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.
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.
Unfortunately ... the use of COMMON SENSE isn't mandatory by law.
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?
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.
The Dutch have laws which assume the motorist is at fault, so motorists are more careful to look out for cyclists. See this: The Dutch Law | Road Rights | Bicycling.comNobody 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.
I know, I know.. Even if I were to show you that 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples, you would say but you're not counting my apple.
I have never been struck by lightning, but that doesn't mean I will doubt the statistics that show the probabilities of that happening to me.
Do you realize how dumb and ignorant it sounds when someone says 'uhh, the sample is skewed because I wasn't included in it'. Do you guys even know what an statistical sample is? That's a pre-requisite to understanding statistics.
You mention 'COMMON SENSE' several times, but in countries such as Demark where the cycling culture is embedded in society (by having the highest ridership per capita in the world) helmeted cyclists are VERY rare. Are you saying they lack common sense?
I'm strong believer that cyclists who lack proper riding skills, are somewhat careless or absent-minded, should by all means wear a helmet.
If You fit that category, keep that helmet on.
I'm sorry you can't read very well, but I did provide a link to my website where I extensively discuss this issue. All sources are there for you to check.
Last edited by likeminas; 11-02-2012 at 10:12 AM..
Do you know how dumb and stupid it is to ignore so many other factors? Probably not. While the odds of getting struck by lightning are pretty remote, you can vary those odds by avoiding risky activity during electrical storms. Do you think those odd might increase if you put yourself in higher risk environments during lightning storms? You can decrease the odds by merely avoiding playing out in electrical storms. There are statistics and then there is the abuse of statistics. This is skewed heavily toward a sample set that does not include cyclists that were involved in crashes that did not require a hospital visit nor were reported. it's like trying to run statistics on how many robberies or assaults were thwarted because the potential victim wa armed and the purp simply ran off. How many of those incidents get reported.
I'm strong believer that cyclists who lack proper riding skills, are somewhat careless or absent-minded, should by all means NOT ride at all, nor operate any vehicle.
You mention 'COMMON SENSE' several times, but in countries such as Demark where the cycling culture is embedded in society (by having the highest ridership per capita in the world) helmeted cyclists are VERY rare. Are you saying they lack common sense?
I posted a link to why The Dutch do not use helmets. Did you CHOOSE to ignore my link?
Quote:
Originally Posted by likeminas
I'm strong believer that cyclists who lack proper riding skills, are somewhat careless or absent-minded, should by all means wear a helmet.
If You fit that category, keep that helmet on.
And I'm a strong believer that cyclists who do not wear helmets are risking serious head injuries or death.
If you want to risk your own life ... feel free. As for me, I value my own life.
So just because only .005% involved head injuries, you will argue against the common sense approach of wearing a helmet? ONly 67,000 people nationally, not many. Perhaps we are mixing cycling types into the conversation. In a society like Denmark or Netherlands where driver training is comprehensive and enforcement stricter combined with many more drivers using their bikes it may be far less risky riding without a helmet than in an Urban US city with striped bike lanes at best. The presence of many more protected bike lanes in Denmark/Netherlands and the overall culture makes it less risky.
If you are suggesting a roadie riding at 20+MPH in a peloton should go without helmet than you are either not a roadie or have a few screws loose. Same with advocating a serious mTB'er go without a helmet. What harm does wearing a helmet cause versus the potential benefit. Denial is such a strong phenomenon. Next you will tell me since I have not had an auto accident in 22 years, it is statistically "safe" for me to drive without a seat belt?
Your point about riding skills is duly noted and I agree. However, as we pointed out and have experienced, mechanical failure, error of those riding close to you, or road conditions can wreck the most skilled rider.
If you're toolin around the local park at 8MPH, I might give a shrug and not think harshly about your choice to ride without helmet. But once you choose to ride on the street or the trail without a helmet, I will just shake my head at the decision. May you NEVER fall! I mean that sincerely. I pray you never fall without a helmet and sustain a head injury because then you will be second guessing yourself and possibly kicking yourself in the arse for your decision.
So just because only .005% involved head injuries, you will argue against the common sense approach of wearing a helmet? ONly 67,000 people nationally, not many. Perhaps we are mixing cycling types into the conversation. In a society like Denmark or Netherlands where driver training is comprehensive and enforcement stricter combined with many more drivers using their bikes it may be far less risky riding without a helmet than in an Urban US city with striped bike lanes at best. The presence of many more protected bike lanes in Denmark/Netherlands and the overall culture makes it less risky.
If you are suggesting a roadie riding at 20+MPH in a peloton should go without helmet than you are either not a roadie or have a few screws loose. Same with advocating a serious mTB'er go without a helmet. What harm does wearing a helmet cause versus the potential benefit. Denial is such a strong phenomenon. Next you will tell me since I have not had an auto accident in 22 years, it is statistically "safe" for me to drive without a seat belt?
Your point about riding skills is duly noted and I agree. However, as we pointed out and have experienced, mechanical failure, error of those riding close to you, or road conditions can wreck the most skilled rider.
