campaigns to push helmet use discourage people from getting on bikes, because it's perceived to be so dangerous, and discouraging ridership detracts from overall public safety. It's not the first and won't be the last time that good intentions have bad results, and belief that the government always makes the right choices for you is misguided at best. In addition, you guys with your cute little insults need to get off your high horse, because you've been duped and it's actually a dog you're riding, and a disservice to the cause. Just let adults make their own choices free of ridicule, and I for one am certainly not going to take any "common sense" crap from someone who puts a 5 year old learning to rollerblade out on the sidewalk unassisted, helmeted or not.
John
While there is no argument about personal choice, you did make the argument that personal choice should be taken away by government mandate.
You also made statements that I lack common sense, that I lack logic, and that I don't have anything between my ears worth protecting, so I'm sorry but you have to step up to the plate and take a swing.
And no, twisting what's been stated like in your post containing "NOBODY" isn't gonna fly. I made my choices without being aware of any great helmet debate. I did it soley based on my perception of insignificant risk, and when I perceive higher risk I wear one, just like how I choose not to wear a helmet around the house. It wasn't until these discussions that I dug deep to realize that not only were my decisions justified, but that for the times that I decide against wearing a helmet that my odds are likely to be better without it. Thank goodness I was never exposed to the fear mongering pitch about helmets or I might have been adversely influenced by it too.
The bottom line is that helmets have little impact on overall cyclist safety, and in fact they may detract from it in some common types of riding. In other circumstances, with certain types riders, types of riding, and probably even on some types of bikes helmets are warranted, and riders seem to make that correct choice despite no government mandate. On top of that you can add that government helmet mandates and campaigns to push helmet use discourage people from getting on bikes, because it's perceived to be so dangerous, and discouraging ridership detracts from overall public safety. It's not the first and won't be the last time that good intentions have bad results, and belief that the government always makes the right choices for you is misguided at best. In addition, you guys with your cute little insults need to get off your high horse, because you've been duped and it's actually a dog you're riding, and a disservice to the cause. Just let adults make their own choices free of ridicule, and I for one am certainly not going to take any "common sense" crap from someone who puts a 5 year old learning to rollerblade out on the sidewalk unassisted, helmeted or not.
John
Sheriff Jon
100 W
John in CR said:
Ahhhh..now I understand why you do not need a Helmet. Your head is already thick enough to protect it's contents, and apparently also effect your interpretive skills. I DID NOT infer or "make the argument" that choice should be taken away by any government mandate. What I said was...that I understand 'why' and the reason that some governments do that is because they feel some people are just too frocking stupid to take that precaution on their own. Not that I "have to" do anything that you suggest, but that was my "swing" 8)
John in CR
100 TW
Sheriff Jon said:
Sheriff,
That's another strike, and a typical one when someone has no reasonable and logical support of their argument, or does lashing out result from the realization that your own example points to a common error with helmets? ie The belief that helmets provide enough safety that crash avoidance precautions are lax.
I managed to teach my 4 kids to rollerblade at about the same age without a single head impact, much less one requiring a doctor visit. Only one had a helmet, but it was ill fitting and just cute decoration. Lots of hand holding, with instruction and practice on how to fall safely, all on a wide open flat surface were the order of the day. Some proficiency was the requirement before getting turned loose hands free in less safe areas.
Helmets need to come last, not first. At best they are a last line of defense, but in the real world the attitude placing them first, and whatever other factors enter the equation, have resulted in them being statistically irrelevant. If they are such an critical and effective piece of safety equipment for average cycling, please explain how this is possible.
Enough with insults, get back in the batter's box, and try for something substantive this time. Come on, with all that attitude, you've gotta have at least a bunt single in you.
John
John in CR
100 TW
BTW, how can your statement "I for one, will take the laws, the mandates and the protection any time" be interpreted in any other way than you support mandate over free choice? Then in the same post you deny that viewpoint you say essentially the same thing again with "...the reason that some governments do that is because they feel some people are just too frocking stupid to take that precaution on their own.", since your emphasis on stupid indicates your agreement with that feeling.
