Re: Helmets

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Mee Too said:

Try a Google search with this text "bicycle helmet saved my life" ......
232,000 results... Not sure if it will settle any thing here, but some very
interesting read!

:-) Nice data point.

In the US, there haven't been more than 1000 bike fatalities for many,
many years - since the 1970s, IIRC.

If every Google hit actually represents a "Helmet Saved My Life" story,
then helmet wearers are _hundreds_ of times more likely to _need_ head
protection.

More likely, of course, is that they're just hundreds of times more
deluded.

Just for laffs I tried a variation on the above suggestion:
'Your search - "safety glass saved my life" - did not match any documents. '

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Jeff Starr said:

And I really find it absurd to suggest that wearing a helmet, means
that you are claiming bicycling to be dangerous.

Well, can you give us a list of the perfectly safe activities for which
a helmet is normally recommended? There can't be many.

Quoted message said:

Obviously to me, a mandatory helmet law wouldn't effect me, not that I
support one. What I find odd, is that supposedly 30% will quit riding
when faced with a MHL. If they made tights a requirement, a no shorts
law, I would still ride. Maybe a bad or silly example, but with my
love of riding, I would not quit over a helmet or pants requirement.

I don't doubt that most people posting here love cycling. And I don't
doubt that they wouldn't give up cycling if they could avoid it, even
if it meant wearing some really, really weird clothing.

But we're not typical. The vast majority of the world's cyclists are
just people who find a bike somewhat convenient or somewhat pleasant.
The jump on and ride more or less often.

When you start promoting helmets by telling people that they can die
if they don't wear one, you scare a certain percentage of these people
off their bikes. And when you tell them that they'll get an expensive
ticket if they dare ride without the helmet, another percentage will
say "forget it."

It may seem amazing, but that's been the experience, well-confirmed by
traffic counts and telephone surveys. And keep in mind, _nobody_ is
going to do the opposite. That is, nobody's likely to say "Oh, I'm not
allowed to ride my bike unless I go out and spend money on a special
hat? Yippee! NOW I'm going to start riding!"

- Frank Krygowski

RogerDodger said:

Oh what wooly headed thinking Robert!

What, that Frank applies academic rigor to his
critique of T&R but not to his claim that cycling is not
dangerous? That's what I was posting about.

Quoted message said:

The line that "cycling is dangerous" is nonsense on stilts.

Somewhat less nonsensical than claiming "cycling is NOT
dangerous" and pretending that statistics back the claim.

The absolute danger of cycling in traffic can be summed up
thusly: it is safe only for those who know it's dangerous.
For those who think it's safe, it is quite dangerous indeed.
Therefore, those who teach beginners that any sense of
danger in traffic is silly and is to be ridiculed, and in
some bizarre backlash against the pro-helmet bike safety
paradigm actually withhold any data that might
contradict the notion that cycling is "safe," might have
blood on their hands.

Quoted message said:

How dangerous is the question? Any statement of how dangerous any
activity is needs to be put into some relative perspective. Dangerous
compared with what? Is so-and-so a more dangerous activity than
such-and-such? How do you know that? How do you evaluate that relative
dangerousness? Is it measurable at all (in practice)?

Saying that any activity is "dangerous" is so vague as to be
meaningless in and by itself. Standard practice is to express risk as
comparative or "relative risk"

Thank you, I'm well aware.

Quoted message said:

Attempting to try a quantitative relative risk is a forlorn and perhaps
futile venture - It simply isn't amenable to a reliable estimation.

Thank you. You're well behind, but thanks. That's been my
point all along. The data to establish relative risk for
cycling does not really exist. What reliable data does exist
suggests that cycling is actually much more dangerous than
driving (Moritz, for example). So if you want to make the
claim that cycling is a relatively safe activity using the
currently available data, you also have to maintain that driving
is extremely safe.
That's not going to wash with most of the population, who
have family members who have been killed or injured in auto
accidents, or have been injured themselves.

