OT - No helmet laws are stupid.

[p nut]

People who take advantage may be even dumber. Just witnessed a wreck coming down a canyon. A fellow on a cruiser coming the other way went in way too hot into a corner. Didn't help there was some gravel there. Low sided and the bike flipped a few times. Ran over immediately and the guy was obviously not in good shape. Huge gash on his forehead, cuts everywhere. Delirious due to the blow (s) to the head. Probably broken ribs, shoulder. He could hardly talk. He hung in there until the ambulance arrived (took a while since we were deep in the canyon. Good thing there was cell coverage). Luckily an EMT happened to be driving by and stopped to assist.

As I sat there trying to be as helpful as I can, just couldn't help but mentally shake my head thinking how much pain and suffering he could have avoided (and his family. His mom was hysterical when I called and told her), if he only gave in less to his vanity and thought more about his own well being, his wife, his family. Does a helmet take away that much from the joy of being on a ride? Not to me. And it sure would've been more functional than the sunglasses I saw mangled up few yards from his bike. He'll come out ok but I doubt he'll be back on a bike any time soon, or ever (judging by his mother's reaction).

I just don't understand why no helmet laws exist, and more dumbfounded by those that choose to pile on even more risk to a risky enough activity. Ride safe everyone

[fuzzalow]

I do not agree with your use of this anecdote as opportunistic to proselytize helmet use.

The incident you describe is less a helmet safety issue and more a riding skill set & judgement issue. Riding stupid brings with it all the pitfalls and consequences of accountability of one's actions.

Man's got to know his own limitations.

[OtayBW]

People who take advantage may be even dumber. Just witnessed a wreck coming down a canyon. A fellow on a cruiser coming the other way went in way too hot into a corner. Didn't help there was some gravel there. Low sided and the bike flipped a few times. Ran over immediately and the guy was obviously not in good shape. Huge gash on his forehead, cuts everywhere. Delirious due to the blow (s) to the head. Probably broken ribs, shoulder. He could hardly talk. He hung in there until the ambulance arrived (took a while since we were deep in the canyon. Good thing there was cell coverage). Luckily an EMT happened to be driving by and stopped to assist.

As I sat there trying to be as helpful as I can, just couldn't help but mentally shake my head thinking how much pain and suffering he could have avoided (and his family. His mom was hysterical when I called and told her), if he only gave in less to his vanity and thought more about his own well being, his wife, his family. Does a helmet take away that much from the joy of being on a ride? Not to me. And it sure would've been more functional than the sunglasses I saw mangled up few yards from his bike. He'll come out ok but I doubt he'll be back on a bike any time soon, or ever (judging by his mother's reaction).

I just don't understand why no helmet laws exist, and more dumbfounded by those that choose to pile on even more risk to a risky enough activity. Ride safe everyone
Sounds like a nasty fall and a tough thing to have winessed. Thanks for the reminder.

[witcombusa]

People who take advantage may be even dumber. Just witnessed a wreck coming down a canyon. A fellow on a cruiser coming the other way went in way too hot into a corner. Didn't help there was some gravel there. Low sided and the bike flipped a few times. Ran over immediately and the guy was obviously not in good shape. Huge gash on his forehead, cuts everywhere. Delirious due to the blow (s) to the head. Probably broken ribs, shoulder. He could hardly talk. He hung in there until the ambulance arrived (took a while since we were deep in the canyon. Good thing there was cell coverage). Luckily an EMT happened to be driving by and stopped to assist.

As I sat there trying to be as helpful as I can, just couldn't help but mentally shake my head thinking how much pain and suffering he could have avoided (and his family. His mom was hysterical when I called and told her), if he only gave in less to his vanity and thought more about his own well being, his wife, his family. Does a helmet take away that much from the joy of being on a ride? Not to me. And it sure would've been more functional than the sunglasses I saw mangled up few yards from his bike. He'll come out ok but I doubt he'll be back on a bike any time soon, or ever (judging by his mother's reaction).

I just don't understand why no helmet laws exist, and more dumbfounded by those that choose to pile on even more risk to a risky enough activity. Ride safe everyone


No one is telling you not to wear one. Be glad you have that choice.

[BobO]

I do not agree with your use of this anecdote as opportunistic to proselytize helmet use.

The incident you describe is less a helmet safety issue and more a riding skill set & judgement issue. Riding stupid brings with it all the pitfalls and consequences of accountability of one's actions.

Man's got to know his own limitations.

Exactly. The same exact arguments can be used against the stupidity of riding a 17# machine in traffic on winding mountain roads. We each must make choices and we are each responsible for the outcomes of tbose choices.

[guido]

I don't think I have ridden without a helmet in over twenty five years. A moments inattention or a miscalculation of speed or surface is just too easy for anyone riding anywhere. The price for such a lapse can be huge. And that doesn't even take into account what cars/trucks can do to you.

I think the current slap on the wrist laws are ineffective. The penalties need bite. A cyclist without a helmet looses the bike. A driver who injures a cyclist (or pedestrian) looses their vehicle.

Everyone would be a whole lot less casual about stuff when the price of error is really painful.

[BobO]

I don't think I have ridden without a helmet in over twenty five years. A moments inattention or a miscalculation of speed or surface is just too easy for anyone riding anywhere. The price for such a lapse can be huge. And that doesn't even take into account what cars/trucks can do to you.

I think the current slap on the wrist laws are ineffective. The penalties need bite. A cyclist without a helmet looses the bike. A driver who injures a cyclist (or pedestrian) looses their vehicle.

Everyone would be a whole lot less casual about stuff when the price of error is really painful.

That is an exceptionally authoritarian viewpoint.

[soulspinner]

That is an exceptionally authoritarian viewpoint.

My long term cost of insurance must go up, no? If you wanna ride bald, fine, long as it doesn't cost me..........

[BobO]

My long term cost of insurance must go up, no? If you wanna ride bald, fine, long as it doesn't cost me..........

I have no difficulty with that. As I stated above, individuals should be held responsible for their choices.

[OtayBW]

While this is obviously a contoversial topic that will very likely be debated here (again) ad nauseum, I find it somewhat telling that the first response of some is to be more interested in their own personal politics than to show some concern for a fellow rider who is in a bad way.

[BobO]

While this is obviously a contoversial topic that will very likely be debated here (again) ad nauseum, I find it somewhat telling that the first response of some is to be more interested in their own personal politics than to show some concern for a fellow rider who is in a bad way.

It's unfair to assume that there is no concern for the injured person. There simply isn't enough information to draw that conclusion. The OP was presented in a political manner and people responded to that.

[jr59]

I've said it before, and I will say it again; No plastic coated styrofoam coffee cup is going to protect your head, with the exception of road rash. Sorry, you are welcome to your own opinions, but mine on this will NEVER change. If you want protection, use a full face MC helmet! You know, something that is tested.

Please don't tell me all of this, "look I broke my helmet and it saved me". No it did not, it simply broke your plastic coated coffee cup!

Wear what you wish, when and how you wish.