TylerDurden
100 GW
There are lies, damn lies... and statistics.
It is as least as likely that the stats showing a greater risk overlook a significant element, as it is that helmets actually raise the risk of injury.
"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."
It is as least as likely that the stats showing a greater risk overlook a significant element, as it is that helmets actually raise the risk of injury.
John in CR said:
"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."
Sheriff Jon
100 W
Let me be perfectly clear here....JOHN, or for others who may be reading this spirited discussion.
I wear a Helmet whenever I ride....by CHOICE (My choice). I would wear a Helmet even if it was not mandated by Law, because to me it just make sense and there is little if any downside to taking that precaution. I am not the one here who needs convoluted facts or statistics to see the wisdom in wearing a Helmet, or to pursue the argument that wearing a Helmet is somehow more dangerous than not wearing one.
The truth is, and could likely be proven with even your statistics, that the vast majority of us will go our entire lifetimes riding whatever we ride and NEVER need the protection of a Helmet. The vast majority of us will drive our cars or be passengers and NEVER need the protection of our seat belts. The vast majority of us will never have to use the fire extinguishers that we have in our homes, or use the fire insurance that we carry on our homes. And in the end we will all have wasted all that money on protection that we never actually needed. YOU may be willing to gamble and play the odds whether these precautions are mandated or not. But I for one am not willing to take that chance, and I will gladly waste the money and take the taunts from people like you with my head held high, and in tact 8)
If you do not want to wear a Helmet, fine. It matters little to me. You are not a loved one, not a family member, not a friend, not a neighbor and do not live and ride in the state that I live in. So your actions will not effect me and my ability to ride in the least. I learned long ago that "you can not use logic to change someons mind on an opinion that they did not use logic to arrive at". So you can go find someone else to try and pound your point into.
I wear a Helmet whenever I ride....by CHOICE (My choice). I would wear a Helmet even if it was not mandated by Law, because to me it just make sense and there is little if any downside to taking that precaution. I am not the one here who needs convoluted facts or statistics to see the wisdom in wearing a Helmet, or to pursue the argument that wearing a Helmet is somehow more dangerous than not wearing one.
The truth is, and could likely be proven with even your statistics, that the vast majority of us will go our entire lifetimes riding whatever we ride and NEVER need the protection of a Helmet. The vast majority of us will drive our cars or be passengers and NEVER need the protection of our seat belts. The vast majority of us will never have to use the fire extinguishers that we have in our homes, or use the fire insurance that we carry on our homes. And in the end we will all have wasted all that money on protection that we never actually needed. YOU may be willing to gamble and play the odds whether these precautions are mandated or not. But I for one am not willing to take that chance, and I will gladly waste the money and take the taunts from people like you with my head held high, and in tact 8)
If you do not want to wear a Helmet, fine. It matters little to me. You are not a loved one, not a family member, not a friend, not a neighbor and do not live and ride in the state that I live in. So your actions will not effect me and my ability to ride in the least. I learned long ago that "you can not use logic to change someons mind on an opinion that they did not use logic to arrive at". So you can go find someone else to try and pound your point into.
Evoforce
10 kW
In the voice of Rainman. Spirited, yep spirited... 347,356 runs batted in on Endless fear, yea... 562 walk aways. 1.6 million strike-outs on their own. And yea....Yea....I think the old bat just..just hit me! :lol:
John in CR
100 TW
Sheriff Jon said:
Taunts????? You sir were the one who started with the blatant insults that you'd not make in person. If you can't understand that, how are you possibly going to grasp the possibility that your helmet attitude lead directly to a trip to the hospital with your daughter? I'm not trying to change anyone's mind except to the extent that those voicing their helmet opinion with the all too common insults and ridicule in the same manner as you, need to stop. Not only is it a disservice to the cause, but the logic is flawed. Even your insurance argument is flawed, because only a small portion of cycling fatalities result from head injuries, yet you don't wear motorcycle type body armor, and you also don't wear a helmet for other activities for which helmet use would pay better insurance dividends.