Quoted message said:

But that doesn't stop...

....But that doesn't stop Krygowski's "cycling is NOT dangerous"
smoke and mirrors show. Apparently, since a close examination
of available data reveals that cycling might in fact be a relatively
dangerous activity, any such examination must be nipped in the
bud with vitriolic attacks, strawmen and circular arguments before
it goes too far or reveals too much.

Quoted message said:

...the scarmongers out there from making the vacuous
statements that cycling is dangerous.
It's clear to see that such silly statements are used in order to scare
people into wearing a helmet.

It's clear, eh? You need to pull your head out of your ass
immediately. I don't often wear bike helmets.

Quoted message said:

And that's another informal fallacy - the argument appealing to fear of
some scarey bogey: argumentum ad baculum - is what it's called.

Your smugness is getting in the way of your learning something.

Robert

Quoted message said:

RogerDodger said:

Oh what wooly headed thinking Robert!

What, that Frank applies academic rigor to his
critique of T&R but not to his claim that cycling is not
dangerous? That's what I was posting about.

.... but not _much_ about. You seem to give very few details.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The line that "cycling is dangerous" is nonsense on stilts.

Somewhat less nonsensical than claiming "cycling is NOT
dangerous" and pretending that statistics back the claim.

Again, we get no details from our anonymous bike messenger. I've given
the best data I could find on comparative fatalities per hour from
several sources, comparative ER visits, reasons for ER visits, etc.
All these seem to say cycling is no more dangerous than other "no
worry" activities.

I'm not "pretending." I'm reporting the data I was able to find.

And BTW, I didn't use every piece of data I found. For example, I've
got data on lost years of life expectancy that I could have used; or on
odds of dying from various types of accidents. These data points also
made cycling look relatively safe, but they had certain weaknesses, so
I didn't bother to put them up. IOW, I tried to avoid using anything
that could be construed to be distorted.

Quoted message said:

The absolute danger of cycling in traffic can be summed up
thusly: it is safe only for those who know it's dangerous.
For those who think it's safe, it is quite dangerous indeed.

:-) That's a little too Zen for me. "It's safe only if you know it's
dangerous."

For myself, I believe it's safe. I've done it enthusiastically for
well over 30 years. And, son of a gun, it's been wonderful and safe!
I therefore provide the one counterexample that's needed to disprove
your claim of "only."

Quoted message said:

Therefore, those who teach beginners that any sense of
danger in traffic is silly and is to be ridiculed, and in
some bizarre backlash against the pro-helmet bike safety
paradigm actually withhold any data that might
contradict the notion that cycling is "safe," might have
blood on their hands.

Hmm. Excellent fear mongering there!

BTW, I notice you persist in injecting the phrase "in traffic." It
would be good to remind others that you've recently defined "in
traffic" to mean "when riding on any road that the cyclist might have
to think about the possible presence of a motor vehicle." In other
words, you're saying ALL road cycling is "in traffic," and you're
saying ALL road cycling is dangerous.

Quoted message said:

The data to establish relative risk for
cycling does not really exist. What reliable data does exist
suggests that cycling is actually much more dangerous than
driving (Moritz, for example). So if you want to make the
claim that cycling is a relatively safe activity using the
currently available data, you also have to maintain that driving
is extremely safe.

Moritz's data indicated that the riders surveyed in a national survey,
who rode over 2500 miles per year, crashed badly enough to do $50
damage, or seek cheap (average $125) medical treatment only once in 11
years.

If I bent my rear derailleur, it would cost me more than $50. (It's
never happened to me, but _somebody_ has to do better than average.)
If it did happen, I'd say "OK, that would be a data point in Moritz's
study; but I still can't pretend cycling is dangerous."

Quoted message said:

That's not going to wash with most of the population, who
have family members who have been killed or injured in auto
accidents, or have been injured themselves.