[OtayBW]

It's unfair to assume that there is no concern for the injured person. There simply isn't enough information to draw that conclusion. The OP was presented in a political manner and people responded to that.
I draw no such conclusion. I simply stated that the first response of some as shown is to be more interested in their own personal politics. No more, no less.

[Frankwurst]

No one is telling you not to wear one. Be glad you have that choice.

With this I agree and I want to keep that choice.:beer:

[makoti]

I've said it before, and I will say it again; No plastic coated styrofoam coffee cup is going to protect your head, with the exception of road rash. Sorry, you are welcome to your own opinions, but mine on this will NEVER change. If you want protection, use a full face MC helmet! You know, something that is tested.

Please don't tell me all of this, "look I broke my helmet and it saved me". No it did not, it simply broke your plastic coated coffee cup!

Wear what you wish, when and how you wish.

Wrong. From personal experience, having seen mine with very large rock holes in it, with the plastic that coated the Styrofoam worn off from dragging the pavement, I can tell you (well, not YOU because you refuse to listen) that it may not have kept me alive but it did allow me to continue my life without issues.
It's such a small thing to do that can protect you if you hit your head. I will never get why people refuse to wear one. Do they always work as we hope? No, sometimes what you lead with is not your skull. Seat belts, airbags, these don't work the way we hope all the time, either. Yet, I bet you aren't going to take them out of your car.

[BobO]

I draw no such conclusion. I simply stated that the first response of some as shown is to be more interested in their own personal politics. No more, no less.

Clearly. ;)

[bicycletricycle]

We all engage in dangerous activity, we all don't take every possible opportunity to mitigate risks, everyone chooses how far they want to go with safety precautions.


Someone may find you injured on the side of the road and think, what is wrong with these cyclists, risking their lives out here for no reason, why don't they just get cars.

People make choices, why should you make them for them? If we lived like that then the majority of Americans would probably make cycling on public roads illegal.

You want that?

[Dead Man]

OP... What evidence do you have that a helmet would have made a difference?

Hopefully you've got something good up your sleeve.. And this isn't just you using someone else's misfortune to push your own agenda

[AngryScientist]

A fellow on a cruiser coming the other way went in way too hot into a corner. Didn't help there was some gravel there. Low sided and the bike flipped a few times. Ran over immediately and the guy was obviously not in good shape.

not a helmet issue IMO. rider didnt have the skill or the equipment to be descending at the rate of speed he was.

[Peter P.]

We all engage in dangerous activity, we all don't take every possible opportunity to mitigate risks, everyone chooses how far they want to go with safety precautions.


Someone may find you injured on the side of the road and think, what is wrong with these cyclists, risking their lives out here for no reason, why don't they just get cars.

People make choices, why should you make them for them? If we lived like that then the majority of Americans would probably make cycling on public roads illegal.

You want that?

I was going to raise this exact issue as a Devil's Advocate. Imagine if the insurance companies could deny claims because they considered bicycle riding an activity with inherent dangers, warranting an exclusion clause. It's not too far fetched an idea if the insurance companies see a cost savings.

I also find jr59's claims that bicycle helmets provide no protection highly unusual, to say the least. I suspect most of us here don't have the expertise in head injuries and helmet design to make his assertions with any degree of authority. We trust, and leave it up to experts in their respective fields to offer a means of safety which is reasonably effective and at an affordable price without other burdens such as weight, heat, etc. To suggest bicycle helmets offer no impact protection is similar to the conspiracy theorists claiming we never landed on the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, and so on. In the original post's description of the accident, as in any accident, it's true we can never absolutely be sure whether the helmet actually performed its job. But what we CAN say is the cost to benefit ratio is such that is worthwhile to wear it as a preventive measure.

[Bruce K]

I would claim by experience that helmets DO prevent head injuries. Maybe not all, but definitely way better than no helmet.

I would rather have a concussion and a split helmet than be dead or have significant head trauma. This was a real situation for me two seasons ago.

I can credit helmets in motorsports for preventing significant injury as well.

While I believe that we all should be responsible for our choices, the costs for these types of injuries (as others have pointed out) extend beyond the decision maker.

Unfortunately, this is another area where nobody's mind is likely to get changed no matter how much discussion goes back and forth.

BK

[djg21]

I've said it before, and I will say it again; No plastic coated styrofoam coffee cup is going to protect your head, with the exception of road rash. Sorry, you are welcome to your own opinions, but mine on this will NEVER change. If you want protection, use a full face MC helmet! You know, something that is tested.



Please don't tell me all of this, "look I broke my helmet and it saved me". No it did not, it simply broke your plastic coated coffee cup!



Wear what you wish, when and how you wish.



This is nonsense. I am alive because of my helmet.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160906/b073ec6f962547f199905e7cb079002c.jpghttp://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160906/a51353a8dc8cc248c911d13d8359c086.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thwart]

Let's get rid of those mandatory seat belts and gummint dictated airbags as well... a man's got to know his limitations, after all.

Oh, and in your spare time... Google 'frontal lobe syndrome'...

http://forums.thepaceline.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1697904440&stc=1&d=1438256995

[bicycletricycle]

All decisions that involve health have effects beyond the decision maker, using that as a basis to justify limiting personal freedoms gets you to a super nanny state,

no fun, no candy, no racing.

Helmets are safer , so what, full face helmets and knee pads and fire proof underwear and bullet proof vests are even safer than that, forcing your concept of reasonable safety precautions into someone else will make the future a really boring place.


I would claim by experience that helmets DO prevent head injuries. Maybe not all, but definitely way better than no helmet.

I would rather have a concussion and a split helmet than be dead or have significant head trauma. This was a real situation for me two seasons ago.

I can credit helmets in motorsports for preventing significant injury as well.

While I believe that we all should be responsible for our choices, the costs for these types of injuries (as others have pointed out) extend beyond the decision maker.

Unfortunately, this is another area where nobody's mind is likely to get changed no matter how much discussion goes back and forth.

BK

[bicycletricycle]

Let's get rid of those mandatory seat belts and gummint dictated airbags as well... a man's got to know his limitations, after all.

Oh, and in your spare time... Google 'frontal lobe syndrome'...

http://forums.thepaceline.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1697904440&stc=1&d=1438256995

Yes, seat belts should be optional.

Airbags as well, we don't make old cars illegal do we? If people want to pay extra for safety, fine.

Seat belts were invented before the legal requirement of them, airbags as well.

[unterhausen]

I once got 28 stitches on the back of my head that led to an overnight hospital stay. This would not have happened if I wore a helmet that day. It's amazing how much I bled out, there was a pool of blood on the road. Road rash is nothing to be sneered at when it comes to your head. That hospital stay would probably cost tens of thousands of $ today.

[bigbill]

I rode without a helmet all the time when I lived in Italy. I got comfortable with it. Upon returning to the US in late 2007, I wear one on every ride. To me, the greatest risk I see on my rides is getting sideswiped by a truck mirror. A helmet might prevent a coma.

