Zoot Katz
100 kW
More permanent traumatic brain injuries happen every year inside automobiles, shower stalls and on staircases than happen on bicycles.
What kind of helmet do you use?
- Thread starter mvadventure
- Start date
deronmoped
10 kW
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 706
"Although I also don't care for my tax dollars going toward the long term care of those that suffer traumatic brain injuries during an activity that may have been prevented if the injured person would have been wearing a helmet and that activity is commonly associated with such risk."
I hear this all the time and it's so easily refuted. Where are the studies proving this? What is the exact amount of money you are talking about here, there must be a figure out there from all the studies done on this?
Surely you can not mean by making such a statement you are in favor of controlling people's very lives to save you some money. If so you also must be in favor of controlling what they eat, smoke, drink, the more dangerous activities they participate in and surely you want people out of there cars because of the huge numbers of people you are paying for that have traumatic brain injuries from auto accidents...
Make people wear helmets when they climb ladders, you pay for far more people that end up in the hospital that have fallen off of ladders.
What I would have said was, I'm all for someone being responsible for their own actions. Problem is, that is what sucks about having the government take money from you, I and everyone else and give it to irresponsible people.
Deron.
I hear this all the time and it's so easily refuted. Where are the studies proving this? What is the exact amount of money you are talking about here, there must be a figure out there from all the studies done on this?
Surely you can not mean by making such a statement you are in favor of controlling people's very lives to save you some money. If so you also must be in favor of controlling what they eat, smoke, drink, the more dangerous activities they participate in and surely you want people out of there cars because of the huge numbers of people you are paying for that have traumatic brain injuries from auto accidents...
Make people wear helmets when they climb ladders, you pay for far more people that end up in the hospital that have fallen off of ladders.
What I would have said was, I'm all for someone being responsible for their own actions. Problem is, that is what sucks about having the government take money from you, I and everyone else and give it to irresponsible people.
Deron.
deronmoped
10 kW
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 706
Maybe some people should have never left the safety of the womb. :lol:
Deron.
Deron.
deronmoped
10 kW
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 706
Oops, scratch that last statement, I forgot that you have to survive getting out of the womb alive. 
Deron.
Deron.
deronmoped said:
oooookkayyyy...deronmoped said:Oops, scratch that last statement, I forgot that you have to survive getting out of the womb alive.
Deron.
You know Deron, that "where are the studies proving this" comment is a bit iffy. there are some cost figures on this pro-helmet site I cited before http://helmets.org/stats.htm that he could throw at us. 81 million or something like that. Lets keep this on the down low :wink: Luckily the site has no CITATIONS of it's SOURCES so you can expect it to be bias toward helmets.deronmoped said:
Edit: added quotes.
deronmoped
10 kW
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 706
Man that site is big.
I saw the 81 million figure, but that's very vague. Where is the figure that says how much is coming out of your pocket in the way of "my tax dollars going toward the long term care of those that suffer traumatic brain injuries."
And to use your logic further, should we not ban bicycles? For surely we all are still forking out some cash for traumatic brain injury cases even when a person is wearing a helmet. Or, is it OK for us to provide subsidies to people who do not pay their bills who wear helmets. Helmets are just the deciding line, no helmet no cash, wearing a helmet no problem send us your emergency room bills.
I'm still all for "self responsibility", you get involved in a certain activity, you take all the risks associated with that activity, no bail outs.
I'm not for micro-managing peoples lives. Bicycles are dangerous, so wear a helmet???
Some old fart sitting in front of the TV. "What, 540,000 bicyclist visit the emergency room every year, ban the bicycle, I'm not going to pay another dam dime for those dam kids on their confounded death traps."
Deron.
I saw the 81 million figure, but that's very vague. Where is the figure that says how much is coming out of your pocket in the way of "my tax dollars going toward the long term care of those that suffer traumatic brain injuries."
And to use your logic further, should we not ban bicycles? For surely we all are still forking out some cash for traumatic brain injury cases even when a person is wearing a helmet. Or, is it OK for us to provide subsidies to people who do not pay their bills who wear helmets. Helmets are just the deciding line, no helmet no cash, wearing a helmet no problem send us your emergency room bills.
I'm still all for "self responsibility", you get involved in a certain activity, you take all the risks associated with that activity, no bail outs.
I'm not for micro-managing peoples lives. Bicycles are dangerous, so wear a helmet???