Oh please! Would you mind walking up to the next ten people you meet
and asking them a simple question: "How afraid are _you_ when you're
driving?" Unless you do this at an Agoraphobe's Anonymous meeting,
they're going to wonder about you.

In short, people do _not_ think driving is dangerous enough to worry
about. If they come to feel the same way about cycling, I'll be happy
with that, because that would jibe well with the available data.

Of course, we have people working as hard as they can to make cycling
sound much more worrisome than driving. When rec.autos.driving folk do
that, I guess I can understand their nefarious motives. When bike
messengers hanging around rec.bicycles do it, it baffles me.

Quoted message said:

... since a close examination
of available data reveals that cycling might in fact be a relatively
dangerous activity,

??? What's this "might"? Where's you data?

Quoted message said:

any such examination must be nipped in the
bud with vitriolic attacks, strawmen and circular arguments before
it goes too far or reveals too much.

:-) I'm not the guy who said "it is safe only for those who know it's
dangerous." If I were, I wouldn't complain about circular arguments!

My data's at http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
for anyone who's curious. Feel free to check out the sources in the
footnotes.

- Frank Krygowski

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So who should _not_ sue if they are head injured by another's mistake?
Do you propose to take that right away only from cyclists, simply
because bike helmets are fashionable in _your_ corner of the world? Do
you mean that to apply to, say, cyclists in Europe, where only the
wannbe-racers wear helmets, and the vast majority think the idea is
laughable? Should it apply to joggers as well, running near speeding
cars, sprinting at 20+ mph? Should it apply to New York City
pedestrians, knowing that their fatalities alone are one fifth of _all_
US bike fatalities? Should it not apply to motorists, who are roughly
half the head injury fatalities in the US, despite the obviously
deficient air bags and seat belts? (You do realize that cyclists are
less than one percent of the head injury fatalities in the US, don't
you?)

It seems to me that you, like so many helmet enthusiasts, are far too
certain that _your_ judgement is the only correct judgement.
Consequently, you're unwilling to learn anything about this issue; and
you're perfectly willing to punish cyclists who disagree with you.

I think that's despicable.

Well, Frank I suggest you learn how to read then maybe you can avoid such an
asinine knee-jerk reaction. I CLEARLY said that I'm all for helmet use
being a personal choice. Stop trying to put words in my mouth to afford
yourself to opportunity come off like a pompous ass. I'm not trying to
punish anyone, if you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't. I couldn't
care less.

I don't have any agenda and I'm not lobbying to put a helmet on your head, I
simply expressed my opinion. You, on the other hand, seem to love wallowing
in statistics (and we all know how accurate they are) seemingly to prove
that helmet use (mandatory or elective) is some sort of plot to rob you of
your freedom. Maybe the Illuminati are behind it. Oh my!

I suggest you gain some perspective, it's just a god-damn helmet.

Donn Deniston said:

Well, Frank I suggest you learn how to read then maybe you can avoid such
an asinine knee-jerk reaction. I CLEARLY said that I'm all for helmet
use being a personal choice. Stop trying to put words in my mouth to
afford yourself to opportunity come off like a pompous ass. I'm not
trying to punish anyone, if you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't.
I couldn't care less.

Uh, you also said

"The argument that cycling isn't any more dangerous than walking is
[censored]."

and

"Of course if your choice is to ride sans helmet and you bust your noggin
open tangling with a car, don't try to sue the driver because you end up
drooling on yourself for the rest of your life. If you don't want the
legal system to legilsate policies to protect you, then don't try to use it
when your choices adversly effect your life."

These are the kinds of statements that Frank was rightly objecting to.

If I'm hit by a car through no fault of my own, whether on a bike or off, I
don't want some [censored] telling me "sorry, no helmet, you forfeit all your
rights!".

