Anti-Helmet tendency from cycling advocates?

[jadmt]

I am more amazed that few were wearing eye protection...

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

NO helmet law for motorcycles in Colorado...I think that's nuts...

isn't this just a wee-bit hypocritical after saying folks should make their own choices on whether to wear a bike helmet or not and indicating folks will never know if a helmet saved their life or not unless they have the same accident without the helmet, etc?

For the record, I agree it's crazy for any state that doesn't have a helmet law for a motorcycle.. I would never give anyone shade that decides to not wear a helmet (that wasn't family anyway), but many of the same arguments motorcycle riders have for/against a helmet law could be had for a bicycle IMHO..

[Fat Cat]

There has been an unfortunate decline in the incidence of donorcycles with the implementation of helmet laws.
But I still enjoy seeing the immortals on the rockets wearing t-shirts, shorts, and flipflops.

[bikinchris]

1. Don't blame John Forester for helmets. In bicycle education we teach the 5 layers protection in riding and helmets are the last layer. When all else fails, wearing a helmet is a good idea.
2. Helmets actually do EXACTLY what they are designed to do. They greatly reduce the chance of brain damage in low speed crashes.
3. They don't help much against crashes faster than 35mph. They won't save you from a cement truck or crashing with cars.

[fiamme red]

Cycling advocates who promote segregated bike lanes set up a straw man by accusing those who promote helmet use of making helmets a magical talisman. But no sane person would ever consider bicycle helmets to be a panacea, any more than those who promote the use of motorcycle helmets or car seat belts think that these make driver or biker education and skills superfluous.

On the other hand, cycling advocates do have a panacea: cycling infrastructure (i.e., segregation from cars), modeled on what they have in Amsterdam or Copenhagen. They claim that if we had proper infrastructure, streets would be perfectly safe for anyone from 8 to 80, no matter lack of experience, education, or skill: https://nacto.org/event/designing-ci...8-80-bikeways/. Never mind the fact that "prottected" bike lanes are not protected at intersections, and only give the illusion of safety in most urban scenarios.

So which side is more irrational?

[Xrslug]

Seeing these pictures of Lemond-era racing without helmets, I always wonder if the riders perceived it as a giant risk (as it seems from today’s perspective), or if it was just accepted as the way it was (in the same way that no kids wore helmets during my childhood, and it wasn’t viewed as horribly dangerous and risky).

[Louis]

Originally Posted by Xrslug

Seeing these pictures of Lemond-era racing without helmets, I always wonder if the riders perceived it as a giant risk (as it seems from today’s perspective), or if it was just accepted as the way it was (in the same way that no kids wore helmets during my childhood, and it wasn’t viewed as horribly dangerous and risky).

[smontanaro]

I have no strong opinion either way. I ride both with and without a helmet, depending on circumstances. I did the 106km L'Eroica route yesterday. Plenty of people rode without helmets, and that's a course where the risk of falling is quite a bit higher than your normal jaunt around the park.

[Tandem Rider]

Originally Posted by Xrslug

Seeing these pictures of Lemond-era racing without helmets, I always wonder if the riders perceived it as a giant risk (as it seems from today’s perspective), or if it was just accepted as the way it was (in the same way that no kids wore helmets during my childhood, and it wasn’t viewed as horribly dangerous and risky).

Hairnets were the helmet of choice until the USCF made more protective helmets a requirement. After warming up, we would all roll up to the start line with our hairnet strap hooked over our stem and the folded helmet hanging in front. We would slip the helmet on during the pre-race banter while the official was talking and riders were getting staged just before the gun went off. It was just part of our race day attire like the number we pinned on. It wasn't part of our daily training kit. Remember, this is primarily a group of 20 something elite athletes with the accompanying attitudes about their abilities and life.

Now, USAC racers are required to be wearing a helmet anytime they are on their bike, even if just rolling over to register or visit the portapotty.

[benb]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

Cycling advocates who promote segregated bike lanes set up a straw man by accusing those who promote helmet use of making helmets a magical talisman. But no sane person would ever consider bicycle helmets to be a panacea, any more than those who promote the use of motorcycle helmets or car seat belts think that these make driver or biker education and skills superfluous.

On the other hand, cycling advocates do have a panacea: cycling infrastructure (i.e., segregation from cars), modeled on what they have in Amsterdam or Copenhagen. They claim that if we had proper infrastructure, streets would be perfectly safe for anyone from 8 to 80, no matter lack of experience, education, or skill: https://nacto.org/event/designing-ci...8-80-bikeways/. Never mind the fact that "prottected" bike lanes are not protected at intersections, and only give the illusion of safety in most urban scenarios.

So which side is more irrational?

Great points. There’s definitely a huge tendency to pretend bike lanes and MUTs are magically safe.

The video that sent me off to post this was full of this stuff.

