Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just the fact that you'd wear a helmet, implies that cycling is a risky activity.
but what is the helmet protecting us from?
The answer is kind of obvious; helmets are designed to protect us from a "head injury". But is a head-injury really a common type of bike accident?
Data from a Pro-helmet website reveals that:
773 bicyclists died on US roads in 2006, down just 11 from the year before. 92% (720) of them died in crashes with motor vehicles. About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have injuries serious enough to be hospitalized.
So out of 540,000 cyclists visiting the emergency room, 67,000 had head injuries. That is about 8% of the total emergency visits and only a tiny 0.05% had head injuries serious enough to need hospitalization.
Another study conducted in Britain showed that "About half of cyclist's deaths are due to injuries not involving the head. About 50% of impact speeds are too great for helmets to provide protection. And about 50% of head impacts are outside of the helmet area"
It's kind of like insurance, in that you hope you never need it. I have only been to the emergency room three times in my life, and 66.6666% of the time it was for head injuries sustained while cycling.
It's kind of like insurance, in that you hope you never need it. I have only been to the emergency room three times in my life, and 66.6666% of the time it was for head injuries sustained while cycling.
Clearly you're not representative of the statistics shown above.
As previosuly stated, head-injuries while cycling are VERY rare. And again, even if you have a helmet on, statistically speaking, 50% of head impacts are outside of the helmet area.
Personal acedotal evidence has little to no weight on a discussion that can based almost entirely on researched data.
You say it's like insurance that you hope you never need?
Well, following that logic, then pedestrians need to start wearing helmets too, since being a pedestrian is again -statistically speaking- as dangerous as being a cyclist.
You do wear your helmet when you are pedestrian, right?
Clearly you're not representative of the statistics shown above.
As previosuly stated, head-injuries while cycling are VERY rare. And again, even if you have a helmet on, statistically speaking, 50% of head impacts are outside of the helmet area.
Personal acedotal evidence has little to no weight on a discussion that can based almost entirely on researched data.
And 100% of mine were in the helmet area. What discussion based almost entirely on researched data? I'm just discussion my experience - purely anecdotal. And I gave you the data of my anecdotal experience. And aren't I lucky that I didn't rely on your data to make my decision, and decided to wear one, anyway. Even my doctors confirmed that.
Quote:
You say it's like insurance that you hope you never need?
Well, sure!
Quote:
Well, following that logic, then pedestrians need to start wearing helmets too, since being a pedestrian is again -statistically speaking- as dangerous as being a cyclist.
You do wear your helmet when you are pedestrian, right?
Hold on there Spock, what you aren't including in your claim to logic, are the various risks that can be weighed, to help you in your decision making. You know, if pedestrians are walking up to and and even over 40 mph in a tight peloton, it might be advisable to wear one. However, when I am a pedestrian, I am going so slow, I think I can take the risk. But then, there are pedestrian that probably would have survived their walk had they worn a helmet, a riskier behavior when you are not going to pay attention to your surroundings. See that link I posted up the thread.
Clearly you're not representative of the statistics shown above.
Clearly I wasn't even included among the sample set, among a lot of the others that have had similar anecdotal experiences. That's the problem with these stats. So many are not even included, you know, the ones where helmets actually did what they were supposed to and just don't get reported. We just get new helmets.
Quote:
As previosuly stated, head-injuries while cycling are VERY rare. And again, even if you have a helmet on, statistically speaking, 50% of head impacts are outside of the helmet area.
Personal acedotal evidence has little to no weight on a discussion that can based almost entirely on researched data.
What discussion based almost entirely on researched data? I'm just discussion my experience - purely anecdotal. And I gave you the data of my anecdotal experience. And aren't I lucky that I didn't rely on your data to make my decision, and decided to wear one. Even my doctors confirmed that.
Quote:
You say it's like insurance that you hope you never need?
Well, following that logic, then pedestrians need to start wearing helmets too, since being a pedestrian is again -statistically speaking- as dangerous as being a cyclist.
You do wear your helmet when you are pedestrian, right?
Hold on there Spock, what you aren't including in your claim to logic, are the various risks weighed and inconveniences tolerated. You know, if pedestrians are walking up to and and even over 40 mph in a tight peloton, it might be advisable to wear one. However, when I am a pedestrian, I am going so slow, I think I can take the risk. But then, there are pedestrian that probably would have survived their walk had they worn a helmet, a riskier behavior when you are not going to pay attention to your surroundings. See that link I posted up the thread.