This would even be true if there were convincing evidence that a helmet
might have prevented serious trauma, but I haven't seen any yet.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

Donn Deniston said:

Well, Frank I suggest you learn how to read then maybe you can avoid such an
asinine knee-jerk reaction. I CLEARLY said that I'm all for helmet use
being a personal choice. Stop trying to put words in my mouth to afford
yourself to opportunity come off like a pompous ass. I'm not trying to
punish anyone, if you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't. I couldn't
care less.

Oh? When I _did_ read, I saw you say "Of course if your choice is to
ride sans helmet and you bust your noggin open tangling with a car,
don't try to sue the driver because you end up drooling on yourself for
the rest of your life. If you don't want the legal system to legilsate
policies to protect you, then don't try to use it when your choices
adversly effect your life."

Don't try to sugar coat it, Donn. You were saying that someone who
choses a different hat than you should lose their legal rights. By
your own words, you are at least proposing punishments for others. I'm
glad you don't have the authority to do the punishing!

And, of course, you inserted the "drooling the rest of your life"
nonsense - as if cyclists are at some great risk of that fate. More
fearmongering, more nonsense.

I'm sorry if it bothers you to see evidence that cycling isn't
especially dangerous. But I'm not going to stop presenting that data.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

- Frank Krygowski

Mon, 30 May 2005 17:55:55 -0700, <[email hidden]>,

Benjamin Lewis said:

If I'm hit by a car through no fault of my own, whether on a bike or off, I
don't want some [censored] telling me "sorry, no helmet, you forfeit all your
rights!".

This would even be true if there were convincing evidence that a helmet
might have prevented serious trauma, but I haven't seen any yet.

AFAIK, the courts have been known to reduce monetary awards by
claiming that the injured party contributed to their own injuries by
not using the required or recommended safety equipment, or by breaking
the law.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

AFAIK, the courts have been known to reduce monetary awards by
claiming that the injured party contributed to their own injuries by
not using the required or recommended safety equipment, or by breaking
the law.

I know that some lawyers in Great Britain have tried to defend their
negligent-driver clients by saying "The cyclist he hit should have had
a helmet." AFAIK, none have yet been successful. (I imagine Guy would
know more about this.)

This is one reason the Cyclists' Touring Club of Britain campaigns
against mandatory helmet laws.

As usual, our League of American Bicyclists is much less proactive.

- Frank Krygowski

[email hidden said:

"]

...
It's clear, eh? You need to pull your head out of your ass
immediately.

Your smugness is getting in the way of your learning something.

Robert

Au contraire Robert - I have observed your smug arguments and would that it is you who has his head up his ass - that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

Me - I've got no patience for imbeciles - but I'm glad that Frank and Guy are more tolerant and patient towards the sort of arrogant bigots like you

Namaste

Roger

On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:11:01 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

AFAIK, the courts have been known to reduce monetary awards by
claiming that the injured party contributed to their own injuries by
not using the required or recommended safety equipment, or by breaking
the law.

This is true - it's called "contributory negligence" - but I have not
seen any evidence that it has ever happened in the case of cycle
helmets, and it would be perverse if it did since the majority of
serious and fatal cyclist head injuries are the result of impacts well
beyond the design parameters of cycle helmets.

Brian Walker, who tests helmets against standards in the UK, has this
to say:

"In a recent Court case, a respected materials specialist argued that
a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from
their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had
their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event
involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy
potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in
full agreement). The court found in favour of his argument. So a High
Court has decided that cycle helmets do not prevent injury even when
falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, with little forward
momentum. Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against
a flat surface than any other."

"In other legal cases with which I have been involved, where a cyclist
has been in collision with a motorised vehicle, the impact energy
potentials generated were of a level which outstripped those we use to
certify Grand Prix drivers helmets. In some accidents at even moderate
motor vehicle speeds, energy potential levels in hundreds of joules
were present."

You might care to look up "Cycle helmets and contributory negligence.
Fulbrook J. Journal of Personal Injury Law 2004;3:171-91" which is a
fairly thorough treatment of the issue, albeit from a British
perspective.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

To clarify my points:

1.) I do not advocate mandatory helmet use. I don't shake my head and
"tsk-tsk" when I see a helmet less rider.

