Do you wear a Bike Helmet?
- Thread starter JEFF247
- Start date
Gee I'm going to guess you're no watching the Tour De France. These guys are probably on better physical than you will ever be.
Christ, no. I cannot possibly think of a bigger waste of time than to watch people ride their bicycles around France. I mean, come on...really?
Just because some dude is in good physical shape does not make him interesting or entertaining. Watching sports is a total waste of time.
B
burt-oh-my!
What makes YOUR findings more accurate than MINE?
And you still still still don't tell me HOW LIKELY this all is. At some point if something is unlikely enough we don't bother trying to protect against it. I hav eabsolutely no doubt that wearing a helmet makes bicycling a bit safer - the question is how much? Is it worth it? From a fatality point of view apparently it makes no discernable difference.
Injuries may be another matter, but even then, I need ot know the likelihood of various types of injuries.
I have seen some evidence that running is just as dangerous as bicycling. Driving or being a passenger in a car may well be too, especially considering the much greater amount of time most people spend doing that.
Soooooooo....doesn't it logically follow then that if you think I am silly for not wearing a helmet for instance, runners (or drivers etc) are equally SILLY for not doing the same? Based on statistics of danger, that is.
And doesn't it also logically follow that if there are MORE dangerous activities that you DON'T protect against, then it is illogical to call other people stupid for not protecting agains tlower risk activities if you yourself are subjecting yourself to even higher risks without taking similar action? I fail to see what there is about THAT that you can disagree with.
As I said before, its like a smoker telling a guy bbqing that he is a fool for breathing in all that smoke.
Just ignore for a second WHETHER YOU THINK THESE ACTIVITES are more or less dangerous or not, just tell me if you agree with the principles in the above statments.
If we can agree on that, then all we need to do is find out the facts as to how dangerous activites are - not by talking about seatbelts, showing gruesome pics, and the like, but by finding statistics.
Further to my comment about hitting your head on the ground...
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/06/pedestrian-hit-by-cyclist-suffers-serious-injury
A woman remains in hospital with life threatening injuries after being mowed down by a cyclist Tuesday, Toronto Police said.
Three pedestrians were crossing the road around 11 a.m. Tuesday on the south side of Dundas St. W. when a man on a bike going south on Huron St. hit one
of them, knocking her to the ground, police said Wednesday.
The pedestrians were crossing on an appropriate signal, police said.
A 49-year-old man has been charged with careless driving, police said. His name has not been released.
If it's true he was travelling in the wrong direction and hit the woman at a crosswalk, he should be charged with dangerous driving, not careless! Fuck I hate cyclists like that!
Poor woman is in hospital with life threatening injuries!
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/06/pedestrian-hit-by-cyclist-suffers-serious-injury
A woman remains in hospital with life threatening injuries after being mowed down by a cyclist Tuesday, Toronto Police said.
Three pedestrians were crossing the road around 11 a.m. Tuesday on the south side of Dundas St. W. when a man on a bike going south on Huron St. hit one
of them, knocking her to the ground, police said Wednesday.
The pedestrians were crossing on an appropriate signal, police said.
A 49-year-old man has been charged with careless driving, police said. His name has not been released.
If it's true he was travelling in the wrong direction and hit the woman at a crosswalk, he should be charged with dangerous driving, not careless! Fuck I hate cyclists like that!
B
burt-oh-my!
More:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-helmets-attract-cars-to-cyclists
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
Although you might not want to leave your protective gear at home, just know that if you do, drivers will be a lot more scared of hitting you.
Last September a plucky psychologist at the University of Bath in England announced the results of a study in which he played both researcher and guinea pig. An avid cyclist, Ian Walker had heard several complaints from fellow riders that wearing a helmet seemed to result in bike riders receiving far less room to maneuver—effectively increasing the chances of an accident. So, Walker attached ultrasonic sensors to his bike and rode around Bath, allowing 2,300 vehicles to overtake him while he was either helmeted or naked-headed. In the process, he was actually contacted by a truck and a bus, both while helmeted—though, miraculously, he did not fall off his bike either time.
His findings, published in the March 2007 issue of Accident Analysis & Prevention, state that when Walker wore a helmet drivers typically drove an average of 3.35 inches closer to his bike than when his noggin wasn't covered. But, if he wore a wig of long, brown locks—appearing to be a woman from behind—he was granted 2.2 inches more room to ride.
"The implication," Walker says, "is that any protection helmets give is canceled out by other mechanisms, such as riders possibly taking more risks and/or changes in how other road users behave towards cyclists." The extra leeway granted to him when he pretended to be a woman, he explains, could result from several factors, including drivers' perceptions that members of the fairer sex are less capable riders, more frail or just less frequent bikers than men.
Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (BHSI), says that studies such as Walker's run the risk of misleading cyclists as to the effectiveness of helmets. "The cars were giving him, on average, a very wide passing clearance already," he explains, noting that most vehicles typically stayed well over three feet from the bikes, rendering the 3.35-inch discrepancy to be insignificant. "If you really want the greatest passing distance, you should wobble down the road," looking as inept as possible, he adds.
Walker actually reanalyzed his data recently to counter this line of reasoning. "I assessed the number of vehicles coming within one meter [roughly 3.3 feet] of the rider, on the principle that these are the ones that pose a risk," he says. "There were 23 percent more vehicles within this one-meter danger zone when a helmet was worn, suggesting a real risk."
Dorothy Robinson, a patron of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation and a senior statistician at the University of New England in Armidale, Australia, published a 2006 review article in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) about regions in Australia, New Zealand and Canada that introduced legislation that spurred an over 40 percent increase in bicycle helmet use among their populaces. The newly instituted laws, she found, did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries, the primary purpose of the gear. Her conclusion was "helmets are not designed for forces often encountered in collisions with motor vehicles" as well as that they "may encourage cyclists to take more risks or motorists to take less care when they encounter cyclists."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-helmets-attract-cars-to-cyclists
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
Although you might not want to leave your protective gear at home, just know that if you do, drivers will be a lot more scared of hitting you.
Last September a plucky psychologist at the University of Bath in England announced the results of a study in which he played both researcher and guinea pig. An avid cyclist, Ian Walker had heard several complaints from fellow riders that wearing a helmet seemed to result in bike riders receiving far less room to maneuver—effectively increasing the chances of an accident. So, Walker attached ultrasonic sensors to his bike and rode around Bath, allowing 2,300 vehicles to overtake him while he was either helmeted or naked-headed. In the process, he was actually contacted by a truck and a bus, both while helmeted—though, miraculously, he did not fall off his bike either time.
His findings, published in the March 2007 issue of Accident Analysis & Prevention, state that when Walker wore a helmet drivers typically drove an average of 3.35 inches closer to his bike than when his noggin wasn't covered. But, if he wore a wig of long, brown locks—appearing to be a woman from behind—he was granted 2.2 inches more room to ride.
"The implication," Walker says, "is that any protection helmets give is canceled out by other mechanisms, such as riders possibly taking more risks and/or changes in how other road users behave towards cyclists." The extra leeway granted to him when he pretended to be a woman, he explains, could result from several factors, including drivers' perceptions that members of the fairer sex are less capable riders, more frail or just less frequent bikers than men.
Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (BHSI), says that studies such as Walker's run the risk of misleading cyclists as to the effectiveness of helmets. "The cars were giving him, on average, a very wide passing clearance already," he explains, noting that most vehicles typically stayed well over three feet from the bikes, rendering the 3.35-inch discrepancy to be insignificant. "If you really want the greatest passing distance, you should wobble down the road," looking as inept as possible, he adds.
Walker actually reanalyzed his data recently to counter this line of reasoning. "I assessed the number of vehicles coming within one meter [roughly 3.3 feet] of the rider, on the principle that these are the ones that pose a risk," he says. "There were 23 percent more vehicles within this one-meter danger zone when a helmet was worn, suggesting a real risk."
Dorothy Robinson, a patron of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation and a senior statistician at the University of New England in Armidale, Australia, published a 2006 review article in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) about regions in Australia, New Zealand and Canada that introduced legislation that spurred an over 40 percent increase in bicycle helmet use among their populaces. The newly instituted laws, she found, did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries, the primary purpose of the gear. Her conclusion was "helmets are not designed for forces often encountered in collisions with motor vehicles" as well as that they "may encourage cyclists to take more risks or motorists to take less care when they encounter cyclists."
B
burt-oh-my!
And as for the notion that we shoudl be wearing helmets in cars:
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb160.pdf
Prevention of head injuries to car occupants: an investigation of interior padding options
Federal Office of Road Safety - Report CR 160
Authors: A. J. McLean, B.N. Fildes, C.N. Kloeden, K.H. Digges, R.W.G. Anderson, V.M. Moore & D. A. Simpson
Performing organisations: NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide and Monash University Accident Research Centre
Full report in .pdf format [355KB]
Abstract
Head injuries to car occupants resulting from crashes on Australian roads are a major cause of death and permanent brain damage. This report evaluates the benefits that would be likely to accrue from the use of padding materials to reduce the severity of impacts to the head. A review of the international literature was conducted to examine the range of possible countermeasures, with particular reference to padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment. Three sets of data analyses were then carried out: first, a summary of objects typically struck by the head in a representative sample of crashes; secondly, an examination of actual brain injuries sustained in a sample of crashes, and an assessment of likely outcomes had the objects struck by the head been padded; and finally, a HARM analysis to estimate the cost of head injuries and the likely financial benefits from various countermeasures. Results indicate that there is considerable potential for reducing the severity and consequences of impacts to the head by padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment. The total annual benefit of this measure, in terms of reduced HARM, would be about $123 million, or $154 per car (with a 5% discount rate). However, an even greater level of protection would be provided by the use of protective headwear. The total benefits associated with headwear in the form of a soft shell bicycle helmet were estimated to be $380 million (assuming a fully airbag equipped fleet), or $476 per car ($626 for cars without airbags).
