Do you wear a Bike Helmet?

[blackrock13]

Well listen, you could certainly dramatically decrease your chances of dying in a car accident by wearing a helmet. And it ISN"T a crazy idea - after all reace car drivers do so. I guarantee you that hundreds of lives would be saved by wearing them. Yet you dont pile scorn on helmetless drivers. I presume you don't wear a helmet in a car. Why not? Because you perceive the risk to be small.

So understanding the risks are CRUCIAL to making this decision, as in fact it is to a zillion other things we do every day.

Case closed.

Burt you're pissing in the wind. Race car drivers are going 200+mph when they're in their cars. No shit they wear helmets. There air bags, seat belts, head rests and steel body help protect regular people in the vehicles. The bicycles have no such protection and not many bikes go 200 mph. You're trying too hard.

As for stats, spend some time in the emergency wards and see what kind of injuries come in.

Until that occurs, enjoy.

http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

 

[Brill]

It's rare to wear helmets in Denmark or Holland - the asphalt isn't softer there, they a created safer atmosphere for cyclists.
We decided to create a war zone here which costs more for everyone.

 

[blackrock13]

It's rare to wear helmets in Denmark or Holland - the asphalt isn't softer there, they a created safer atmosphere for cyclists.
We decided to create a war zone here which costs more for everyone.

Apples and oranges, what about vehicle speeds, vehicle density, vehicle size?

http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2010/03/08/cycling-statistics-from-denmark/

 

[SirWanker]

Well listen, you could certainly dramatically decrease your chances of dying in a car accident by wearing a helmet. And it ISN"T a crazy idea - after all reace car drivers do so. I guarantee you that hundreds of lives would be saved by wearing them. Yet you dont pile scorn on helmetless drivers. I presume you don't wear a helmet in a car. Why not? Because you perceive the risk to be small.

So understanding the risks are CRUCIAL to making this decision, as in fact it is to a zillion other things we do every day.

Case closed.

And you're demonstrating your understanding of the risks of cycling without a helmet.
Do us a favour, go cycle.........without a helmet.

 

[burt-oh-my!]

And you're demonstrating your understanding of the risks of cycling without a helmet.
Do us a favour, go cycle.........without a helmet.

I understand the stats. No need to get personal my boy - it's a sign that you've exhausted your repetoire of rational argument and discussion.

By the way, RUNNING is apparently quite dangerous statistically too.

Not one of you has bothered to come to grips with a rational discussion of how dangerous cycling is relative to other activities. I am not actually saying whether or not one should wear a helmet, all I am doing is pointing out that perhaps you should not be so strident in saying how crazy it is not to wear one when you in all likelihood are engaging in other activities that are equally if not more dangerous without taking similar precautions.

Reminds me of smokers getting all worked up about not drinking tap water.

 

[blackrock13]

I understand the stats. No need to get personal my boy - it's a sign that you've exhausted your repetoire of rational argument and discussion.

By the way, RUNNING is apparently quite dangerous statistically too.

Not one of you has bothered to come to grips with a rational discussion of how dangerous cycling is relative to other activities. I am not actually saying whether or not one should wear a helmet, all I am doing is pointing out that perhaps you should not be so strident in saying how crazy it is not to wear one when you in all likelihood are engaging in other activities that are equally if not more dangerous without taking similar precautions.

Reminds me of smokers getting all worked up about not drinking tap water.

no actually you're rambling. The single study, and I suspect there are more, I offered, showed you that the helmets make a difference. If you don't want to feel free, but don't try and justify your stupidity; nothing personal of course.

 

[Brill]

Apples and oranges, what about vehicle speeds, vehicle density, vehicle size?

http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2010/03/08/cycling-statistics-from-denmark/

That's what I'm saying, it's apples and oranges - they have a safer atmosphere. The only similarity is the hardness of the asphalt.

They don't get knocked off their bikes in the first place.

 

[burt-oh-my!]

no actually you're rambling. The single study, and I suspect there are more, I offered, showed you that the helmets make a difference. If you don't want to feel free, but don't try and justify your stupidity; nothing personal of course.

I will say this every time someone feels the need to add "stupidity" barbs etc to a discussion - it proves nothing other than the fact that you feel the need to buttress your argument with meaningless playground banter.

HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERNCE? That's what I would like to know. Will you even admit that it has a big bearing on the subject? If not then this is not a meaningful discussion, its just another TERB -"I'm right, you're a moron' type of threads that contain no facts or logic.

 

[burt-oh-my!]

WEll well well:

http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html

I will reprint some of it:

Introduction

An examination of data covering the period 1975 - 2002 from Transport Canada [1,2], a federal government agency, shows that Canada is replicating the experiences of Australia and the US, where no effect of increased helmet use among cyclists can be detected from prevailing fatality trends. As with other studies, our analysis uses pedestrians as a control group since pedestrians are vulnerable road users and are likely to benefit equally with cyclists from general safety campaigns, such as those involving roadside breath-testing of motorists and speed surveillance using radar equipment.

Conclusions

It is apparent that mass helmet use is not contributing to the reduction in cyclist fatalities, at least not in any measurable way. The results suggest that traffic authorities should refocus to put their efforts into other proven measures. Programs aimed at motorist behaviour over the past 20 or so years have been effective in reducing fatalities among all road user groups, including pedestrians and cyclists. Pressure on aggressive drivers to change their habits should continue. However, targetting the behaviour of only one of the parties would be short sighted. Cyclist-specific measures are also needed. There are two important factors in cycling fatalities which currently get insufficient attention - cyclist behaviour and night lighting equipment. The vast majority of cycling accidents involve cyclist error or inappropriate practices. That includes collisions with motor vehicles [5]. Educational efforts to improve cyclists' skills should be accorded a high priority. School age children are the obvious target group. Responsible behaviour patterns need to be adopted at an early age.

The corollary is stricter enforcement of bicycle night lighting laws. Over 90% of bicycles involved in night time fatalities have inadequate lighting [6]. Violaters increase their risks of being fatality statistics by a factor of four [7]. Data from Ontario show 20% to 30% of fatalities occur at dusk or during the hours of darkness [7-9].

Ain't evidence a bitch?

 

[Bella6969]

hi everyone wow long time .........YES FOR SURE A HELMET ... i was on a full harley decker
last summer on the hwy weston and 401 and some loon hit us from behind in of allllll things a civic grrrrrrrrrrr lol went down a bit but wanted to catch him
the tour pack on back of harley smashed up my back and came close 2 going fully down
im a rider allllll the time so def have to have safty ps...... 2 weeks later at a red light .. gues who was beide me when i was in a truck ??? yep the loon with the civic ahahahahah

 

[blackrock13]

I will say this every time someone feels the need to add "stupidity" barbs etc to a discussion - it proves nothing other than the fact that you feel the need to buttress your argument with meaningless playground banter.

HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERNCE? That's what I would like to know. Will you even admit that it has a big bearing on the subject? If not then this is not a meaningful discussion, its just another TERB -"I'm right, you're a moron' type of threads that contain no facts or logic.

It doesn't matter a fig how much, especially if someone you know, is someone who was killed or received ahead injury by not wearing a helmet. If it 's 5% or 50%, it doesn't matter.

A wise old saying comes to mind. You can't legislate against stupid.

 

[blackrock13]

WEll well well:

http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html

I will reprint some of it:

Introduction

An examination of data covering the period 1975 - 2002 from Transport Canada [1,2], a federal government agency, shows that Canada is replicating the experiences of Australia and the US, where no effect of increased helmet use among cyclists can be detected from prevailing fatality trends. As with other studies, our analysis uses pedestrians as a control group since pedestrians are vulnerable road users and are likely to benefit equally with cyclists from general safety campaigns, such as those involving roadside breath-testing of motorists and speed surveillance using radar equipment.

Conclusions

It is apparent that mass helmet use is not contributing to the reduction in cyclist fatalities, at least not in any measurable way. The results suggest that traffic authorities should refocus to put their efforts into other proven measures. Programs aimed at motorist behaviour over the past 20 or so years have been effective in reducing fatalities among all road user groups, including pedestrians and cyclists. Pressure on aggressive drivers to change their habits should continue. However, targetting the behaviour of only one of the parties would be short sighted. Cyclist-specific measures are also needed. There are two important factors in cycling fatalities which currently get insufficient attention - cyclist behaviour and night lighting equipment. The vast majority of cycling accidents involve cyclist error or inappropriate practices. That includes collisions with motor vehicles [5]. Educational efforts to improve cyclists' skills should be accorded a high priority. School age children are the obvious target group. Responsible behaviour patterns need to be adopted at an early age.