2.) I understand why such use is in place in certain areas. State parks,
for example, need the language to protect themselves from lawsuits resulting
from injury sustained while using their facility. That includes in-line
skating as well.

3.) Cycling is dangerous. Danger is relative, not absolute. Driving and
diving and working in an all-night convenience store are dangerous too. We
require training and some safety equipment for the first two, the last one,
well; you're on your own. So, yes, I still maintain that, all things being
equal, cycling is more dangerous than walking. Please don't insult either
of us by suggesting that I'm saying a bike ride will kill or maim you.

4.) I'm speculating here but it seems to me that a pedestrian related head
injury would have to involve some other circumstances. Impact with an
automobile, icy sidewalk, etc. Unless you're a drunken sot or Jerry Lewis,
the mere act of walking shouldn't be a life-threatening endeavor. Sorry I
can't drag out any statistics but I don't trust stats and I don't care to
support any debate with them. Remember, 9 out of 10 doctors prefer Camels.

5.) But, speaking of stats, I wonder if those that suggest that helmets are
non-effective take into account the surge in popularity in cycling? And I
wonder if the numbers reflect the relatively recent popularity of cycling
that, by it's very nature, exposes the rider to greater risk of injury?
Mountain biking, BMX biking or any of the other "X-treme", Mountain Dew
pseudo-sports almost revel in the possibility of injury. (Chicks dig scars,
doooode!) Are these extra cyclists and conditions factored into the "more
head injuries that ever before despite helmet use" agenda?

6.) Regarding my comment vis-à-vis a helmet less rider's legal options. I
wasn't suggesting that a lack of a helmet would exclude the rider from the
legal system, I was suggesting that a.) if a head injury was the issue and
b.) if the severity of the injury could have been minimized or prevented by
the use of a helmet then c.) the award should be skewed to reflect the
rider's decision to expose himself or herself to that risk. Hard to prove,
I know, but since when is our justice system, oops I mean legal system,
designed to ferret out the truth? To me it's about accountability; if you
choose to expose yourself to risk then you have to bear the results of that
choice. I hate the thought of any cyclist being injured tangling with a
vehicle and I'd hate it more if his/her injuries could have been reduced in
anyway but weren't because they heard that helmet use was pointless. While
it's no ironclad guarantee against head injury, helmet use is not pointless
either.

7.) Finally, someone mentioned how helmet use is poo-poo'd among European
cyclist. I've spent quite a bit of time in Europe including cycling crazy
countries like Holland and Belgium and I've noticed plenty of riders, both
recreational and more serious riders, wearing helmets. I've also noticed
riders both home and abroad wearing jerseys bearing T-Mobile, US Postal
Service, Festiva and other logos. Why? Surely all those riders can't be on
those respective teams. Could it be that many apparel decisions are made not
by practical issues but as something as basic as vanity? Maybe many riders
don't wear helmets because they think they look stupid and have given no
regard to the issue of head trauma one way or the other. "It is better to
look good than feel good."

Truth be told, this is the most thought I've given to this issue. I wear a
helmet because it's the law and because it makes sense given the conditions
in which I'm forced to ride. If I had a clear, dedicated bike path free of
drunks in trucks, etc. I'd lose the helmet in a heartbeat. And if modern
helmets were anything like the heavy, hot and uncomfortable monstrosities
they used to be, I'd probably sneak out without one too. But I have no
problem wearing my helmet . . . I forget that it's even on my head and if
you don't want to wear one, that's just fine by me.

I hope I was able to communicate my opinion a little clearer this time. I
resent the implication that I'm punishing cyclists, trying to force a Giro
on your head or advocating any other "despicable" actions.

Donn Deniston said:

1.) I do not advocate mandatory helmet use. I don't shake my head and
"tsk-tsk" when I see a helmet less rider.