^
You are entitled to your bike and your helmet but not your own facts.
It's really pointless to argue when one attempts to substantiate arguments based on researched data and the other party can only offer anecdotal evidence and dull sarcasm.
I have no interest in entertaining that level of debate.
^
You are entitled to your bike and your helmet but not your own facts.
It's really pointless to argue when one attempts to substantiate arguments based on researched data and the other party can only offer anecdotal evidence and dull sarcasm.
I have no interest in entertaining that level of debate.
Who is debating? I think it is just you. But when you are shown that the argument equating the risks of cyclists to pedestrians is shown for its naivete, it pretty much falls flat. I am only relaying my experience. So in that vein, I am entitled to my facts. I am aware of the studies and what they show and their shortcomings producing a skewed sample. How fortunate for me that, as astronomical the odds were in me actually using them, I didn't rely on those studies to make my decision for me. Then I would have probably made an entry on the statistics. I don't really want to be a statistic. Just sayin'.
Who is debating? I think it is just you. I am only relaying my experience. So in that vein, I am entitled to my facts. I am aware of the studies and what they show and their shortcomings producing a skewed sample. How fortunate for me that I didn't rely on them. Then I would have probably made an entry on the statistics. I don't really want to be a statistic.
You got nothing of substance to offer to this discussion other than your personal experiences. You have already stated them. Cool... And since now you got nothing else to offer, I would suggest you step aside and let people with arguments, data and studies on the subject show their substantiated arguments.
Thanks for stopping by.
You got nothing of substance to offer to this discussion other than your personal experiences. You have already stated them. Cool... And since now you got nothing else to offer, I would suggest you step aside and let people with arguments, data and studies on the subject show their substantiated arguments.
Thanks for stopping by.
I'll feel free to comment when I see arguments developed from skewed data, thanks for playing.
You got nothing of substance to offer to this discussion other than your personal experiences. You have already stated them. Cool... And since now you got nothing else to offer, I would suggest you step aside and let people with arguments, data and studies on the subject show their substantiated arguments.
Thanks for stopping by.
PanTerra and I know FIRST HAND how helmets make a difference.
We both have damaged helmets that would otherwise have been our damaged skulls .... OR WORSE.
You can throw all the statistics at me you'd like ... but I will still choose COMMON SENSE over everything else.
Quote:
First off, it's not required by law here in NY. So that's one reason.
Unfortunately ... the use of COMMON SENSE isn't mandatory by law.
Quote:
Second cycling isn't risky enough to require the use of helmets.
the risks involved with cycling have been greatly exaggerated by helmet proponents (aka Manufacturers) and government officials alike. Several studies have concluded that being a cyclist is as dangerous as being a pedestrian. Yet you would not expect politicians demanding that pedestrians wear a helmet, would you?
Says the person who never slammed his head against hard asphalt or concrete after falling off or being knocked from a bike. When it happens to you, then you'll wish you had listened.
I see you quoting several studies ... but notprovidinglinks. Is that your idea of debating?
Third, helmets give a false sense of security.
Cyclists who wear a helmet might ride less carefully than those who do not. Car drivers on the other hand, also see helmeted cyclist differently, and approach them differently as well.
That is such BS. People who wear helmets are more concerned about their own safety than those who do not, so if anything, helmet wearers would be the ones who are the most attentive when riding.
Quote:
It is very interesting to see that countries with the highest bicycle ridership per capita (such as Denmark or Holland) have one the lowest rates of helmet use -and ironically enough- the best cycling safety records.
The Dutch have a different approach. Instead of shielding drivers and their insurance companies from the consequences of careless driving, Dutch law shields cyclists. If a cyclist is involved in a collision with a driver, the cyclist does not have to prove that the driver was negligent. Dutch law begins with the assumption that the driver is at fault. If the cyclist was the person at fault, the Dutch driver must prove that with evidence. Under Dutch law, the burden of proof has been shifted from the injured cyclist to the driver—which is exactly as it should be.
Quote:
Wanna wear a helmet?
By all means, go ahead, but that doesn't mean everybody else should.
Nobody is forcing you to wear a helmet.
A person with common sense doesn't need to be forced ... he wears a helmet because he knows it is the right thing to do.
Last edited by RD5050; 11-02-2012 at 07:49 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And aren't I lucky that I didn't rely on your data to make my decision, and decided to wear one, anyway. Even my doctors confirmed that.