The corollary is stricter enforcement of bicycle night lighting laws. Over 90% of bicycles involved in night time fatalities have inadequate lighting [6]. Violaters increase their risks of being fatality statistics by a factor of four [7]. Data from Ontario show 20% to 30% of fatalities occur at dusk or during the hours of darkness [7-9].

Ain't evidence a bitch?

The conclusion/study only discuss fatalities. It doesn't handle other end results. How many major head injuries were avoided? Does't say. How many major facial injuries were avoided? Doesn't say.

 

[burt-oh-my!]

I see. So it represents NO evidence I guess. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Whereas your 'proclamations' are the clincher, regardless of the fact that they are NOT supported by evidence.

Gee, why don't you email the authors and tell them they are stupid?

 

[blackrock13]

I see. So it represents NO evidence I guess. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Whereas your 'proclamations' are the clincher, regardless of the fact that they are NOT supported by evidence.

Gee, why don't you email the authors and tell them they are stupid?

I didn't say it didn't show any evidence just that its focus was very narrow and didn't look at the wider picture; BIG difference.

From; http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/pdf/2000/bc_rpt.pdf

A number of studies indicate that properly worn bicycle helmets are highly effective
in preventing, or reducing the seriousness of, head injury. For example, in a study
of bicyclists seen in Seattle area emergency departments, Thompson et al. (1996)
found that any head injury, and serious head injury, were substantially less common
among bicyclists who had been wearing a helmet. A British study (Maimaris et al.,
1994) found a highly similar protective effect for helmet wearers. A study of
Australian bicyclists seen in Melbourne area hospitals also reported that helmet
wearers were substantially less likely to experience either head or facial injury
(McDermott et al., 1994). In an overview of studies that have examined helmet
effectiveness, Rivara et al. (1998) report that helmets reduce the risk of head or
brain injury by at least 70 percent and injury to the upper or mid-face by 65%.

How about a medical view; http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/110/5/e60.full


Bicycling is a popular pastime and mode of transportation for children. Bicycle-related injuries, however, are common. For example, the annual mortality rate for bicycle-related injuries in children in Canada (1990–1992) was 6 per 100 000 children, with a concomitant annual hospitalization rate of 51 per 100 000.1 From 1994–1997, almost 10 000 Canadian children were hospitalized because of bicycle-related injuries. Of these admissions, 35% were because of injuries to the head.

Bicycle helmets have been shown to be effective in preventing head, brain, and facial injuries to cyclists.2,3 Although some authors have argued against the efficacy of helmets,4,5 published systematic reviews6,7 and a meta-analysis8 demonstrated that helmets protect children from head injuries. The Cochrane Collaboration systematic review reported that helmets reduce the risk of head injury by up to 88% and reduce the risk of facial injury by 65% among child cyclists.


The footnotes give you other references that might be educational

 

[escortsxxx]

I would always wear a motor cycle helmet. The way bike helmets are made and regulated wearing one is stupid. They offer close to zero protection and actually effect your field of vision - while a motor cycle helmet has the same problem they designed to explode on impact -are one use, and absorb the damage of an impact - excellent protection -once. Bike helmets are good for hockey pucks and stray golf balls, and I guess a stationary fall of your bicycle (good for kids I suppose for this reason) but not much else.

 

[DATYdude]

I'm vain and would ride with my helmet if they made one that didn't result in dreaded helmet-head when I get to work.

 

[Emily_SS]

I always wear my helmet. Sure my hair gets sweaty, but would rather have that then a cracked skull. I'm so used to wearing it now that I feel naked without when I'm cycling.

 

[burt-oh-my!]

I didn't say it didn't show any evidence just that its focus was very narrow and didn't look at the wider picture; BIG difference.

From; http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/pdf/2000/bc_rpt.pdf

A number of studies indicate that properly worn bicycle helmets are highly effective
in preventing, or reducing the seriousness of, head injury. For example, in a study
of bicyclists seen in Seattle area emergency departments, Thompson et al. (1996)
found that any head injury, and serious head injury, were substantially less common
among bicyclists who had been wearing a helmet. A British study (Maimaris et al.,
1994) found a highly similar protective effect for helmet wearers. A study of
Australian bicyclists seen in Melbourne area hospitals also reported that helmet
wearers were substantially less likely to experience either head or facial injury
(McDermott et al., 1994). In an overview of studies that have examined helmet
effectiveness, Rivara et al. (1998) report that helmets reduce the risk of head or
brain injury by at least 70 percent and injury to the upper or mid-face by 65%.

