Helmets: Do you wear one? Why? When?

I always wear a helmet and I urge you and every else to wear one as
well.


I don't want to get preachy, so I'll make it short. You don't have to
wear a motocross lid. Go to the local kmart or walmart and try on a
few cheap ones. You don't have to spend alot of money, nor do you have
to get something big or fancy. Just find something.

-Joe


--
Joe_sixpack
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe_sixpack's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/15488
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/71918


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Gadge wrote:
Er, well maybe 97% of bicycle riders in New York City don't wear
helmets? But then I recall 86.8% of statistics are made up...



I trust that Scientific American wouldn't cite statistics that they
haven't looked into at least a bit.

I also came up with another reason why the head injury rates in
Australia might have gone up after helmet enforcement.

If the statistic is per collision, than perhaps the rate of serious
head injuries went up because the number of reported collisions went
down on the basis that collisions where the rider wasn't injured
because the helmet prevented it never got reported, so only the more
serious collisions are being accounted for in the rate.


--
ThisGuyIKnow
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThisGuyIKnow's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/10203
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/71918


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

ThisGuyIKnow wrote:
I trust that Scientific American wouldn't cite statistics that they
haven't looked into at least a bit.

I also came up with another reason why the head injury rates in
Australia might have gone up after helmet enforcement.

If the statistic is per collision, than perhaps the rate of serious
head injuries went up because the number of reported collisions went
down on the basis that collisions where the rider wasn't injured
because the helmet prevented it never got reported, so only the more
serious collisions are being accounted for in the rate.



Sorry - was a poor attempt at humour wasn't suggesting that those
statistics were made up.

I think your reasoning is sound and part of what I was trying to get at
with the stats, any statistic in isolation is often only partly helpful.
The context is often needed.

There are also a number of theories about risk compensation. Basically
if people feel safer they'll do more risky activities. I know if I ride
my motorbike without leathers these days I feel incredibly vulnerable.


--
Gadge

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;
the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gadge's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/17136
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/71918


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, MuniAddict wrote:

Think of it as an insurance policy; it's there if/when you need it.
And
you *never* know when you might need it!

You also *never* know when it might make matters worse. Is that cool
too?

This (apparently mindless) assumption that they must be a good thing,
despite various evidence to the contrary from experience in the
bicycling world, is what confuses me.



lol, "mindless assumption"? At least wearing a helmet will keep your
mind intact...if you still have one! But please enlighten us with
the "various evidence" that you referred to. There will always be
exceptions to just about everything, like airbags that have caused
deaths, but to simply not wear a helmet because you think it might not
protect you 100% is a poor excuse not to wear one.

Ask Eyal Arioni if he thinks his helmet protected him from a serious
head injury that he could-and most likely *would* have sustained if
not for the helmet he was wearing. http://tinyurl.com/6oetr2


--
MuniAddict

'UniGeezer.com' (http://unigeezer.com/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MuniAddict's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/12920
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/71918


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, semach.the.monkey wrote:

Ian Smith wrote:

If not, how to reconcile the fact that when states in Australia made
bicycle helmets compulsory for bicyclists, the rate of serious head
injuries went up?

From that statistic alone, I can't comment. However if there is a
correlation between the serious head injuries going up and deaths going
down then it can be explained fairly easily.

Sorry, injury rate went up, I don't think the fatality and injury
rates have been analysed and published separately (at least, I'm not
aware of anyone, on either side of the debate, having done so). One
problem is that cycling is generally so safe (in the UK it is safer
per mile than walking) that there are so few fatalities your scatter
if you examine just fatalities is enormous.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, ThisGuyIKnow wrote:

Ian Smith wrote:

If not, how to reconcile the fact that when states in Australia made
bicycle helmets compulsory for bicyclists, the rate of serious head
injuries went up?

Is the rate injuries per collision, or injuries per bicyclist?

Per cyclist.

There is certainly more information that is needed before assuming the
difference was caused by helmets.

If you want statistics why is that between 1996 and 2005, 97% of
bicycle fatalities in New York City were riders not wearing helmets?

Perhaps because 97% of collisions involved unhelmeted cyclists? If
that were the case then it would suggest that helmets did nothing at
all.

Of course, if 98% of collisions were unhelmeted cyclists, it would
suggest that helmets were worse than useless.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, MuniAddict wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, MuniAddict wrote:

Think of it as an insurance policy; it's there if/when you need
it. And you *never* know when you might need it!

You also *never* know when it might make matters worse. Is that
cool too?

This (apparently mindless) assumption that they must be a good thing,
despite various evidence to the contrary from experience in the
bicycling world, is what confuses me.

lol, "mindless assumption"? At least wearing a helmet will keep your
mind intact

QED, I think. Thank you for demonstrating my point so succinctly.

Why do you say that? What evidence do you have that wearing a helmet
_will_ keep your mind intact?

But please enlighten us with the "various evidence" that you
referred to

I did. If you read the whole post you would have seen an example.

but to simply not wear a helmet because you think it might not
protect you 100% is a poor excuse not to wear one.

It would be. To choose not to wear a helmet because on balance there
is no evidence that it will protect you would be rational, however.

Do you know what a 'straw man' is? If not, congratulations - you've
just invented a famous fallacy all on your own.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

I wear a helmet 50% of the time. I should 100% of the time, but I
sometimes leave it behind on paved ped/bike path rides. The wear a
helmet 100% of the time when biking. 95% of my biking is off-road and
you never know when a rock or branch is going to grab your tire and
send you over the bars. I've hit my head in crashes, but never had a
torsional head injury from a helmet, not even a pulled neck muscle. I
don't buy the torsional head injury arguement.


--
surfcolorado
------------------------------------------------------------------------
surfcolorado's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/15861
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/71918


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, surfcolorado wrote:

I've hit my head in crashes, but never had a torsional head injury
from a helmet, not even a pulled neck muscle. I don't buy the
torsional head injury arguement.

OK. Obviously, if it hasn't happened to you it doesn't exist at all.
I forgot about that, silly me.

Out of interest, however, what don't you believe? That a brain can
suffer an injury from torsion? That a helmet won't protect from
torsion? Or that a helmet is likely to make torsional injury
worse?

Have you suffered a life-threatening (or life-changing) head injury of
any sort? Do you believe in them?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 06 Aug 2008 18:17:41 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, ThisGuyIKnow wrote:

Ian Smith wrote:

If not, how to reconcile the fact that when states in Australia made
bicycle helmets compulsory for bicyclists, the rate of serious head
injuries went up?

Is the rate injuries per collision, or injuries per bicyclist?

Per cyclist.

Sorry, that's wrong. It was rate of head injuries receiving hospital
attention per mile cycled.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|