I crash into religion

wheelist wrote:
It's all black and white isn't it?

No, it's all relative.

Helmets are dangerous.

Compared to not wearing them, it would appear so. But not by much.

Cycling isn't dangerous.

Compared to walking, it isn't. In some countries and some age groups
it's also safer than driving (per mile in both cases).

Helmets make you ride like an idiot.

A theory that may help explain the data.

Cycle paths are more dangerous than roads.

Cycle paths alongside roads, yes. Other cycle paths, hard to say - the
risks tend to be different.

Everyone who says that helmets have prevented their heads from being
bashed are either a) liars or b) obviously brain damaged from the
impact.

No. They could be right. It's saying a helmet has saved your life that
is almost certainly wrong.
They have failed to understand the difference between saving a
headache and saving your life.
They have failed to understand that skulls are stronger than cycle
helmets.
They have failed to understand that hitting your helmet does not
necessarily mean you would have hit your head without it.
They have failed to understand that there are as many corpses out
there whose helmets have cost them their lives as living people whose
helmets have genuinely saved them. And both numbers are tiny compared
to the 'destroyed helmet, must have saved my life' brigade.

Statistics are always correct. Unless they disagree. Then, only the
ones you agree with are correct.

In general, go with the largest sample sizes and the methodology in
which you can find least bias.

I wish I could be so cocksure about everything.

If you weigh the evidence and then decide, you can.

Where did this thread come from, anyway?

Colin McKenzie

--
In Britain, there is less justification for wearing cycling helmets
than there is for wearing walking helmets.

Sorni wrote:


Dude, are these NEW helmets you're bidding on? Sure hope so. (Otherwise,
fergawdsake go to an LBS and buy a nice new non-stanky one.)

Yeah, they are new. I will also head out to an LBS to see what they
have. The LBS where I take my bike for service doesn't stock much in the
way of clothing. It's one of those cave places where I get great work
done on my bike, but little in the boutique side of things.

Per Patrick, I'll surely check the prices on hats while out shopping at
other LBS's.

-paul

wrote:

Again, what is the downside here?

One possible downside is the feeling - perhaps subconscious - that you
are now significantly protected. If this leads you to ride even a
little less carefully, it could be a net loss in safety. The effect is
known as "risk compensation" or "risk homeostasis" and it's pretty
thoroughly proven - and not only for bike helmets, BTW.

Be aware that the claims of "85% protection" from helmets are garbage,
refuted many times. Be aware that bike helmets are tested and
certified only for very minor impacts. Specifically, the certification
procedure tests only for "protection" of a disembodied head in a direct
drop of about six feet. This is equivalent to toppling off your
stationary bike.

So if your helmet gives you the confidence to take that bridge at 25
mph again, and if your fall causes your head hits something like a
vertical post, your helmet may have killed you.


You might try using "This thing is pretty worthless" as a frequent
mantra. Or, as one researcher in the field said "Wearing a bike helmet
might possibly help, if you could only convince yourself it was
useless."

Good luck out there. More to the point, ride with care.


I agree with you and have myself made that argument to my friend who
rides in a full armor suit on a bicycle or motorcycle. He recently took
a stop light tip over on his Ducati which broke his leg, knee, shoulder
and ribs and maybe more. His speed was maybe 3 mph.

Given that most of my injuries are not to my head, but body, I doubt
I'll consider wearing a hat as proof against injury. I only mentioned my
head injuries because these are ones which a hat may have mitigated.

I come to bicycling from motorcycling where we've moved to full coverage
hats due to facial injuries in open or 'cop' helmets. While I believe
that a helmet will make me a bit safer, I think we all need to make our
choices.

Here I can choose to wear or not wear as well as take greater chances if
I wear. It's the choice I wish to preserve rather than sell you on my
new religion.

-paul

Tony Raven wrote:
Paul Cassel wrote:

Again, what is the downside here?

Well Rogers, in a study of 8 million US cyclists found that "The most
surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is
positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"

Mok et al found that children who wore helmets and were involved in
cycling accidents had more damage to their bikes and reported they had
ridden faster than those who hadn't worn a helmet.

Robinson found the mandatory helmet laws which doubled helmet wearing in
Australia and New Zealand led to an increase in head injury rates for
cyclists.

Which country has the lowest cyclist head injury rate in the world? The
Netherlands. How many Dutch cyclists wear helmets - virtually none of
them.

So the downside is you are probably more likely to suffer a head injury
wearing a helmet. No one is sure whether its risk compensation by the
cyclists or the motorist or whether it the extra mass and size a helmet
adds to your head in an accident but the effect is clearly there.

I don't agree that this is a downside. What you are saying is something
I agree with - that people with safety equipment take greater chances.
That means if I wear a hat, I have a wider choice of behavior with the
same chance of injury.

Frex, if I ride as I do now but with a hat, I am safer or I can choose
to ride harder and be as safe due to the hat. In all cases, the choice
is mine which is why I said I am still anti mandatory hat laws. I'm also
against seat belt laws, crash laws for cars and many other items part of
daily life.