No, apparently you restrict yourself to alluding to how foolish such
people might be.

Quoted message said:

2.) I understand why such use is in place in certain areas. State parks,
for example, need the language to protect themselves from lawsuits resulting
from injury sustained while using their facility. That includes in-line
skating as well.

And of course walking, which has about the same head injury rate...

What about basketball?

Quoted message said:

3.) Cycling is dangerous. Danger is relative, not absolute.

LOL! Relative, you say. Cycling is less dangerous than driving,
walking, swimming, measured in risk per unit exposure.

Quoted message said:

7.) Finally, someone mentioned how helmet use is poo-poo'd among European
cyclist. I've spent quite a bit of time in Europe including cycling crazy
countries like Holland and Belgium and I've noticed plenty of riders, both
recreational and more serious riders, wearing helmets.

Well under 20%, lower in Holland (where nobody believes cycling is
dangerous).

Quoted message said:

I've also noticed
riders both home and abroad wearing jerseys bearing T-Mobile, US Postal
Service, Festiva and other logos. Why? Surely all those riders can't be on
those respective teams. Could it be that many apparel decisions are made not
by practical issues but as something as basic as vanity? Maybe many riders
don't wear helmets because they think they look stupid and have given no
regard to the issue of head trauma one way or the other. "It is better to
look good than feel good."

LOL! Haven't you noticed that the wearing of team kit is strongly
correlated with helmet use? It's "part of the uniform" for wannabe
roadies.

Why do you dismiss the idea that people might not use helmets because
they see no pressing need to do so?

Quoted message said:

If I had a clear, dedicated bike path free of
drunks in trucks, etc. I'd lose the helmet in a heartbeat.

LOL! You have one of those new truck-proof helmets, do you?

Have you ever read up in the relative risks of roads vs. bike paths?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

Donn Deniston said:

1.) I do not advocate mandatory helmet use. I don't shake my head and
"tsk-tsk" when I see a helmet less rider.

No, apparently you restrict yourself to alluding to how foolish such
people might be.

Hmmm. . ."apparently" "alluding". Lot's of wiggle words
there. Why is it so hard for people to understand that I don't care
one way or the other. I choose to wear a helmet, you choose otherwise.
Of course by inflating my opinion to an argument, it offers you the
opportunity to go on and on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've also noticed
riders both home and abroad wearing jerseys bearing T-Mobile, US Postal
Service, Festiva and other logos. Why? Surely all those riders can't be on
those respective teams. Could it be that many apparel decisions are made not
by practical issues but as something as basic as vanity? Maybe many riders
don't wear helmets because they think they look stupid and have given no
regard to the issue of head trauma one way or the other. "It is better to
look good than feel good."

LOL! Haven't you noticed that the wearing of team kit is strongly
correlated with helmet use? It's "part of the uniform" for wannabe
roadies.

Please define roadie. Seems to me anyone who elects to ride a bicycle
on the road as opposed to a path or trail is technically a roadie.
Unless, of course, they have to subscribe to a certain way of thought
and/or behavior to qualify in your eyes. Pretty elitist mindset and
may explain why you're so anxious to put words in my mouth to support
your agenda. See below:

Quoted message said:

Why do you dismiss the idea that people might not use helmets because
they see no pressing need to do so?

For example, I never said anything of a sort. In fact, I never eluded,
hinted, suggested or otherwise addressed anyone's motivation for
wearing or not wearing a helmet. I don't pretend to know why you or
anyone else chooses not to wear a helmet and, once again, I couldn't
care less.

According to Donn Deniston <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Truth be told, this is the most thought I've given to this issue. I wear a
helmet because it's the law and because it makes sense given the conditions
in which I'm forced to ride. If I had a clear, dedicated bike path free of
drunks in trucks, etc. I'd lose the helmet in a heartbeat. And if modern
helmets were anything like the heavy, hot and uncomfortable monstrosities
they used to be, I'd probably sneak out without one too. But I have no
problem wearing my helmet . . . I forget that it's even on my head and if
you don't want to wear one, that's just fine by me.