Some old fart sitting in front of the TV. "What, 540,000 bicyclist visit the emergency room every year, ban the bicycle, I'm not going to pay another dam dime for those dam kids on their confounded death traps."
Deron.
deronmoped
10 kW
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 706
"The "typical" bicyclist killed on our roads is a sober male over 16 not wearing a helmet riding on a major road between intersections in an urban area on a summer evening when hit by a car."
Well, I guess they have it all figured out with their studies.
The "0" at a press conference. "To make all bicyclist safe, we will now be banning all sober males over 16 not wearing a helmet riding on a major roads between intersections in an urban areas on a summer evening when on the road with cars."
Deron.
Well, I guess they have it all figured out with their studies.
The "0" at a press conference. "To make all bicyclist safe, we will now be banning all sober males over 16 not wearing a helmet riding on a major roads between intersections in an urban areas on a summer evening when on the road with cars."
Deron.
deronmoped said:
HAHAahahaha. That would be a horrible site... The real shame is, there probably is a mentality like that somewhere... :lol:
Ok maybe its time this poor thread got back on topic!! Sorry about that.
Here's what I have lined up for my future ebike. Nice down hill MBT helmet that I will use with some cheap moto cross goggles:
deronmoped
10 kW
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 706
So I had a chance to think about the ("my tax dollars going toward the long term care of those that suffer traumatic brain injuries.") statement.
For example, lets say there are 100 people on life support, at any one given time, that could of had lesser injuries if they were wearing a helmet. Now lets say each one cost us $100,000.00 a year to keep them kickin. Well 100 times $100,000.00 dollars is 10 million dollars a year. Now take 300 million people and divide that into the 10 million dollars. Turns out you owe out of your tax dollars every year a whole 30 cents. I know there could be a hundred different ways to figure this out, but in the end the figure is going to be really small.
You have been complaining about money not worth bending over to pick up off the ground?
The reason this gets under my skin is, the statement you used was the very same logic they used here in California to convince people that they were having to fork out gobs of money keeping brain dead people alive. If only they were wearing helmets, California would be such a nicer place to live.
Deron.
For example, lets say there are 100 people on life support, at any one given time, that could of had lesser injuries if they were wearing a helmet. Now lets say each one cost us $100,000.00 a year to keep them kickin. Well 100 times $100,000.00 dollars is 10 million dollars a year. Now take 300 million people and divide that into the 10 million dollars. Turns out you owe out of your tax dollars every year a whole 30 cents. I know there could be a hundred different ways to figure this out, but in the end the figure is going to be really small.
You have been complaining about money not worth bending over to pick up off the ground?
The reason this gets under my skin is, the statement you used was the very same logic they used here in California to convince people that they were having to fork out gobs of money keeping brain dead people alive. If only they were wearing helmets, California would be such a nicer place to live.
Deron.
Yes, I agree, perhaps not a reasonable argument.
I'll continue to wear my helmet if for no other reason than my own well being and the responsibility I have to my family. Its quick, simple, and inexpensive and might just be the difference between momentary embarrassment and lifelong tragedy someday.
I'll continue to wear my helmet if for no other reason than my own well being and the responsibility I have to my family. Its quick, simple, and inexpensive and might just be the difference between momentary embarrassment and lifelong tragedy someday.
Toshi
10 kW
deronmoped said:So I had a chance to think about the ("my tax dollars going toward the long term care of those that suffer traumatic brain injuries.") statement.
For example, lets say there are 100 people on life support, at any one given time, that could of had lesser injuries if they were wearing a helmet. Now lets say each one cost us $100,000.00 a year to keep them kickin. Well 100 times $100,000.00 dollars is 10 million dollars a year. Now take 300 million people and divide that into the 10 million dollars. Turns out you owe out of your tax dollars every year a whole 30 cents. I know there could be a hundred different ways to figure this out, but in the end the figure is going to be really small.
You have been complaining about money not worth bending over to pick up off the ground?
The reason this gets under my skin is, the statement you used was the very same logic they used here in California to convince people that they were having to fork out gobs of money keeping brain dead people alive. If only they were wearing helmets, California would be such a nicer place to live.
Deron.
your back of napkin math is way off. keeping a terry schiavo alive for 1 year costs way more than $100k. a week in ICU can easily run $100,000 with a few operations here and there. limiting the number of people in your "analysis" to 100 is also asinine...
i give up.
Traveling by bicycle is too risky...? If concerned a quick search of 'bicycle safety' on google will bring up a website with some good safety tips.