...
The next section of the report presents the results of a detailed analysis of factors related to the occurrence of brain injury in three samples of crash involved car occupants studied by the NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit. On a case by case basis, selected characteristics of the injury to the brain are related to characteristics of the impact to the head and the object struck to identify those cases in which the provision of some means of energy absorption might reasonably be expected either to prevent or significantly reduce the severity of the injury to the brain in a similar crash. The results of this investigation indicate that there is considerable potential for reducing the severity and the consequences of impacts to the head by padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment. However, an even greater level of protection would be provided by the use of protective headwear.
Protective headwear, similar to a soft shell pedal cycle helmet, is estimated to be much more effective than padding the car in preventing cases of fatal brain injury and in improving the outcome in cases of severe brain injury. With each of these forms of protection the benefit appears likely to be greatest for cases which would otherwise sustain a brain injury of moderate severity (improved outcome in 40 and 25 per cent of cases respectively).
Here are a couple of statistics from 1990 to 2000:
(taken from http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/SR0002.pdf )
• More than 90,000 children, infants to teenagers, were killed in motor
vehicle crashes, and over 9 million were injured.
• Six out of 10 children who died were not buckled up.
I believe that getting parents to simply buckle their kids up (and to do it properly) is the most simple and effective solution, but I also think there is something to the helmet idea to supplement continued seatbelt education.
Ok, now for the bottom line...
Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that an organization like the NHTSA does a formal research project and the results show that for children aged from 3 to 14, there are 6,000 annual fatalities with a head injury, and 60,000 more children in the same age range suffer a serious head injury ever year. Next let's assume that their study showed that the type of helmet we are talking about here could reduce the number of fatalities and serious head injuries by 25% (in the ballpark of the Australian study).
That would result in the potential for 1,500 saved lives, and 15,000 fewer injuries each year. Of course this potential savings is not realistic since many parents would not put helmets on their kids (despite the good evidence), but even if just 10% of the parents did, then that 'early adopter' group would still be saving 150 childrens' lives and 1,500 serious head injuries every year... or 3 lives and 30 head injuires every week.
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb160.pdf
Prevention of head injuries to car occupants: an investigation of interior padding options
Federal Office of Road Safety - Report CR 160
Authors: A. J. McLean, B.N. Fildes, C.N. Kloeden, K.H. Digges, R.W.G. Anderson, V.M. Moore & D. A. Simpson
Performing organisations: NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide and Monash University Accident Research Centre
Full report in .pdf format [355KB]
Abstract
Head injuries to car occupants resulting from crashes on Australian roads are a major cause of death and permanent brain damage. This report evaluates the benefits that would be likely to accrue from the use of padding materials to reduce the severity of impacts to the head. A review of the international literature was conducted to examine the range of possible countermeasures, with particular reference to padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment. Three sets of data analyses were then carried out: first, a summary of objects typically struck by the head in a representative sample of crashes; secondly, an examination of actual brain injuries sustained in a sample of crashes, and an assessment of likely outcomes had the objects struck by the head been padded; and finally, a HARM analysis to estimate the cost of head injuries and the likely financial benefits from various countermeasures. Results indicate that there is considerable potential for reducing the severity and consequences of impacts to the head by padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment. The total annual benefit of this measure, in terms of reduced HARM, would be about $123 million, or $154 per car (with a 5% discount rate). However, an even greater level of protection would be provided by the use of protective headwear. The total benefits associated with headwear in the form of a soft shell bicycle helmet were estimated to be $380 million (assuming a fully airbag equipped fleet), or $476 per car ($626 for cars without airbags).
...
The next section of the report presents the results of a detailed analysis of factors related to the occurrence of brain injury in three samples of crash involved car occupants studied by the NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit. On a case by case basis, selected characteristics of the injury to the brain are related to characteristics of the impact to the head and the object struck to identify those cases in which the provision of some means of energy absorption might reasonably be expected either to prevent or significantly reduce the severity of the injury to the brain in a similar crash. The results of this investigation indicate that there is considerable potential for reducing the severity and the consequences of impacts to the head by padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment. However, an even greater level of protection would be provided by the use of protective headwear.