My efforts in this thread already have a beneficial impact even with you, because your attitude has changed significantly. At first it was one of "It's crazy not to wear a helmet because they keep you safe." to "Helmets very rarely come into play, but I wear one just in case." I'd bet you will also ride more care and focus, with some of it subconscious from the change in attitude, and some of it to prove me wrong and maximum focus and care is possible with a helmet on. Even if it's just the tiniest change, maybe it avoids that one instance that a car takes you out helmeted or not.
A little perspective, especially for those who deny that helmets can increase the possibility of an accident by even the smallest margin:
Less than a thousand people are killed in the US on bicycles each year. Most involve cars, about a third are kids, and half are a night. About 300 people are struck by lightning in the US each year. That means there's a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than an adult riding a bike during the day has of getting killed. Going a step further: Over 20% of those struck by lightning die, and of the cyclists who die, well under 20% die from head injury. WTF? People have a greater chance of getting killed by lightning than an adult has of dying from a head blow riding a bicycle during the day. You might get put in a mental institution if you pushed for everyone to put on a faraday cage suit anytime the weather is threatening, yet it's commonly suggested that people who don't wear a helmet riding a bike are "frocking idiots".
note that the only assumptions made in the preceding analysis are that no wacky statistical anomalies exist regarding kids or night riders, such as an inordinate amount of the child fatalities are a night, or the head trauma deaths occur mostly during the day. It's just pretty raw numbers, not interpreted data where stat use goes awry.
Sheriff Jon
100 W
YOU were the one who started this petty little soap opera with your
I am going to ask you politely....JOHN, Please back off with the derogatory comments about my Daughter and your inference of how we raised her. The assumptions and accusations that you make only shine the bad light....on you my friend.
comment implying that anyone (all of us) who wear a Helmet [by choice] are accident prone.
I am going to ask you politely....JOHN, Please back off with the derogatory comments about my Daughter and your inference of how we raised her. The assumptions and accusations that you make only shine the bad light....on you my friend.
John in CR
100 TW
Sheriff Jon said:
If it helps get to constructive discussion going, change my poor wording or punctuation however you want, because I didn't intend to say or insinuate that anyone in particular is accident prone. In fact, I don't think you are accident prone from your statements. Accident prone people probably do need helmets, and I don't really consider being accident prone as a derogatory. I've known some highly intelligent people who were total spazzes and really have no business on a bike without a helmet and full armor, and I've known others prone to accidents who weren't spazzes at all.
I stand by my statement that if it's stupid not to always wear a helmet on a bike, then it's also stupid not to wear a helmet in many other everyday circumstances.
OTOH I value common sense as a form of intelligence that has tremendous real world usefulness, so I view your earlier snide common sense comment as the start of your pot shots, and if attacked I will defend myself.
Regarding your daughter, you used the incident as an example in support of your pro-helmet view. It's the typical anecdotal evidence that pro-helmet guys present. I resisted at first, but then your continued reliance on insults as the only defense of your position forced me to use your example to make my own point. In no way did I say or insinuate anything about her or your parenting in general, only the topical incident specifically related to helmets. The point is that thinking helmets keep people safe often leaves short other more effective safety measures. Your annoyance seems to indicate that in retrospect you see validity in my point. If it did hit home, hopefully you'll man-up and use the incident as an example for others to learn. I won't bring it up again.
MitchJi
10 MW
Hi,
Maybe we can all agree that Helmets (wether you think we should wear one or not) are not the real solution because cyclists are not the problem?
http://www.theurbancountry.com/2010/12/why-not-aim-for-zero-deaths.html
Maybe we can all agree that Helmets (wether you think we should wear one or not) are not the real solution because cyclists are not the problem?
http://www.theurbancountry.com/2010/12/why-not-aim-for-zero-deaths.html
Similar threads