[Ti Designs]

Those who argue for helmet usage are not taking into account the possibility that some people have nothing to protect.

[Dead Man]

Religion

Politics

Helmets

Three topics that should be banned from paceline. There's never been a productive or friendly conversation about any of them in the entire history of the Internet

[dustyrider]

Freddie Mercury gets the last say on this one:LINK (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ncQsBzI-JHc)

[djg21]

Those who argue for helmet usage are not taking into account the possibility that some people have nothing to protect.

I frequently find myself repeating the mantra "you can't fix stupid." Even so, when a rider sustains a massive head injury because he/she is too stupid to agree that a helmet provides substantial protection at only a marginal cost and marginal inconvenience, or is so vain that he/she elects to disregard the obvious risks inherent in not wearing a helmet, that person poses a societal cost that the rest of us should not have to bear.

There is no merit to any argument that helmets do not offer protection from brain injury. The argument is silly and stupid.

[Anarchist]

Yes, seat belts should be optional.

Airbags as well, we don't make old cars illegal do we? If people want to pay extra for safety, fine.

Seat belts were invented before the legal requirement of them, airbags as well.

I am old enough to remember when buying a car involved sitting down in the dealership and ordering off the list of options, then waiting for your car to be delivered.

I am pretty sure that seat belts were actually an extra cost option.

[arazate]

Quite frankly, barreling down a hill at +40mph, on a spindly bike, with only a helmet, and not much more.....is rather nuts too!

My 2 cents...I wear a helmet on my bicycles, but feel much safer on my bimmer GS with my full gear and moto boots.

[Bruce K]

bicycletricycle, please check the last line of my post that you quoted.

You, and others, have your belief and are not going to change your opinion when it comes to helmets.

I hope you never need to test that belief.

Dead Man is correct. This is one of those discussions where the lines are pretty well drawn and unlikely to change at all.

BK

[witcombusa]

bicycletricycle, please check the last line of my post that you quoted.

You, and others, have your belief and are not going to change your opinion when it comes to helmets.

I hope you never need to test that belief.

Dead Man is correct. This is one of those discussions where the lines are pretty well drawn and unlikely to change at all.

BK

Why do you assume that this discussion has anything to do with changing someone's mind? That's the whole point, we are each free to choose for ourselves. Some folks seem to think they know best, and they do, but only for THEIR choice not mine.

[soulspinner]

I was going to raise this exact issue as a Devil's Advocate. Imagine if the insurance companies could deny claims because they considered bicycle riding an activity with inherent dangers, warranting an exclusion clause. It's not too far fetched an idea if the insurance companies see a cost savings.

I also find jr59's claims that bicycle helmets provide no protection highly unusual, to say the least. I suspect most of us here don't have the expertise in head injuries and helmet design to make his assertions with any degree of authority. We trust, and leave it up to experts in their respective fields to offer a means of safety which is reasonably effective and at an affordable price without other burdens such as weight, heat, etc. To suggest bicycle helmets offer no impact protection is similar to the conspiracy theorists claiming we never landed on the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, and so on. In the original post's description of the accident, as in any accident, it's true we can never absolutely be sure whether the helmet actually performed its job. But what we CAN say is the cost to benefit ratio is such that is worthwhile to wear it as a preventive measure.

Said it better than I ever could have. +100

[oldpotatoe]

I've said it before, and I will say it again; No plastic coated styrofoam coffee cup is going to protect your head, with the exception of road rash. Sorry, you are welcome to your own opinions, but mine on this will NEVER change. If you want protection, use a full face MC helmet! You know, something that is tested.

Please don't tell me all of this, "look I broke my helmet and it saved me". No it did not, it simply broke your plastic coated coffee cup!

Wear what you wish, when and how you wish.

Jim calls it a 'Styrofoam yarmulke'..cracks me up..'May' help, never hurt..one's own personal choice..onna bike. WAY, WAY before anybody starts talking about bike helmet laws, better start talking about motorcycle helmet laws and in Colorado, that's been asked and answered-no helmet law..for good or ill.

Wear it ya want, don't if ya don't want to..your noggin. Kinda early for this discussion, isn't it? Snow hasn't eve begun to fly..

[oldpotatoe]

I once got 28 stitches on the back of my head that led to an overnight hospital stay. This would not have happened if I wore a helmet that day. It's amazing how much I bled out, there was a pool of blood on the road. Road rash is nothing to be sneered at when it comes to your head. That hospital stay would probably cost tens of thousands of $ today.

I get a kick out of these anecdotal stories. YES, I'm glad it helped you, BUT a helmet is not a panacea for no head or other injuries, even. I got hit from behind while riding in Eldorado Canyon July 6th, 2002..10:30 Saturday morning, Dodge Dakota P/U truck, lady was asleep..I was knocked out, don't really know what happened, driver didn't either(woke her up when she hit me)..I think I went feet up, my face hit her windshield..12 stitches around my right eye..concussion when I hit her wndshield..BUT along with burst fracture, L1, L3(had a Dodge Dakota grill marks on my arse)..cracked C5..Nuero-doc said if I had been wearing a helmet( I wasn't)..probably would have broken C5..and maybe paralyzed neck down..from angle of helmet hitting windshield.....so........YMMV

BIG YMMV..I wear a helmet, I don't like it. But I wear it.

[ripvanrando]

Same for Obamacare or taking my bicycle if I fail to put helmet onto it.

I ride with a helmet by choice.

This used to be called freedom.

[Tony T]

My long term cost of insurance must go up, no? If you wanna ride bald, fine, long as it doesn't cost me..........

Cycling is dangerous. If there was a law that restricted cycling to indoor trainers, then insurance premiums should decrease.

btw, have premiums decreased with mandatory seatbelt laws?

[Peter P.]

Those who argue for helmet usage are not taking into account the possibility that some people have nothing to protect.

THAT was funny!

[jr59]

Jim calls it a 'Styrofoam yarmulke'..cracks me up..'May' help, never hurt..one's own personal choice..onna bike. WAY, WAY before anybody starts talking about bike helmet laws, better start talking about motorcycle helmet laws and in Colorado, that's been asked and answered-no helmet law..for good or ill.

Wear it ya want, don't if ya don't want to..your noggin. Kinda early for this discussion, isn't it? Snow hasn't eve begun to fly..

I get a kick out of these anecdotal stories. YES, I'm glad it helped you, BUT a helmet is not a panacea for no head or other injuries, even. I got hit from behind while riding in Eldorado Canyon July 6th, 2002..10:30 Saturday morning, Dodge Dakota P/U truck, lady was asleep..I was knocked out, don't really know what happened, driver didn't either(woke her up when she hit me)..I think I went feet up, my face hit her windshield..12 stitches around my right eye..concussion when I hit her wndshield..BUT along with burst fracture, L1, L3(had a Dodge Dakota grill marks on my arse)..cracked C5..Nuero-doc said if I had been wearing a helmet( I wasn't)..probably would have broken C5..and maybe paralyzed neck down..from angle of helmet hitting windshield.....so........YMMV

BIG YMMV..I wear a helmet, I don't like it. But I wear it.