[unterhausen]

Back in the Lemond days and before, racers would wear hairnets if they thought it was likely that they would crash. Rainy days and cyclocross. Somebody was buying those hairnets, and it definitely wasn't casual riders and tourists. Go look at historical pictures of tourists riding across the U.S. for Bikecentennial, only a few riders were wearing helmets.

At the end of the hairnet era, I bought a really nice one. I wish I hadn't thrown it away.

[benb]

Some things about "back in the day":

- Fewer cars
- Smaller cars & trucks
- Cars and trucks were not as fast
- Cars and trucks were not as safe (maybe slowing people down)
- No smartphones for people to stare at in the car
- No built in touch screens for people to stare at in the car.

Both helmets and bike lanes just might be more necessary now.

In any case I have no issue with bike lanes. Most places they are trying to build them are built up urban environments. They are not your 10/10 road cycling destinations and you can't rip through those environments and feel safe, so we might as well have bike lanes.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by bikinchris

3. They don't help much against crashes faster than 35mph. They won't save you from a cement truck or crashing with cars.

That's an understatement. Helmets sold in the US have to meet CPSC test standards. The CPSC impact test speed is about 14 mph. Or in other words, the test simulates a rider at a moderate speed falling off their bike and not a rider crashing at high speed, or being hit by a motor vehicle. Even still, impacting at the 14 mph test speed, the g-forces of a dummy head form can't exceed 300 g, which was selected based on g forces to fracture a skull. But concussion and other serious brain injury can occur at less than 300 g.

Bicycle helmets are probably better than nothing, but 1/2" of styrofoam provides little protection in a serious crash.

[benb]

This has been covered over and over in the testing. The helmet might not be good enough to protect a car hitting you at 35mph and it directly impacts your head. It is not good enough to protect you if you ride right into a tree at 50mph on a descent.

But even in motorcycle crashes your head when it hits does not hit the ground or anything else at the speed you're traveling at. At least the vast majority of the time. That is what the helmets are trying to protect against. They can't protect against the hypothetical absolute worse case crash. But they can be designed to provide significant protection for many types of crashes that occur and which will cause serious injury without a helmet.

The helmet needs to protect against the acceleration generated by your head falling from the height it's at to the ground. That is the target for protection. Without a helmet you can get a concussion even falling on the grass while playing soccer or non-tackle football falling from that height.

My understanding is some motorcycle helmets at the high end (like I bought) are designed for a tougher standard where they are trying to protect against the height you might be thrown up in the air on a "high side crash" which is more severe than almost anything you can have on a bicycle. Basically slide the bike at high speed then have the tires regain traction and catapault you up in the air. Some of those helmets are also supposed to handle a secondary hit, which might be dicey with bicycle helmets. (E.x. hitting the ground then sliding and hitting the curb)

Having crashed at 70mph motorycling (not a highside) I didn't even hit my head. It was almost exactly like a routine ski/snowboard fall. If I had hit I have absolutely total confidence that helmet would have protected me fine. Maybe worse case scenario I would have hit my head on the curb, but even at 70mph I did not slide that far. My motorcycle did slide far enough to hit the curb and then cartwheel into the grass.

I have also flipped over the bars (road cycling/racing) and hit my head. Did not get a concussion. Helmets are good.

These arguments from bike advocates quickly sound very, very similar to the arguments from the anti-helmet motorcycle folks. If you can start rationalizing what they say it is a very natural progression to saying you don't even need a helmet to ride a motorcycle. It's all the same stuff:

- I ride a Harley I don't go fast. Those sportbike guys ride too fast cause they wear helmets and gear
- My cruiser has an upright seating position and it means I can see better in traffic which means I don't need a helmet
- I ride in a group which provides safety same argument as more bikes mean it's safer, path means more bikes, so we're safer, so we don't need helmets.

On the the moto side the DOT keeps stats and they paint a pretty bad picture for people who don't wear helmets. Riding in a group is recognized as more dangerous.

I was hit by a truck on my bike.. the truck did not hit my helmet. It sent me flying sideways and I hit the road in a sliding fashion not that different from my racetrack motorcycle crash. I again didn't hit my head because I was only falling down from the force of gravity, not from the force the truck hit me. It wasn't even enough downward force for my neck to not be able to keep my helmet hitting. Goes to show how lucky you can get... even when getting hit by a truck you are not hitting your head with the full speed of your bicycle or the truck. My speed alone was higher than this hypothetical speed at which helmets supposedly don't work.

There is really nothing in a modern car that will help you at all if you get hit by a 1M+ pound locomotive. That doesn't mean we should just go back to 1950s cars. Saying helmets can't fully protect in 100% of circumstances is not really a good faith argument for never wearing them.

[Spoker]

Originally Posted by Xrslug

Seeing these pictures of Lemond-era racing without helmets, I always wonder if the riders perceived it as a giant risk (as it seems from today’s perspective), or if it was just accepted as the way it was (in the same way that no kids wore helmets during my childhood, and it wasn’t viewed as horribly dangerous and risky).

There was much more discipline and respect in the peloton those days.

If passive safety increases; active safety decreases.