The catch here is that a bicycle helmet demonstrably provides no
protection from being hit by a car. If you are hit by a car you will be
instantly accelerated to car speeds, at which time you are in the domain
of motorcycle helmets.

Hot 'n heavy helmets work, but don't sell. That's why the original safety
spec was downgraded: so that light-and-airy placebos are marketable.

And as for the bike path--here in the US they are unengineered,
generally unmaintained, and totally unpatrolled. They are rife with
ipod-deaf walkers, twin strollers, and dog-man tripwires. It's no
wonder that the statistics show path cycling to be more dangerous than
road cycling.

---
Lars Lehtonen

D2 said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1.) I do not advocate mandatory helmet use. I don't shake my head and
"tsk-tsk" when I see a helmet less rider.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, apparently you restrict yourself to alluding to how foolish such
people might be.

Quoted message said:

Hmmm. . ."apparently" "alluding". Lot's of wiggle words
there. Why is it so hard for people to understand that I don't care
one way or the other.

Maybe because of the way you phrase your "not caring" in terms which
make it clear that you support financial and legal penalties for those
who disagree? Just guessing.

Quoted message said:

I choose to wear a helmet, you choose otherwise.

There's an assumption in there. Do take care of your assumptions.

Quoted message said:

Of course by inflating my opinion to an argument, it offers you the
opportunity to go on and on.

Yes, I noticed how you have decided not to go on and on yourself...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LOL! Haven't you noticed that the wearing of team kit is strongly
correlated with helmet use? It's "part of the uniform" for wannabe
roadies.

Quoted message said:

Please define roadie. Seems to me anyone who elects to ride a bicycle
on the road as opposed to a path or trail is technically a roadie.

A wannabe roadie is one who rides a road bike wearing replica team
kit.

Quoted message said:

Unless, of course, they have to subscribe to a certain way of thought
and/or behavior to qualify in your eyes. Pretty elitist mindset and
may explain why you're so anxious to put words in my mouth to support
your agenda. See below:

You're multiplying up those hypotheses again.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you dismiss the idea that people might not use helmets because
they see no pressing need to do so?

Quoted message said:

For example, I never said anything of a sort. In fact, I never eluded,
hinted, suggested or otherwise addressed anyone's motivation for
wearing or not wearing a helmet. I don't pretend to know why you or
anyone else chooses not to wear a helmet and, once again, I couldn't
care less.

You said: "In a perfect world I wouldn't have to concern myself or
protect myself against potholes, jerks in cars, crowded trails or
moronic dogs."

Only one of these is in itself a significant cause of cyclist head
injury: jerks in cars. And helmets are not designed to protect
against them. The idea that helmets are a road safety product
designed to protect in motor vehicle impacts is a common but false
one, and will tend to get challenged by those who know this.

You said: "The argument that cycling isn't any more dangerous than
walking is [censored]."

But you provide no evidence beyond arm-waving. Frank cited data which
show that the objective risk is comparable with or lower than other
activities which no normal person regards as unusually dangerous.
Where is your supporting data?

You said: "With the exception of multi-use trails on state property, I
see no reason to legislate helmet use."

Why should you legislate it there? Do you have any evidence that
riding multi-use trails on state property is unusually productive of
head injuries? The majority of serious and fatal cyclist injuries
happen on the roads, the severity ratio for offroad crashes is much
lower because there are no motor vehicles involved (this is what
pushes up the severity ratio for pedestrians and car occupants as
well).

You said: "Of course if your choice is to ride sans helmet and
you bust your noggin open tangling with a car, don't try to sue the
driver because you end up drooling on yourself for the rest of your
life."