Correct on both counts.

BTW; tel the truth Peter, you wear a coffee cup because your wife wants you to.

And that Potter is a smart guy!

[guido]

If we lived in a society where if you were left on the side of the road if there was a crash and you were uninsured or didn't have enough cash on your person to cover the bills, these give me liberty sentiments might hold up. But we live in a society where if you are in a crash you are taken to the hospital and fixed up under the most expensive context possible. If you don't have the insurance or means to cover it everyone else gets to eat to cost of your care. In return for this is is quite reasonable to place restrictions like helmets on how folks for whom we are paying for prepare to go play in the traffic.

[makoti]

Religion

Politics

Helmets

Three topics that should be banned from paceline. There's never been a productive or friendly conversation about any of them in the entire history of the Internet

As God is my witness, to protect our Democratic way of life, helmets should be mandatory!
Does that cover everything, then? ;)

[ripvanrando]

If we lived in a society where if you were left on the side of the road if there was a crash and you were uninsured or didn't have enough cash on your person to cover the bills, these give me liberty sentiments might hold up. But we live in a society where if you are in a crash you are taken to the hospital and fixed up under the most expensive context possible. If you don't have the insurance or means to cover it everyone else gets to eat to cost of your care. In return for this is is quite reasonable to place restrictions like helmets on how folks for whom we are paying for prepare to go play in the traffic.

It is quite reasonable for socialists to shut up and to stop imposing their values on those who prefer freedom.

[bicycletricycle]

Should we force people to move from fire and flood prone areas that insurance companies will not insure or are subsidized to insure?

That costs us all a whole ton of money every year.

What about alcohol and cigarettes? They cost us all a shed full of money every year? Banned?

Heck, soda costs society a lot, banned?

Caring for the injured is something we should be proud of, using it as an excuse to pry into people's freedoms might be dangerous.





If we lived in a society where if you were left on the side of the road if there was a crash and you were uninsured or didn't have enough cash on your person to cover the bills, these give me liberty sentiments might hold up. But we live in a society where if you are in a crash you are taken to the hospital and fixed up under the most expensive context possible. If you don't have the insurance or means to cover it everyone else gets to eat to cost of your care. In return for this is is quite reasonable to place restrictions like helmets on how folks for whom we are paying for prepare to go play in the traffic.

[ripvanrando]

Should we force people to move from fire and flood prone areas that insurance companies will not insure or are subsidized to insure?



No, let's just take their houses/bikes from them for the better of society. Anyone who lives in a flood plain or rides their bike without a helmet needs society's support.

[redir]

You should have told him how much of a looser he was for not wearing a helmet as he lay bleeding on the ground. Throw in the bit about not caring for his wife and family too and then I'm sure he woulda learnt his lesson.

[soulspinner]

Cycling is dangerous. If there was a law that restricted cycling to indoor trainers, then insurance premiums should decrease.

btw, have premiums decreased with mandatory seatbelt laws?

tough to measure isnt it? head injury never goes away...

[oldpotatoe]

Correct on both counts.

BTW; tel the truth Peter, you wear a coffee cup because your wife wants you to.

And that Potter is a smart guy!

I know, wife makes me, I'm PWed. :help:

[fuzzalow]

If we lived in a society where if you were left on the side of the road if there was a crash and you were uninsured or didn't have enough cash on your person to cover the bills, these give me liberty sentiments might hold up. But we live in a society where if you are in a crash you are taken to the hospital and fixed up under the most expensive context possible. If you don't have the insurance or means to cover it everyone else gets to eat to cost of your care. In return for this is is quite reasonable to place restrictions like helmets on how folks for whom we are paying for prepare to go play in the traffic.

"We" are not paying, in the manner you describe. You also cannot conflate the statistical incidence of helmetless bicycle accidents resulting in head injury with the broader cost structure issue of provisioning health care to the uninsured.

Frankly, it is a naive argument that tries to say that prohibiting behaviour is justified because "you" or the "we" ("we" being the aggregate of the "you"s and those that agree with "you" ;)) pay directly for the costs of people doing things in a manner you don't like. "You" are not paying for anything. Yes, society at large bears a negative cost but that is a very big pie with lots of ingredients in it, only of which a statistically insignificant piece is health care costs from helmetless riding accident. Because fixing the cost problem is bigger and more complex than can be fixed with a mandatory helmet law, any bicycle helmet law is wasted effort from a safety and public policy standpoint: it is debatable that helmet laws would put a dent in what is already an insignificant number in the costs and structure of health care.

Your argument is an emotional one and so is your proposed solution. You won't solve a thing with this line of reasoning other than making yourself feel better in thinking you had the answers to a problem which is bigger than you think it is. Big as in the fact that health care comprises about 20% of the US economy and ALL bike riding injuries are nothing inside of a number that big.

[malcolm]

Didn't read the whole post so I'll apologize in advance if I'm off, but I was struck by a couple things.

Where is the outrage about this guy being called stupid?? The guy that when through the down flashing train guard and was killed and subsequently called stupid brought on all kinds of sympathy and outrage. Not saying the sympathy wasn't called for as I feel it was but again his act was stupid. What happened to this guy to me is far less stupid and just one of those things that can happen. He just chose not to be wearing a helmet.

Choice is good. If your bad choices routinely impact me or other citizens then well maybe they need to be limited. I doubt bike helmets impact others very much.
It's about mitigating risk. I generally wear a helmet. I've done it a long time and I'm used to it and don't even realize it's there. If you choose not to I'm ok with that.
I don't agree that helmets provide no protection but I don't think they are often the life savers they are made out to be. Most of the broken helmet saved my life would be not really it saved you from a scalp laceration and maybe a worse concussion. I don't really want either, helmet doesn't really bother me hence I wear it. Especially mtn biking, lots of sharp rocks and roots plus I kinda suck and tend to hit the ground occasionally.

Make your choices and live with the consequences.

[2LeftCleats]

The environmental argument against helmets is that Styrofoam bits don't biodegrade like skin, flesh, hair and bone.

[ColonelJLloyd]

Should we force people to move from fire and flood prone areas that insurance companies will not insure or are subsidized to insure?

That costs us all a whole ton of money every year.

What about alcohol and cigarettes? They cost us all a shed full of money every year? Banned?

Heck, soda costs society a lot, banned?

Caring for the injured is something we should be proud of, using it as an excuse to pry into people's freedoms might be dangerous.

Mic dropped. The end.

[FlashUNC]

Should we force people to move from fire and flood prone areas that insurance companies will not insure or are subsidized to insure?

That costs us all a whole ton of money every year.

What about alcohol and cigarettes? They cost us all a shed full of money every year? Banned?

Heck, soda costs society a lot, banned?

Caring for the injured is something we should be proud of, using it as an excuse to pry into people's freedoms might be dangerous.