Now will you agree or disagree that had I been wearing a helmet and
crashed identically to the way I did, that I'd be better off than I am now?

-paul

Sorni wrote:
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

Get rid of those visors, they do nothing but....they are held on with
what, little velcro things or something? I doubt you would have gotten
'serious neck injuries' because of this little piece of plastic. I am
not a helmet nazi but ya know, helmets never hurt, 'may' help.

"Helmets never hurt"??? You haven't been paying attention, Peter. SEVERE
neck injuries from all that "additional rotational weight"! Defelecting
blows to one's jaw! Bigger target for terrorist tree limbs! I'm afraid to
go ride /at all/ now...

And the AHZs say helmet /proponents/ are fear mongers.

BS

Yep, I've heard of all this crappola....

Richard wrote:
Paul Cassel wrote:

What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by
choosing now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What
is the downside of helmet use?

There is evidence that cycle helmets, particularly the ones with
elongated peaks and rear peaks, can cause sharp twisting of the head in
a crash. This can lead to serious brain damage.

There is evidence that cycle helmet wearers are more likely to be
seriously injured/killed than bareheaded cyclists.

There is evidence that increased helmet use leads to decreased cycling
numbers, as wearing a helmet sends the message that cycling is a
dangerous activity, which it isn't. Decreased cycling numbers leads to
increased cyclist death/injury rates for the cyclists that remain.

See www.cyclehelmets.org for the references to the above evidence.

These are the downsides.

The upside, as far as I can see, is that it protects you against some
minor head injuries (bruising, scrapes).

It doesn't seem to me that their benefits outweigh their disbenefits.

If you would please return to my OP, you'll see I questioned the
rotational force of what I called the 'visor' making me worse off. Folks
in this group disagreed.

I think your point about sending a message valid. Here I *was* operating
in a danger zone. I was not out for a social ride with my daughter. I
was in training and going as hard as I could during a sprint.

I came off of a hill down into a left turn, then a flat into another
left turn and then up a whoop de doo and then down a hill which ended at
a bridge itself a downward slope. The bridge terminated with a need to
make a 75 degree turn or hit a wall. I was full out and I usually am
about 25 mph at that point, but I have no way to see over the whoop.

This is clearly anti-social behavior as for all I know instead of the
wet on the bridge, I may have run into a troop of girl scouts. I feel ok
doing this at 0600h but not at 0800h.

Will I wear a hat whilst out on a sunny day riding at 6 mph with my
daughter or with my friend Karen who is recovering from severe cancer?
Probably not, but my training runs will surely be with hat.

In the end, I doubt we disagree.

-paul

Paul Cassel wrote:

So the downside is you are probably more likely to suffer a head
injury wearing a helmet. No one is sure whether its risk compensation
by the cyclists or the motorist or whether it the extra mass and size
a helmet adds to your head in an accident but the effect is clearly
there.

I don't agree that this is a downside. What you are saying is something
I agree with - that people with safety equipment take greater chances.
That means if I wear a hat, I have a wider choice of behavior with the
same chance of injury.

Not necessarily. Risk compensation is not a conscious choice.

Frex, if I ride as I do now but with a hat, I am safer

Again, not necessarily. Leaving aside your attempt to mitigate against
risk compensation, if you are involved in any sort of crash where the
helmet twists your head, you may well be less safe, for example.

Now will you agree or disagree that had I been wearing a helmet and
crashed identically to the way I did, that I'd be better off than I am now?

The question is flawed; had you been wearing a helmet, it is extremely
unlikely that you would have ridden in the way you did, that other
people would have interacted you in the way they/you did, or that you
would have crashed "identically" to the way you did.

R.

"Paul Cassel" wrote in message
...

Again, what is the downside here?

Arguments from other posters have concentrated on the safety aspect of
helmets. Nobody's mentioned the other aspects : comfort, convenience being
the two which seem most important.

The latter is especially relevant to utility cycling. If, like millions of
people do every day in Europe, you're popping to the shops/going to the
pub/cinema/whatever, it's a hassle to carry a large plastic lump with you
when you're off the bike, and leaving it on the bike isn't really a sensible
option.

Comfort is more debatable. Many say once they got used to them, they don't
notice their helmets when they're on. OTOH those who have converted from
being 100% helmet wearers tend to say it's more comfortable without.

cheers,
clive

Richard wrote:


Not necessarily. Risk compensation is not a conscious choice.



Richard, David and others who are arguing risk compensation, I don't
think this an issue with me personally. I have been riding motorcycles
since I was 17, have more miles on them than cars / trucks and have
never been down on the road. I moved from no helmet to a half to now a
full over the years with no increase in crash occurrences (always zero).

I think your comments valid which is why we all should remain united in
opposition to mandatory helmet laws or other mandatory safety laws of
any nature.

-paul

Colin McKenzie wrote:


Where did this thread come from, anyway?

My OP and then someone x-posted to a UK group.

-paul