BMXing is an extreme sport - by definition a risky sport. I wear a helmet for my extreme sport: snowboarding. Not sure why Mike didn't wear a helmet. He sure will be wearing one from now on.
BMXing is an extreme sport - by definition a risky sport. I wear a helmet for my extreme sport: snowboarding. Not sure why Mike didn't wear a helmet. He sure will be wearing one from now on.
Mr. Mik
1 kW
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2008
- Messages
- 390
For me a helmet is more than just impact protection.
One important function of a helmet (for me) is to hold loudspeakers so I can listen to radio, music, podcasts etc. on my regular 30min twice daily commute. I would not have opportunity to listen to the news, Scientific American podcasts, The Science Show, All in the Mind, The Health Report and other interesting podcasts. It's the thing I miss most about not using the car (and airconditioning !).
In order to replace the car more often it is also very handy to have bluetooth cell phone connectivity to the speakers inside the helmet. You can answer a call, let the caller know that you are pulling over, and then talk. You might have missed the call if you pulled over first, taken the helmet off and gotten the phone out from it's weatherproof hiding place.
Sure, that takes away some attention from the road and traffic and is of particular impact on slow bicycles, on which you would otherwise hear traffic very well.
On my maxi-scooter I wear a full face flip-up helmet (Nolan N102) and therefore cannot hear the traffic anyway. Many motorbike riders seam to wear earplugs, so I don't think listening to music makes it much more dangerous.
The helmet also stops UV light burning my face.
For my bicycle I found it very difficult to find any headsets that are open (so I can still hear whats coming and from where) and at the same time not causing too much wind noise at speeds over 20km/h. I don't use the bike much these days, but if I could then I would try to get a bike helmet with speakers built in a small distance away from my ears.
For my bicycle helmets I also always make a mount for a strong LED headlight on top of the helmet, and for a rear LED light. They are much better placed on the head than on the bike, because you can actually throw light to where you are looking at, and the rear light is up high and much more visible to car drivers. A quick glance straight through the windscreen of an oncoming car will also make it very likely that the driver has seen you!
One important function of a helmet (for me) is to hold loudspeakers so I can listen to radio, music, podcasts etc. on my regular 30min twice daily commute. I would not have opportunity to listen to the news, Scientific American podcasts, The Science Show, All in the Mind, The Health Report and other interesting podcasts. It's the thing I miss most about not using the car (and airconditioning !).
In order to replace the car more often it is also very handy to have bluetooth cell phone connectivity to the speakers inside the helmet. You can answer a call, let the caller know that you are pulling over, and then talk. You might have missed the call if you pulled over first, taken the helmet off and gotten the phone out from it's weatherproof hiding place.
Sure, that takes away some attention from the road and traffic and is of particular impact on slow bicycles, on which you would otherwise hear traffic very well.
On my maxi-scooter I wear a full face flip-up helmet (Nolan N102) and therefore cannot hear the traffic anyway. Many motorbike riders seam to wear earplugs, so I don't think listening to music makes it much more dangerous.
The helmet also stops UV light burning my face.
For my bicycle I found it very difficult to find any headsets that are open (so I can still hear whats coming and from where) and at the same time not causing too much wind noise at speeds over 20km/h. I don't use the bike much these days, but if I could then I would try to get a bike helmet with speakers built in a small distance away from my ears.
For my bicycle helmets I also always make a mount for a strong LED headlight on top of the helmet, and for a rear LED light. They are much better placed on the head than on the bike, because you can actually throw light to where you are looking at, and the rear light is up high and much more visible to car drivers. A quick glance straight through the windscreen of an oncoming car will also make it very likely that the driver has seen you!
I never thought of having lights both on the front and back of the helmet... that would save you from having to take the 2 lights off your bike every time you park. If only they sold helmets with strips of LEDs built in.
It's nice having earphones in your helmet. My snowboard helmet came with them built in. Could be a good alternative if you don't like ipod style earphones.
It is a disadvantage that you won't hear the traffic by playing music. I find hearing is quite useful. I can usually tell whats going on around me, like if there are cars behind me or around the corner. Earplugs don't hinder hearing like earphones that are playing music(depending on the volume). Earplugs turn down the volume on everything evenly. I sometimes wear hidden earplugs to concerts and clubs so I can hear people talking to me better. You still can't hear much from inside a full face helmet.