You're jumping to an extreme of the slippery slope argument, when the reality is all of the examples you mention are limited by law -- or individuals are required to bear a higher individual burden for undertaking such behavior -- in some shape or form in either the entire country or portions of it.

We tax alcohol or limit access to it. We tax cigarettes and also limit access to them. We even now tax soda. Those who live in flood or fire prone areas are either federally required (in the flood instance) to carry flood insurance or possibly carry fire insurance if you're in an area prone to wildfires.

Society is always shifting and changing its comfort level with what's acceptable behavior for the herd.

Humanity's never been a solitary animal. What our ancestors did huddled in caves at night affected the rest of the group.

I tend to agree with Fuzz that the medical costs of fretting over a helmet-less bike collision, even a severe one, are like trying to pick the proverbial fly **** out of the pepper.

I still wear a skid lid and think going without isn't the smartest move one can make. But if a community (whatever that size/shape looks like) decides that's important to them and wants to legislate one way or the other, more power to them.

[Tony T]

…and if a community doesn't feel it's needed, that doesn't mean not having a helmet law is "stupid"

[AngryScientist]

I'm a big believer in personnel accountability and responsibility. adults should take responsibility for their own behavior, and own the consequences of their decisions. not everything that is potentially dangerous needs to be illegal.

i dont understand the outcry by some folks here for more laws. do we really want to empower police to chase down and pull over cyclists for not wearing a helmet?

[Ti Designs]

I frequently find myself repeating the mantra "you can't fix stupid." Even so, when a rider sustains a massive head injury because he/she is too stupid to agree that a helmet provides substantial protection at only a marginal cost and marginal inconvenience, or is so vain that he/she elects to disregard the obvious risks inherent in not wearing a helmet, that person poses a societal cost that the rest of us should not have to bear.

That's a hard one to argue. Any measure of freedom involves risk, there will always be those who injure themselves, we as a society don't send them off to die. Given that, freedom has a cost. If it's true freedom, we don't get to pick which things are allowed and which are not (unless you live in a society of 1).

I too find myself thinking "you can't fix stupid", but that doesn't mean I have to join the club. I have control over exactly one person - myself. If I understand the risks I can make intelligent decisions. I ride a bike, I wear a helmet, I have no brain injuries other than the ones I was born with. I drink lots of sugary drinks, but I don't fall under the heading of obese yet. In short, my quality of life is pretty damn good, and I have lots of freedom. When we get to the point where I'm working an extra 10 hours/week to pay for idiots I'll start complaining.

[fuzzalow]

When we get to the point where I'm working an extra 10 hours/week to pay for idiots I'll start complaining.

Forgive me, I know this is slightly veering OT but I couldn't resist:

You, we, are already paying an extra 10 hours/week, if not more, in costs that do not benefit taxpayers. Corporate tax codes, loopholes, tax expenditures, etc etc etc.

I know I sound like a broken record (!) but I implore you all to vote and pay attention to the extent you can or want to pay attention. I know it is too much to ask for the average citizen to get into the weeds on a lotta what politicians get bought 'n' paid for to do, but as citizens, it isn't much to ask your local politician "What is that for?" or "What does that do?". And more than anything in the world does a politician want to get re-elected.

See you at the next stop.

[Dead Man]

Riding a bike is an unnecessarily dangerous activity to begin with. Does that make you and all of us stupid, OP?

[bicycletricycle]

yes, I did jump to an extreme case slippery slope argument. In my experience that is the best way to understand the merits of an otherwise muddy or grey argument.

however

it is also true that we already regulate many of the activities and substances i listed. things are never black and white.

interestingly

in the case of homes in stupid locations we pay (federal flood/fire insurance in places that private companies won't touch / rescue and emergency services) to give adults the freedom to live in ridiculous locations. The people who pay for insurance do help some in the financing of the consequences of their decisions.

in the case alcohol and cigarettes, we have laws that protect children, as soon as they are adults they are free to hurt themselves. Taxes are used in some cases to try and reduce demand, that is true. That tax money goes in part to help mitigate the costs of their actions.

in the case of cycling, we already protect children by requiring helmets in some (many?) states. I think that the overall benefits of any type of exercise probably already pays for the head injuries (from a public health/cost point of view). If my health insurance decided to charge me more for cycling without a helmet I could decide if it was worth it on an individual basis.

I am an adult, if I want to engage in risky behavior I can, how you feel about it is not my concern, how my loved ones feel about it is and I will deal with that personally.

I may regret my decisions at a later time but that can be said about every decision one makes and thus is hardly even a statement worth uttering.




You're jumping to an extreme of the slippery slope argument, when the reality is all of the examples you mention are limited by law -- or individuals are required to bear a higher individual burden for undertaking such behavior -- in some shape or form in either the entire country or portions of it.

We tax alcohol or limit access to it. We tax cigarettes and also limit access to them. We even now tax soda. Those who live in flood or fire prone areas are either federally required (in the flood instance) to carry flood insurance or possibly carry fire insurance if you're in an area prone to wildfires.

Society is always shifting and changing its comfort level with what's acceptable behavior for the herd.

Humanity's never been a solitary animal. What our ancestors did huddled in caves at night affected the rest of the group.

I tend to agree with Fuzz that the medical costs of fretting over a helmet-less bike collision, even a severe one, are like trying to pick the proverbial fly **** out of the pepper.

I still wear a skid lid and think going without isn't the smartest move one can make. But if a community (whatever that size/shape looks like) decides that's important to them and wants to legislate one way or the other, more power to them.

[deechee]

Helmet legislation did not reduce bicycling hospitalization rates in Canada. (At least according to this paper from 2015. (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/11/e008052.full.pdf+html?sid=47f00350-32ae-4ab4-b8b9-674becb1133c))

The report also showed women cyclists are hospitalized at a much lower rate than men who account for nearly 75 per cent of all cycling injuries. Teschke says women, on average, tend to cycle slightly more slowly than men, and choose safer routes, separated bike lanes and quiet streets more often .

Seems like the best thing is to listen to my wife and slow down.

[p nut]

I had no idea this was such a hot topic. Had I known, I would've kept my mouth shut/keyboard unplugged. I'm also surprised by the proponents of helmetless riding. I would've thought the general consensus here would be pro helmet.

I obviously advocate wearing helmets. I've cracked two in my lifetime (hopefully no more), and walked away from both accidents. I probably wouldn't have died in either incidents, but my head would be even more lopsided than it already is, had I not worn a helmet.

We all have the freedom to wear a helmet (or not.) I guess my issue is the lack of a law fails to communicate the possible severe outcomes of that choice. As with anything, education is the answer, but that is even a bigger hurdle.

Not that it makes a difference, but the "cruiser" referred to in the original post is a motorcycle, not a bicycle. Walking up to the bike, as the rider turned over and seeing his head, eyes, whole face covered in blood, and a look of death in his eyes as he gasped for air, is an image I can't shake. Ride safe everyone.

[mg2ride]

....
Where is the outrage about this guy being called stupid??....