If you're toolin around the local park at 8MPH, I might give a shrug and not think harshly about your choice to ride without helmet. But once you choose to ride on the street or the trail without a helmet, I will just shake my head at the decision. May you NEVER fall! I mean that sincerely. I pray you never fall without a helmet and sustain a head injury because then you will be second guessing yourself and possibly kicking yourself in the arse for your decision.
This is a comment worth replying.
First off, let clarify I don't argue against the use of helmets. I'm just arguing that they shouldn't be mandatory nor expected that everyone should wear one. That's all.
Having said that, you do bring up an important point. The setting or environment where cycling is done is important. MTBers on a rugged trail by all means should wear a helmet. But I can't say the same for urban cyclists. 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.
Now what?
A helmet might give a false sense of security. As such, 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. A study conducted in England found that cars drivers passed helmeted cyclists much closer than bare-headed ones. (Article and sources here: The bicycle helmet debate)
Again, I'm not saying that a helmet should not be worn if you chose to. But there are other precautions a rider should also take prior to putting that helmet on.
The first one is being a good urban cyclist. One who knows how and when to move between lanes, uses hand signaling effectively, looks backs frequently, and is generally well aware of his surroundings, among many other things.
I guess we'll have agree to to disagree on this. My take is that; Helmets should be worn by those who chose to, and those who don't, should be left alone. No nanny-state laws required.
Btw, I do wear a helmet, but I do it only to make wifey happier, not because it makes me feel any safer.
Last edited by likeminas; 11-02-2012 at 11:21 AM..
My views on this whole topic started to change when I was in DC. My wife & I checked out bikes from the bike share station and it's not like we carry helmets every time we travel, so we proceed to ride down Pennsylvania Avenue helmetless. We're having a great time, going at a leisurely pace when some lady (wearing a helmet) on a bike buzzes us without an "on your left" warning. Up ahead, she almost wipes out when she gets all wobbly doing a head check before going around a couple right turning cars. No taking the lane hand signal of course. So at this point I'm determined to catch up with her to let her know she's riding like an idiot. Her response? "You're not wearing a helmet."
After that point, I decided to observe on my daily commute who the worst bike handlers/rulebreakers are and guess what? They're the helmeted riders. The helmetless riders seem more confident in their skills and don't go on kamikaze missions through every red light. Of course, this isn't scientific data and there are exceptions (like the helmetless old guys and teenagers who ride illegally on the sidewalk).
Basically, all of this focus on helmets is pretty much focusing on the symptom rather than the disease. I don't want to have to wear body armor just to hop on a bike. I'd gladly make a deal requiring cyclists to be licensed after a rules of the road/bike handling course in exchange for harsher penalties, or assumption of guilt, for drivers who hit cyclists.
They aren't mandatory. Either are gun safeties. There are a lot of things devised from technology to make sports safer. Football pads and helmet linings, MT bike body armor, ear plugs, safety glasses. Hedge your bets.
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.
Definitely don't wear a helmet. I mean, what are the odds?
Also, don't be stupid and buy tornado insurance. I mean, c'mon...
You should never insure against things unlikely to happen. Heck, don't even bother looking when you're at a green light. Why bother? It's not like people often run greens the other way. They rarely do! Therefore, there is no point in glancing left and right, just to be sure.
Quote:
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"
Those LEOs who wear body armor sure are dumb, aren't they? Someone should tell them their vests are useless against head shots, which means they shouldn't wear vests, because if a precaution isn't 100% effective you should never take it.
I was going to post this in the fashion forum but settled on posting it here. I don't know what it's like where you are, but despite the laws, I still see many people of all ages not wearing helmets while cycling.
I'm just wondering what, you think, could be the main reason for this.
Because we never wore them as kids and I'm not about to start now.
Don't see a lot of Indians and Chinese, Vietnamese, etc wearing them either. It's just western civilization that has a bunch of busy body fools who think they need to dictate what we should all do, eat and wear.
It is OUR choice if we want to wear them, just as helmets and seat belts should be, as well. OUR choice.
Definitely don't wear a helmet. I mean, what are the odds?
Also, don't be stupid and buy tornado insurance. I mean, c'mon...
You should never insure against things unlikely to happen. Heck, don't even bother looking when you're at a green light. Why bother? It's not like people often run greens the other way. They rarely do! Therefore, there is no point in glancing left and right, just to be sure.
Those LEOs who wear body armor sure are dumb, aren't they? Someone should tell them their vests are useless against head shots, which means they shouldn't wear vests, because if a precaution isn't 100% effective you should never take it.
Thanks for clearing all that up for us...
OK so since we're going to compare the risks of being a cop to riding a damn bicycle...let's keep it going. Don't get in a swimming pool without floaties. I mean more people drown than die from falling off a bike.
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.
. Perhaps we are mixing cycling types into the conversation. In a society like Denmark or Netherlands where driver training is comprehensive and enforcement stricter combined with many more drivers using their bikes it may be far less risky riding without a helmet than in an Urban US city with striped bike lanes at best. The presence of many more protected bike lanes in Denmark/Netherlands and the overall culture makes it less risky. 