It's nice having earphones in your helmet. My snowboard helmet came with them built in. Could be a good alternative if you don't like ipod style earphones.
It is a disadvantage that you won't hear the traffic by playing music. I find hearing is quite useful. I can usually tell whats going on around me, like if there are cars behind me or around the corner. Earplugs don't hinder hearing like earphones that are playing music(depending on the volume). Earplugs turn down the volume on everything evenly. I sometimes wear hidden earplugs to concerts and clubs so I can hear people talking to me better. You still can't hear much from inside a full face helmet.
rguy56
100 W
I wear full face helmets year-round. They're nice and warm in winter, and protective of my face.
I've been to numerous bike vs. car accidents. It's my job...
It's not the law here, so the majority of those accidents involve bikers with no helmets. You'd be surprised at the number of those who have bad injuries to the lower face...painful debilitating stuff. No thanks!
I've been to numerous bike vs. car accidents. It's my job...
It's not the law here, so the majority of those accidents involve bikers with no helmets. You'd be surprised at the number of those who have bad injuries to the lower face...painful debilitating stuff. No thanks!
deronmoped
10 kW
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 706
Toshi said:deronmoped said:So I had a chance to think about the ("my tax dollars going toward the long term care of those that suffer traumatic brain injuries.") statement.
For example, lets say there are 100 people on life support, at any one given time, that could of had lesser injuries if they were wearing a helmet. Now lets say each one cost us $100,000.00 a year to keep them kickin. Well 100 times $100,000.00 dollars is 10 million dollars a year. Now take 300 million people and divide that into the 10 million dollars. Turns out you owe out of your tax dollars every year a whole 30 cents. I know there could be a hundred different ways to figure this out, but in the end the figure is going to be really small.
You have been complaining about money not worth bending over to pick up off the ground?
The reason this gets under my skin is, the statement you used was the very same logic they used here in California to convince people that they were having to fork out gobs of money keeping brain dead people alive. If only they were wearing helmets, California would be such a nicer place to live.
Deron.
your back of napkin math is way off. keeping a terry schiavo alive for 1 year costs way more than $100k. a week in ICU can easily run $100,000 with a few operations here and there. limiting the number of people in your "analysis" to 100 is also asinine...
i give up.
So instead of being so critical of my guess, you could make your own estimate.
Of course the $100,000.00 dollar figure you throw out there is not realistic. If you would have read the quote I was responding to, it talks about "long term care", someone in long term care is not in a ICU weeks on end.
We could always use the site that v_tach was referring to. "Direct costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $81 million each year," Now from here you can take the whole cost and spread it over the 300 million people that live in the US. That would end up being a few cents a year out of everyone's pockets, but that figure has it's problems too. First, in the study, what do "Direct costs" mean? Also of the $81 million dollar figure, what is the amount going towards long term care of brain injured patients? I would suspect that a majority of the $81 million goes towards "one" time costs not long term care. And also of the $81 million, how much of that is actually being paid by the taxpayers, the persons insurance company or directly out of the persons pocket?
Is my guess that the cost to us for long term care of brain injured patients not wearing helmets being extremely small that far off? Or do you get a itemized bill every tax season saying you owe $10.00, $50.00, $100.00... for brain dead people?
Heck, even if it was $1.00 a year for every taxpayer, that would be a $138 million every year going to long term care of people not wearing helmets injured in bike crashes.Also if you would have comprehended what I was writing, I used 100 people as a "example". For who the hell knows how many people are out there that are on long term care, from a brain injury, caused by not wearing a helmet, that would have lesser injuries if they had been wearing a helmet, that you and I are paying for?
Deron.
Toshi
10 kW
i don't think there's an easy way to back of napkin it.
what i do know is that, as a resident physician who spends half of his time at the county trauma hospital, we see quite a few people come in as a result of bike accidents. are all of their injuries and treatment costs directly attributable to their lack of helmets? how much of their injuries is a result of negligence, and how much is the helmet reflective of their general lack of self-care? these are all amorphous quantities.
orbital and mandible fractures, not to mention your garden variety subdural/epidural/intraparenchymal/intraventricular bleeds +/- skull fractures, are quite common. how common and how much? i don't know. but it's certainly enough for me to buckle up my helmet as i commute in on my bike every day.
what i do know is that, as a resident physician who spends half of his time at the county trauma hospital, we see quite a few people come in as a result of bike accidents. are all of their injuries and treatment costs directly attributable to their lack of helmets? how much of their injuries is a result of negligence, and how much is the helmet reflective of their general lack of self-care? these are all amorphous quantities.
orbital and mandible fractures, not to mention your garden variety subdural/epidural/intraparenchymal/intraventricular bleeds +/- skull fractures, are quite common. how common and how much? i don't know. but it's certainly enough for me to buckle up my helmet as i commute in on my bike every day.
deronmoped
10 kW
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 706
Here is something I found, it looks like a actual study.