1) The OP in this thread did not directly attack the injured party like Bruce did in the train thread.

b) Many of us have finally accepted that it is fair game to call people names as long as there is little chance that person will read it.

[AngryScientist]

the "cruiser" referred to in the original post is a motorcycle, not a bicycle.


https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/46335292.jpg

[mg2ride]

....
Not that it makes a difference, but the "cruiser" referred to in the original post is a motorcycle, not a bicycle.....

All this drama and as it turns out it had nothing to do with cyclist.:crap::crap:

I'm all about choice when it comes helmets when riding a bicycle but I will agree with you that not having helmet laws for motorcycles is beyond stupid.

Serious question: Is it irresponsible for this forum to have this emoticon :crap: with out a helmet?

[bicycletricycle]

that is hilarious.

mostly everything said applies the same to motorcycle helmets.

[ripvanrando]

I'm not a proponent of riding without a helmet. I do not care if another rider elects to ride helmetless

I am a proponent of freedom with other people minding their own business. As an example, I was more than 200 miles into a ride going up a long mountain pass that was closed to motor vehicles. It was over 100F and I was suffering. I took my helmet off. A passing, busybody cyclist give me a lecture before zooming off. I was too tired to respond to his attack.

[p nut]

All this drama and as it turns out it had nothing to do with cyclist.:crap::crap:


Yup, sorry about that. Should been more clear than the subtle hints, "OT" and "cruiser." But I am still taken back by the comments made here. Whether a cyclist or a biker goes down at 30mph (which is what I'm guessing the approximate speed was here), why wouldn't a helmet help one and not the other.

I was telling my wife last week that I was thinking of getting a dual sport bike. I've been without a motorcycle for a number of years and was getting the itch. I was told yesterday that I would not be getting the said bike.

[redir]

Yup, sorry about that. Should been more clear than the subtle hints, "OT" and "cruiser." But I am still taken back by the comments made here. Whether a cyclist or a biker goes down at 30mph (which is what I'm guessing the approximate speed was here), why wouldn't a helmet help one and not the other.

I was telling my wife last week that I was thinking of getting a dual sport bike. I've been without a motorcycle for a number of years and was getting the itch. I was told yesterday that I would not be getting the said bike.

Because full face moto helmets actually do something but you simply cannot wear one of those on a bicycle.

[mg2ride]

Yup, sorry about that. Should been more clear than the subtle hints, "OT" and "cruiser." But I am still taken back by the comments made here. Whether a cyclist or a biker goes down at 30mph (which is what I'm guessing the approximate speed was here), why wouldn't a helmet help one and not the other.

I was telling my wife last week that I was thinking of getting a dual sport bike. I've been without a motorcycle for a number of years and was getting the itch. I was told yesterday that I would not be getting the said bike.

I will admit that it is a somewhat arbitrary line but as a society we have no choice but to make them.

Even once you declare a helmet is required there is the arbitrary between a cycling helmet and a full motorcycle helmet.

Clearly the later provides more protection but it is completely acceptable for a cyclist to bomb at mountain decent with only a cycling helmet. My guess would be that you have exceeded 40+ MPH without the benefit of a ANSI certified helmet.

[weiwentg]

One thing worth considering. In cities, how many other cyclists are on the street is linked to the rate of car-bike collisions. There is some evidence that jurisdictions that have enacted helmet laws saw significantly decreased bicycle ridership after those laws. The more bikes there are on the road, the more cars will know to look for them.

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/17668/maryland-helmet-law-would-make-cyclists-less-safe/

So, while helmet laws may be well-intentioned, they might be counterproductive. Based on that, I currently won't support helmet laws.

[mg2ride]

[QUOTE=p nut;2039661]...I'm also surprised by the proponents of helmetless riding. [QUOTE]

FWIW, I would be surprised if a single person that responded to this thread is a proponent of riding a motorcycle helmetless.

[malcolm]

[QUOTE=p nut;2039661]...I'm also surprised by the proponents of helmetless riding. [QUOTE]

FWIW, I would be surprised if a single person that responded to this thread is a proponent of riding a motorcycle helmetless.

If you want to get a really heated debate going motorcycle helmets would be it. I ride both and wear a helmet on both. Not sure either need a law, but if as a group we decide to do that I'm ok with it.

[djg21]

That's a hard one to argue. Any measure of freedom involves risk, there will always be those who injure themselves, we as a society don't send them off to die. Given that, freedom has a cost. If it's true freedom, we don't get to pick which things are allowed and which are not (unless you live in a society of 1).

I too find myself thinking "you can't fix stupid", but that doesn't mean I have to join the club. I have control over exactly one person - myself. If I understand the risks I can make intelligent decisions. I ride a bike, I wear a helmet, I have no brain injuries other than the ones I was born with. I drink lots of sugary drinks, but I don't fall under the heading of obese yet. In short, my quality of life is pretty damn good, and I have lots of freedom. When we get to the point where I'm working an extra 10 hours/week to pay for idiots I'll start complaining.

I really don't take a position with respect to the need for a law. I'd hope that any law would be superfluous as we all exercise our personal freedoms and elect to wear helmets for the reasons discussed, as it is just silly not to wear a helmet. Let it suffice to say that If you ride without a helmet and sustain a head injury, I won't be wiping the drool from your face and I won't be contributing to your gofundme page.

Even putting aside the societal costs, don't we owe some duty to motorists to mitigate damages should we be involved in chance and unfortunate encounters with motor vehicles? What about the psychological effects on those drivers (or other cyclists even) who are involved in incidents leading to the death or serious injury of an unhelmeted cyclist? This argument has been made in support of motorcycle helmet laws, and in my mind, has legitimacy.

[Dead Man]

[QUOTE=p nut;2039661]...I'm also surprised by the proponents of helmetless riding. [QUOTE]

FWIW, I would be surprised if a single person that responded to this thread is a proponent of riding a motorcycle helmetless.

Dirty bikes are a whole different topic. I'm still way too much of a libertarian to ever support LAWS put upon a minority group by an ignorant majority... But moto gear has gotten REALLY good. Surviving a 60, 80mph crash is not unrealistic - racers wipe out at double that and walk away. The helmets all by themselves are really good, and eat up massive impact, protect the whole head, and even the neck to some degree. Efficacy makes a big difference man. Bike helmets aren't much more than token.

Required or not, I'd wear a full face moto helmet.

[JWDR]

I wear my helmet on my motorcycle and when I ride my road bike and mountain bike for their intended purposes. But living in Italy, I don't wear a helmet to commute or run errands.

I also don't make my kids wear helmets. No one wore them when I was child and I don't remember every kid in the neighborhood having a brain injury from our numerous bike a skateboard falls.

[Ti Designs]

Riding a bike is an unnecessarily dangerous activity to begin with. Does that make you and all of us stupid, OP?

Being stupid isn't a prerequisite, but it helps...

[p nut]

Being stupid isn't a prerequisite, but it helps...

Ha ha. When I tell my friends I bought a bicycle bell for $50, they sure look at me like I'm stupid.