That is pure hyperbole and implies the blatantly false claim that a
polystyrene hat can prevent an injury severe enough to cause permanent
disabling brain injury. According to some authorities the most likely
cause of that outcome is a rotational injury of a sort that helmets
cannot mitigate anyway.

Which helmets are offered for sale as a palliative against motor
vehicle impacts? Cite the specific brands.

You said: "If you don't want the legal system to legislate policies to
protect you, then don't try to use it when your choices adversely
effect your life."

Brian Walker, who runs the UK's main helmet testing lab, has this to
say on the subject of legal liability: "In a recent Court case, a
respected materials specialist argued that a cyclist who was brain
injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle, without any
real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or
prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a
flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75
joules (his estimate, with which I was in full agreement). The court
found in favour of his argument. So a High Court has decided that
cycle helmets do not prevent injury even when falling from a cycle
onto a flat surface, with little forward momentum. Cycle helmets will
almost always perform much better against a flat surface than any
other."

"In other legal cases with which I have been involved, where a cyclist
has been in collision with a motorised vehicle, the impact energy
potentials generated were of a level which outstripped those we use to
certify Grand Prix drivers helmets. In some accidents at even moderate
motor vehicle speeds, energy potential levels in hundreds of joules
were present."

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1038

You are directly implying things which are simply not supported by the
evidence, the standards or the manufacturers' own statements.

See if you can find a single helmet which says anywhere on the
packaging that is will reduce the severity of injury in impacts
involving motor traffic.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Bob Burns said:

I used to think that- until I flipped over a cable I didn't see and landed
on my helmet! I replaced it.

On a recent ride, one of the riders drifted off edge of sidewalk at
about 10 to 15 mph in area where there was no bike lane on road. He had
slight concussion with helmet - would have been far worse without one.
ALWAYS wear properly fitted helmet in good condition.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:23:00 GMT, Karl Henderson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<U31ne.10222$m%3.1018@trnddc02>:

Quoted message said:

On a recent ride, one of the riders drifted off edge of sidewalk at
about 10 to 15 mph in area where there was no bike lane on road. He had
slight concussion with helmet

So: he crashed, suffered a brain injury of exactly the type that the
helmet is supposed to prevent, and this is in some way supposed to
prove it worked as advertised?

Quoted message said:

would have been far worse without one.

You went back and repeated the crash without, to check?

You are completely confident that he wasn't overheated and faint
because of his insulating hat?

You can prove that he would not have taken more care had he thought
himself to be less well protected?

I am astounded at the confidence with which you can make this claim.

Quoted message said:

ALWAYS wear properly fitted helmet in good condition.

Especially when walking near traffic or travelling in a motor vehicle.

Overall your anecdote is a perfect example of how the fear that
cycling is dangerous is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The real lesson
here is: don't ride on the sidewalk! Stick to the main carriageway
and ride according to Effective Cycling principles - avoid the crash
in the first place.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

31 May 2005 07:58:25 -0700,
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Oh, and I'm not surprised you have no statistics. People arguing the
way you argue never do have statistics. They usually have no
understanding of statistics. That's part of what makes these threads
so repetitious - explaining basic math.

Can we append a "Helmets 101" to the FAQ and just point people to it?

That may help the merely ignorant but I wouldn't hold out much hope
for the "true believers" or the "saved" ones.
--
zk

Tue, 31 May 2005 17:23:00 GMT, <U31ne.10222$m%3.1018@trnddc02>,

Karl Henderson said:

On a recent ride, one of the riders drifted off edge of sidewalk at
about 10 to 15 mph in area where there was no bike lane on road. He had
slight concussion with helmet - would have been far worse without one.

Any adult riding on the sidewalk at any speed, let alone 10mph or
more, while wishing they had a bike lane, probably can't be seriously
harmed by a brain concussion.

Quoted message said:

ALWAYS wear properly fitted helmet in good condition.

Always wear a tin foil beanie to protect your gullible self against
such complete mind rot.
--
zk