"The Effect of Motorcycle Helmet Use on the Probability of Fatality and the Severity of Head And Neck Injuries"
by Jonathan P. Goldstein, Ph.D.
1. Helmets are shown to have no statistically significant effect on the probability of a fatality given that a motorcycle accident has occurred. This means that based on standard statistical tests we cannot reject the claim that helmets do not affect the probability that a rider will survive a motorcycle accident.
7. As a result of (5) and (6), we establish that a tradeoff between head and neck injuries confronts a potential helmet user. Past a critical impact speed to the helmet (13 mph), which is likely to occur in real life accident situations helmet use reduces the severity of head injuries at the expense of increasing the severity of neck injuries.
1. If a major concern of policy makers is the prevention of fatalities, helmet legislation may not be effective in achieving that objective.
2. If the overall cost to society of motorcycle accidents is the issue, then cost-benefit analyses that adequately consider the tradeoff between head and neck injuries must be conducted before the cost effectiveness of helmets can be determined.
Some highlights of the study.
Deron.
"The Effect of Motorcycle Helmet Use on the Probability of Fatality and the Severity of Head And Neck Injuries"
by Jonathan P. Goldstein, Ph.D.
1. Helmets are shown to have no statistically significant effect on the probability of a fatality given that a motorcycle accident has occurred. This means that based on standard statistical tests we cannot reject the claim that helmets do not affect the probability that a rider will survive a motorcycle accident.
7. As a result of (5) and (6), we establish that a tradeoff between head and neck injuries confronts a potential helmet user. Past a critical impact speed to the helmet (13 mph), which is likely to occur in real life accident situations helmet use reduces the severity of head injuries at the expense of increasing the severity of neck injuries.
1. If a major concern of policy makers is the prevention of fatalities, helmet legislation may not be effective in achieving that objective.
2. If the overall cost to society of motorcycle accidents is the issue, then cost-benefit analyses that adequately consider the tradeoff between head and neck injuries must be conducted before the cost effectiveness of helmets can be determined.
Some highlights of the study.
Deron.
deronmoped
10 kW
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 706
Here is a pretty good site if you want to what is going on in New Zealand.
Cycling Health New Zealand
"Cycling Health promotes safe cycling and cyclists’ rights.
Consequently one goal is the removal of the compulsory bicycle helmet law."
"statement: Bicycle helmets save lives.
Response: While it is true that helmets can save lives, their potential should not be overestimated. An approved cycle helmet only resists impacts at speeds of up to 23 kph.
A law making it compulsory for cyclists to wear helmets would reduce the number of cyclists. This, in turn, would lead to an increase in deaths from heart disease and other illnesses associated with a sedentary lifestyle (see section 3.1). The overall effect would be an increase in premature deaths."
http://cyclinghealth.org.nz/index.html
Deron.
Cycling Health New Zealand
"Cycling Health promotes safe cycling and cyclists’ rights.
Consequently one goal is the removal of the compulsory bicycle helmet law."
"statement: Bicycle helmets save lives.
Response: While it is true that helmets can save lives, their potential should not be overestimated. An approved cycle helmet only resists impacts at speeds of up to 23 kph.
A law making it compulsory for cyclists to wear helmets would reduce the number of cyclists. This, in turn, would lead to an increase in deaths from heart disease and other illnesses associated with a sedentary lifestyle (see section 3.1). The overall effect would be an increase in premature deaths."
http://cyclinghealth.org.nz/index.html
Deron.
Eric G
1 kW
I never ever used to wear a helmet and I'd been riding a bike all of my life.When I got my first ebike (250watt tin can motor) with a top speed of 12mph,to me it still didn't warrant a helmet.I then upgraded and bought a crystalyte motor and controller and refitted my ebike.I still remember my first ride after the upgrade.WOW I thought as I rode down the road at better than 20mph this is great...I better get a helmet!With the second or third ride I rode to Canadian Tire and bought that helmet and have worn it ever since.Each to their own but I feel safer wearing mine.
Eric
Eric