[bikingshearer]

I am more than a little mystified how someone can claim that bicycle helmets provide no protection at all. Anything that slows down the rate of deceleration your noggin experiences in a crash is providing some protection. Why do you think there is padding around football goal posts or the basket supports in college and pro basketball? Simple basic physics. Decelerating slower = less potential for harm.

With cars, for example, seat belts, padded dash boards, collapsible steering columns, air bags, crumple zones are all the result of this simple, unassailable truth. I understand that bikes aren't cars and bike helmets aren't air bags, but the principle is exactly the same. The difference is purely one of degree, not of kind.

Whether the protection a practical bicycle helmet offers is worth it to you is a very different question - one of opinion, not one of fact. But just because one chooses not to wear a bike helmet does not change the laws of physics. And pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

[Mark McM]

I am more than a little mystified how someone can claim that bicycle helmets provide no protection at all. Anything that slows down the rate of deceleration your noggin experiences in a crash is providing some protection. Why do you think there is padding around football goal posts or the basket supports in college and pro basketball? Simple basic physics. Decelerating slower = less potential for harm.

I don't think anyone is claiming the provide no protection - just that they provide little protection. If you replaced the multiple inch soft foam padding wrapped around goal posts and basket supports with 1 inch of Styrofoam (as found in most bicycle helmets), I'll bet that most people would say that the thinner layer of Styrofoam provides much less impact protection; and then consider that cyclists often travel at much higher speeds than people playing football or basketball.

With cars, for example, seat belts, padded dash boards, collapsible steering columns, air bags, crumple zones are all the result of this simple, unassailable truth. I understand that bikes aren't cars and bike helmets aren't air bags, but the principle is exactly the same. The difference is purely one of degree, not of kind.

Good thing you brought this up. As you say, cars have multiple layers of protection, each decreasing the severity of potential injury, and as helmets add another layer of protection, wearing one while riding in a car reduces the chances of injury even further. Using the logic of your unassailable truth, I guess we can assume that you always wear a helmet while riding in a car?

[sitzmark]

Always a bit surprised by this approach. I follow the logic, but low speed impact - 12-14 mph - is the actual design spec for the protection bicycle helmets (and similar sports-type helmets) are intended to provide. Enough "crumple" zone to theoretically slow the brain enough so when it slams into the skull it isn't bruised or damaged. Impacts greater than that are anyone's guess as to the actual protective value.

I do something as equally counterintuitive - I don't usually wear a ski helmet unless in a race course. Typical recreational speeds are 30-50mph. Probably not too much more than that in a SL/GS course - helmet stretched way beyond it's design goal. Marginal value, if any. If it's below zero and windy I'll wear one, otherwise the things are just too damn hot and itchy. At least there's nothing to my bike helmet - lots of big gaping holes. Still a little to hot at times.

Child of the 50s/60s - can't count the number of headers I took on my bike and I'm still alive. Probably brain dead, but to dumb to know it. :)


I wear my helmet on my motorcycle and when I ride my road bike and mountain bike for their intended purposes. But living in Italy, I don't wear a helmet to commute or run errands.

I also don't make my kids wear helmets. No one wore them when I was child and I don't remember every kid in the neighborhood having a brain injury from our numerous bike a skateboard falls.

[djg21]

I don't think anyone is claiming the provide no protection - just that they provide little protection. If you replaced the multiple inch soft foam padding wrapped around goal posts and basket supports with 1 inch of Styrofoam (as found in most bicycle helmets), I'll bet that most people would say that the thinner layer of Styrofoam provides much less impact protection; and then consider that cyclists often travel at much higher speeds than people playing football or basketball.

I don't think you can fairly say they provide "little" protection. They most certainly provide substantial protection from brain injury and abrasion in many of the more common types of bicycle crashes. Of course they cannot protect against all head injuries.

And they work by virtue of the polystyrene collapsing and absorbing energy that otherwise would be absorbed by the skull and brain. Last I checked, even the highest quality motorcycle helmets have a polystyrene inner shells which function in precisely the same manner as the polystyrene in bicycle helmets. In fact, the polysyrene in my Giro helmet is thicker (but perhaps less dense) than the polystyrene inner shell in my $500 Shoei MC helmet.

Good thing you brought this up. As you say, cars have multiple layers of protection, each decreasing the severity of potential injury, and as helmets add another layer of protection, wearing one while riding in a car reduces the chances of injury even further. Using the logic of your unassailable truth, I guess we can assume that you always wear a helmet while riding in a car?

This is absurd logic. As a matter of utility, consideration of any safety device requires a cost/benefit analysis. What is the safety benefit, and at what cost and at what inconvenience? Your argument is a canard.

[Mark McM]

Always a bit surprised by this approach. I follow the logic, but low speed impact - 12-14 mph - is the actual design spec for the protection bicycle helmets (and similar sports-type helmets) are intended to provide. Enough "crumple" zone to theoretically slow the brain enough so when it slams into the skull it isn't bruised or damaged. Impacts greater than that are anyone's guess as to the actual protective value.

I do something as equally counterintuitive - I don't usually wear a ski helmet unless in a race course. Typical recreational speeds are 30-50mph. Probably not too much more than that in a SL/GS course - helmet stretched way beyond it's design goal. Marginal value, if any. If it's below zero and windy I'll wear one, otherwise the things are just too damn hot and itchy. At least there's nothing to my bike helmet - lots of big gaping holes. Still a little to hot at times.

Skiing and cycling are different activities of course, but there are some parallels. Both involve moving participants not enclosed inside protective shells travelling at potentially high rates of speed, and both have the risk of collisions with other participants or hard stationary objects (such as trees, poles, guard rails etc.). In both, many, if not most, of the fatalities involve head injuries. And in both, the rate of helmet usage has been increasing over the years.

One significant difference is that skiing generally takes place in designated areas with controlled access (you need a lift ticket) which have their own dedicated emergency response personnel (Ski Patrol), so there are much better statistics about the total number of participants, how many of them wear helmets, and the number and type injuries that occur.

Interestingly, while the rate of helmet usage has increased on ski slopes, the number of serious head injuries and fatalities has not been affected:

Although skiers and snowboarders in the United States are wearing helmets more than ever — 70 percent of all participants, nearly triple the number from 2003 — there has been no reduction in the number of snow-sports-related fatalities or brain injuries in the country, according to the National Ski Areas Association.

The increase in helmet use has had positive results. Experts say helmets have reduced the numbers of less serious head injuries, like scalp lacerations, by 30 percent to 50 percent, and Schumacher’s doctors say he would not have survived his fall had he not worn a helmet. But growing evidence indicates that helmets do not prevent some more serious injuries, like the tearing of delicate brain tissue, said Jasper Shealy, a professor emeritus at Rochester Institute of Technology.

- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sports/on-slopes-rise-in-helmet-use-but-no-decline-in-brain-injuries.html


The National Ski Areas Association strongly promotes helmet usage. But even they admit that statistics show helmets only prevent minor injuries and do not save lives:

Has the introduction of helmets made any difference in terms of head injury and fatalities in skiing and snowboarding?