How about a medical view; http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/110/5/e60.full


Bicycling is a popular pastime and mode of transportation for children. Bicycle-related injuries, however, are common. For example, the annual mortality rate for bicycle-related injuries in children in Canada (1990–1992) was 6 per 100 000 children, with a concomitant annual hospitalization rate of 51 per 100 000.1 From 1994–1997, almost 10 000 Canadian children were hospitalized because of bicycle-related injuries. Of these admissions, 35% were because of injuries to the head.

Bicycle helmets have been shown to be effective in preventing head, brain, and facial injuries to cyclists.2,3 Although some authors have argued against the efficacy of helmets,4,5 published systematic reviews6,7 and a meta-analysis8 demonstrated that helmets protect children from head injuries. The Cochrane Collaboration systematic review reported that helmets reduce the risk of head injury by up to 88% and reduce the risk of facial injury by 65% among child cyclists.


The footnotes give you other references that might be educational

That may all very well be, but you still don't get the point - if those head injuries are rare enough, then wearing a helmet has little or no effect on the overall safety of bike riding. and evidently the data from my article shows exactly that: wearing helmets has no appreicable impact on bicycle fatality rates.

"An examination of data covering the period 1975 - 2002 from Transport Canada [1,2], a federal government agency, shows that Canada is replicating the experiences of Australia and the US, where no effect of increased helmet use among cyclists can be detected from prevailing fatality trends."

So the conclusion I draw from this is that either a lot, possibly a majority of bicycle fatalities were due to non-head injuries i.e. run over etc, OR that they were due to head injuries that were so severe that the helmet didn't help. Maybe they helped in the case of reducing injuries - I shold damn wel lhope so.

In any case, I hope tht this evidence should help you reconsider before you start mocking others' opinions as silly when in fact there is evidence to support their claims. You may disagree, but I think a fair reading of the article in question should at the very least make one doubt the efficacy of bicycle helmets in having any meaningful effect on reducing fatalities.

If you have any respect for research and a fact-based approach to argumentation, that is. If you feel that your declarations alone are sufficient evidence, then I bow to your superior methodology.

 

[SoftHands813]

Reading the back-and-forth in this thread reminds me of another post in the Forum: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?340229-Why-you-can-t-win-an-argument-on-the-internet!&highlight=argument+on+internet

And to help prove my point, you will hit the reply button to fire off some sort of retort claiming that it doesn`t apply to you.

 

[blackrock13]

That may all very well be, but you still don't get the point - if those head injuries are rare enough, then wearing a helmet has little or no effect on the overall safety of bike riding. and evidently the data from my article shows exactly that: wearing helmets has no appreicable impact on bicycle fatality rates.

"An examination of data covering the period 1975 - 2002 from Transport Canada [1,2], a federal government agency, shows that Canada is replicating the experiences of Australia and the US, where no effect of increased helmet use among cyclists can be detected from prevailing fatality trends."

So the conclusion I draw from this is that either a lot, possibly a majority of bicycle fatalities were due to non-head injuries i.e. run over etc, OR that they were due to head injuries that were so severe that the helmet didn't help. Maybe they helped in the case of reducing injuries - I shold damn wel lhope so.

In any case, I hope tht this evidence should help you reconsider before you start mocking others' opinions as silly when in fact there is evidence to support their claims. You may disagree, but I think a fair reading of the article in question should at the very least make one doubt the efficacy of bicycle helmets in having any meaningful effect on reducing fatalities.

If you have any respect for research and a fact-based approach to argumentation, that is. If you feel that your declarations alone are sufficient evidence, then I bow to your superior methodology.

It's not just my declarations, nor my methodology. It's research, findings, and conclusions from professionals that know more than you about trauma, death, and safety issues.You again put forward the argument about fatalities only, make the focus too narrow and that's just bogus. Yes, you may draw any conclusion you wish, but it flies in the face the conclusions of research from multiple sources and vocations who are far more educated than you in this area.