Protective headwear, similar to a soft shell pedal cycle helmet, is estimated to be much more effective than padding the car in preventing cases of fatal brain injury and in improving the outcome in cases of severe brain injury. With each of these forms of protection the benefit appears likely to be greatest for cases which would otherwise sustain a brain injury of moderate severity (improved outcome in 40 and 25 per cent of cases respectively).
Here are a couple of statistics from 1990 to 2000:
(taken from http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/SR0002.pdf )
• More than 90,000 children, infants to teenagers, were killed in motor
vehicle crashes, and over 9 million were injured.
• Six out of 10 children who died were not buckled up.
I believe that getting parents to simply buckle their kids up (and to do it properly) is the most simple and effective solution, but I also think there is something to the helmet idea to supplement continued seatbelt education.
Ok, now for the bottom line...
Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that an organization like the NHTSA does a formal research project and the results show that for children aged from 3 to 14, there are 6,000 annual fatalities with a head injury, and 60,000 more children in the same age range suffer a serious head injury ever year. Next let's assume that their study showed that the type of helmet we are talking about here could reduce the number of fatalities and serious head injuries by 25% (in the ballpark of the Australian study).
That would result in the potential for 1,500 saved lives, and 15,000 fewer injuries each year. Of course this potential savings is not realistic since many parents would not put helmets on their kids (despite the good evidence), but even if just 10% of the parents did, then that 'early adopter' group would still be saving 150 childrens' lives and 1,500 serious head injuries every year... or 3 lives and 30 head injuires every week.
New York City released a report on bicycle deaths and injuries: 225 cyclists died between 1996 and 2005 on New York streets; 97 percent of them were not wearing helmets. Of these deaths, 58 percent are known to involve head injury, but the actual number could be as high as 80 percent. Comparing the helmet to a seat belt in a car, Swart of the BHSI says, "When you do have that crash, you better have it on."
So you still think it's better to not wear a helmet? I think you lack common sense!
B
burt-oh-my!
That was just one point in the article. Isn't it FACINATING how many experts have differring views on this?: On how UN CLEAR_CUT it is?
Wearing a helmet would most likely reduce the chances of head injuries in the event of a car crash. Just like wearing a helmet on a bike would most likely reduce the chances of head injuries in the event of a fall. There's no law stating adults have to wear a helmet on a bike, it's your choice. There also no law stating you can't wear a helmet while driving a car, again it's your choice. I repeat... What you seem to be missing b-o-m, is common sense!
Experts may have different views but how can you argue with this????????????????????????????????
New York City released a report on bicycle deaths and injuries: 225 cyclists died between 1996 and 2005 on New York streets; 97 percent of them were not wearing helmets. Of these deaths, 58 percent are known to involve head injury, but the actual number could be as high as 80 percent. Comparing the helmet to a seat belt in a car, Swart of the BHSI says, "When you do have that crash, you better have it on."
B
burt-oh-my!
Ah! I get it! You mean the common sense that we shoudl be wearing ahelmet both in a car and a bike, and that in fact we would certainloy save more lives if we all wore them n a car? I get you.
And 99% out of those 225 cyclists at least one time in their life ate cucumbers. The best way to stay safe would seem to be to wear a helmet and not eat cucumbers.
I think I'll add "can't spell" and "bordering on troll" to your "lack of common sense".
In my experience you couldn't be more wrong. Please read my post #17. Anyone who doesn't wear a helmet is asking for trouble and anyone who thinks differently is just not aware of the facts. Please refer to the article http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/06/cyclists-deaths-raise-helmet-law-issue where a 53 year old man whacked his head and is dead and then tell me a helmet offers close to zero protection. Wake up to reality before it's too late!!!
B
burt-oh-my!
See, what you guys who can't put things into perspective always do is quote single examples. That never gives anyone an idea of how likely something is. The fact remains that the evidence shows that wearing a helmet has no discernable effect on fatality rates. Death from head injuries are obviously then not being prevented in any meaningful way by the wearing of helmets.
B
burt-oh-my!
OK, its conclusive, you can't understand the nature of the word 'probability;, i guess you wear a helmet all the time since it is POSSIBLE that at any time you could be struck on the head by any nymber of things. Its unlikely, sure, but that is irrelevant to you.
I guess that means yo also constantly wear a gas mask, and never go out.
Oh yes, you must be living constantly in a deep underground shelter to protect against meteorite hits
I guess that means yo also constantly wear a gas mask, and never go out.
Oh yes, you must be living constantly in a deep underground shelter to protect against meteorite hits