The most recent helmet usage data clearly indicates that skiers and snowboarders already understand the importance of helmets. According to the 2011/12 NSAA National Demographic Study, 67 percent of skiers and snowboarders wore helmets while enjoying the slopes at the time of being interviewed, up 10 percent from the 20010/11 season and up 171 percent from the 2002/03 season when only 25 percent of skiers and snowboarders wore helmets. Data also shows that:

91 percent of children 9 years old or younger wear ski/snowboard helmets;

81 percent of children between 10 and 14 wear ski/snowboard helmets;

78 percent of adults over the age of 65 wear ski/snowboard helmets;

Skiers and snowboarders aged 18 to 24 have traditionally represented the lowest percentage of helmet use among all age groups. In 2011/12, 53 percent of all 18 to 24 year olds interviewed wore helmets, representing a 194 percent increase in usage for this age group since the 2002/03 season, when only 18 percent wore helmets.

According to Dr. Shealy, who has studied ski related injuries for more than 30 years, recent research has shown that the use of helmet reduces the incidence of any head injury by 30 to 50 percent, but that the decrease in head injuries is generally limited to the less serious injuries. There has been no significant reduction in fatalities over the past nine seasons even as the use of helmets overall has increased. This trend emphasizes the importance of not increasing risk-taking behavior simply because you are wearing a helmet. Skiing and riding in control is essential in improving slope safety and reducing fatalities.
- https://www.nsaa.org/media/68045/NSAA-Facts-About-Skiing-Snowboarding-Safety-10-1-12.pdf

[Peter P.]

Correct on both counts.

BTW; tel the truth Peter, you wear a coffee cup because your wife wants you to.


Hah; I got ya' on that-I ain't married, specifically so I won't have a wife nagging me, PERIOD! I can nag myself just fine, thankyouverymuch!

[Mark McM]

I don't think you can fairly say they provide "little" protection. They most certainly provide substantial protection from brain injury and abrasion in many of the more common types of bicycle crashes. Of course they cannot protect against all head injuries.

Unfortunately, no large population studies has actually shown anything like "substantial" protection. In addition to the Canadian study cite, there are several studies from Australia and New Zealand (where helmet usage was made mandatory some years ago) which also show that there has been no decrease in head injury with increased helmet usage.

And they work by virtue of the polystyrene collapsing and absorbing energy that otherwise would be absorbed by the skull and brain. Last I checked, even the highest quality motorcycle helmets have a polystyrene inner shells which function in precisely the same manner as the polystyrene in bicycle helmets. In fact, the polysyrene in my Giro helmet is thicker (but perhaps less dense) than the polystyrene inner shell in my $500 Shoei MC helmet.

This argument is short on specifics. Do you know how much force attenuation bicycle helmets actually provide, and how that relates to the head injury? The CSPSC tests are very old, and were formulated only to address skull fractures, and not concussions. Most experts now agree that their pass/fail deceleration criteria (300 g's) are far too high address concussions. I'll bet you didn't even know that the CPSC tests don't even simulate a moving bicycle - they only test for the kinds of energies involved for a stationary person falling over.


This is absurd logic. As a matter of utility, consideration of any safety device requires a cost/benefit analysis. What is the safety benefit, and at what cost and at what inconvenience? Your argument is a canard.

In both cases, the chances of crash/head injury can vary widely depending on the situation. Just like a cost/benefit ratio may warrant wearing a helmet while driving in a auto race, but not while running Saturday morning errands in car, why can't the cost/benefit warrant wearing a helmet while racing a criterium, but not while loping down the bike path on a beach cruiser?


I started cycling about 35 years ago, when helmet usage was very uncommon. Today, I hear a lot of stories from people claiming that a helmet saved their lives. And yet, I don't recall much difference in the rates of cyclist deaths between then and now. Either somehow bicycles have become a lot more dangerous today, or the "helmet saved my life" stories are greatly exaggerated.

[OtayBW]

I am amazed how a simple conversation about 'whether it's a good idea to wear a helmet' gets convoluted into some political hot potato about whether you should or should not be compelled to wear one, and what are the socioeconomic consequences and extreme implications of either. Good grief. I don't have to share my own horror story (fortunately, just one) to be convinced that a helmet saved my @$$ one time, and for that reason, I AM WEARING IT. For anyone else, I still think it does more than simply 'does no harm' but like y'all say: it's your choice - and I'm fine with that. Who's stopping you?

[Seramount]

riding is definitely more dangerous now than when I was much younger.

traffic density is orders of magnitude higher, distracted driving is an epidemic. logging far more miles now...more opportunity for collisions.

was never hit by a car for the first 23 years I rode...been tagged twice in the last 4 months.

no argument exists that would convince me to ride without a helmet. if my ass is on a saddle, there's a helmet on my head. simple as that.

[jr59]

Hah; I got ya' on that-I ain't married, specifically so I won't have a wife nagging me, PERIOD! I can nag myself just fine, thankyouverymuch!

That statement had nothing to do with you! Sorry I used old potatoe's really name.

See below

I know, wife makes me, I'm PWed. :help:

[Frankwurst]

I've worn a helmet since the 70's. Just like the one below (been thru a couple since then). I just don't want the freedom of choice taken away. Like the Old spud says wear'em if you want roll without if you choose to.:beer:

[oldpotatoe]

Hah; I got ya' on that-I ain't married, specifically so I won't have a wife nagging me, PERIOD! I can nag myself just fine, thankyouverymuch!

I hear ya brother, I hear ya.

[Dead Man]

My wife nagged me to wear a helmet... I told her no. So she said she wouldn't wear a helmet either, presumably in some weak attempt at reverse psychology.... I said OK, don't.

So she stopped wearing a helmet. And that was that..

So that didn't work like she'd intended

[Frankwurst]

Last thing my wife would nag about is me wearing a helmet. I'm worth more dead than I am alive.:beer:

[Zoodles]

How many of those advocating all helmets all the time put the same effort into skills development or maintenance. Do you hit the local parking lot in the spring and practice figure eights, hard braking, obstacle avoidance? Do you practice falling, tumbling to protect your head or rely on the plastic hat?

Most falls I see in racing, group rides or the MUT are poor skills compounded by panic.

FTR I understand stuff happens, I fell for the first time in a long time last year having been blinded by an oncoming light and missing a pothole. Coincidentally, I wasn't wearing a helmet but credit the skills mentioned above.

[beeatnik]

No Garmin No Rules

aka

No Helmet No Lane

aka

LA is only pretty at nite

https://vimeo.com/155355818

[verticaldoug]

Although wearing a helmet will reduce head injury, I am against the gov mandating it. It is purely an arbitrary decision and if the gov was truly serious about preventing head injury, they wouldn't let children play football or head soccer balls.

D

[bikingshearer]

Memo to self: Never ever read, much less post in, another "helmets, pro or con?" thread. Way too much heat, precious little light . . . .