Sad helmet incident

On 1/21/2020 10:31 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 12:31:41 AM UTC-8, Chalo wrote:
Oculus Lights wrote:

Twice, I would have been dead if not for wearing a helmet when I
crashed on a bike.

Helmet wearers love to make assertions like this. If they were anything like true, a lot more of the roughly half of us who don't wear helmets would already be dead.

Or maybe the half who do wear helmets are much more clumsy, reckless, fragile, and unlucky than we are, such that their lives depend on their choice of headgear?

On the whole, your odds of getting killed while riding your bike aren't measurably better than they were when nobody wore bicycle helmets. Explain how that could be, if helmets are so very effective.

Morbidity counts, and gross mortality rates say little about the effect of helmet use on any particular individual. In other words, my experience is not necessarily representative of the average and vice versa.

"Morbidity counts" is a fallback position. In the great MHL push of the
1990s, there were dozens of "If he had only worn his helmet" articles.
Legislators and bicyclists were assured that helmets would save lives.

When there was no obvious drop in the (already very low) count of bike
fatalities, that assurance was largely dropped, but helmets were still
touted as being very protective against concussions and other TBI. IOW,
concussion protection was fallback.

Now we've seen an actual increase in reported concussions. So now helmet
fans are claiming they're still wonderful, but mostly for preventing
superficial injuries. IOW, even more fallback.

And of course, even if there are mountains of data showing bicycling is
very low risk relative to other activities, there's still the "Well,
it's dangerous for ME!" It's very reminiscent of the claims "You don't
know how bad the drivers are where _I_ live!!"

Yet none of the helmet fans ever get around to saying "... but most
people really don't need a helmet whenever they ride." If they fell that
far back, they'd have to give up their "Helmet Fan" badge. And they're
not going to do that.

Population studies may be an appropriate guide for crafting public policy or statutes, but I certainly don't base my choices on them. And if I did, I would look at a more tailored cohort, e.g. http://media.oregonlive.com/commutin...bike-study.pdf

Oh please! That study was dedicated to proving that bicycling is much
more dangerous than people thought. It was the one where they polled
self-selected subjects each month, asking about ANY tiny injury related
to bikes, even minor scratches. (They contacted them every month to snag
boo-boos so tiny they would likely be forgotten.) It was the one that
defined ANY injury as "serious" if ANY medical person happened to see
it, even if it was a minor scratch. And it nonetheless found over 6500
miles ridden between even the tiniest injury, and over 25,000 miles
ridden between what they called "serious" injuries - for example, a cut
to which a nurse applied a band-aid.

YMMV, and you certainly can chose not to wear a helmet in Austin since you're over 18.

But Chalo doubtlessly knows 17-year-old kids who would be given "special
attention" by the police if they chose to (horrors!) ride around the
block wearing a ball cap.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/21/2020 12:03 PM, sms wrote:
On 1/21/2020 8:28 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

snip

Personally I doubt that the benefits of helmets outweigh the costs for
many, if not most cyclists,

How could you possibly calculate this?

Even if you could know what the average cost per helmet is, you'd also
have to be able to calculate the savings in medical costs that resulted
from the reduction or prevention of injuries, and even the decrease or
increase in future earnings of non-helmet wearers versus helmet wearers.

Even then, if the cost of helmets exceeded the cost of medical care and
lost earnings it would still not be relevant to individual cyclists
whose choice to wear a helmet or not is not based on the cost of a
helmet versus the costs they would incur should they be involved in a
head impact crash.

Or more briefly: You must take the benefit of helmets as a matter of
faith, you heathen! If you don't retract your skepticism, you will be
excommunicated from the cult of Real Bicyclists!

Back to real life: There have been several attempts to estimate the
cost-to-benefit ratios of mandatory helmet laws. Most of the studies
found helmet laws to be net negatives - that is, the costs to society
outweighed the benefits. Some are linked below.

I'm sure helmet fans will say "That's the LAWS! It can still make great
sense for any individual!" But unless you're crashing much more than
normal, that's false. Almost all the costs in the studies related to
purchasing helmets. (Its just not that expensive to publicize a law or
have cops write tickets.) In some studies, they accounted for the drop
in cycling that always seems to accompany MHLs (although Scharf pretends
that doesn't happen.) But the big thing is, the big reduction in medical
costs because of helmet "protection" just don't seem to appear as promised.

Examples: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/4/317

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1018.html

https://www.cycle-helmets.com/macquarie-study.html

etc.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 12:42:38 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/20/2020 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2020 12:06 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 09:36:47 UTC-5, Duane wrote:

I have no confidence that a bike helmet with prevent
concussions. Hell
football helmets don't and they're a lot stronger than
bike helmets.
Both may mitigate the damage but I wouldn't depend on it.

Okay I agree with you about helmets and concussions.

When I saw the deep dent on the temple area of my helmet I
sure was glad that I had the helmet on that ride. A fellow
not riding with us, who was behind us, saw me fall and
bounce and was ready to key in 911. He couldn't believe
that I just got up, checked my bicycle, rinsed off my
scrapes on the arms and shoulder and was ready to continue
my ride. At the very least I didn't have scrapes on my
head where scrapes usually bleed quite freely. I'm just
glad that the helmet was there to take the impact instead
of my temple taking that impact.

Let me describe an incident I saw and posted here over ten
years ago.

We had just had dinner with several friends at a nice
restaurant in a big city. We were walking back to our cars.
Ahead, a tour bus was parked at the opposite curb. A car was
in the process of passing the parked tour bus.

Just as the car got to the front end of the bus, a young guy
came zooming across the street directly in front of the car.
There was no way the driver could avoid him. From our
position behind the car, we heard a huge BANG! and saw the
young guy's body fly up into the air, upside down. His head
was higher than the roof of the car. Later we heard that he
landed on his head on the street.

I immediately turned around and sprinted back to the
restaurant to call 911 and report a probable fatality; then
I ran up to the site of the crash, where the driver was
upset and sobbing. The front of her car was badly mangled
and her windshield was broken.

But there was no dead body. Instead, the college kid she hit
was sitting on a low wall at the sidewalk, his head being
held immobile by an off-duty emergency medical technician
who happened to see the crash.

Very soon, an ambulance crew arrived, immobilized the guy on
a stretcher and took him to ER. A cop took statements from
us witnesses.

The young guy? He had a slight cut above his right ear, with
almost no bleeding. It seemed to be from the windshield
wiper. He was the one who said he landed on his head after
the crash. But he was fine. I phoned the next day in case
he had died or something, and my testimony might be needed.
They said he attended classes as usual and had only a minor
headache.

The weird part? He was NOT wearing a helmet. Even weirder,
nobody - not the EMT, not the ambulance guys, not the cop,
none of the witnesses - said he should have been wearing one.

That's because he was a pedestrian, not a bicyclist. He had
jogged out from the front of that bus. And even though
pedestrians have far more serious TBI (in total or per mile
traveled) nobody said he needed a helmet.

But if he had worn one? Why, it would be smashed. It would
have been absolute proof that it "saved his life." It might
have made its way into a newspaper article, or be on display
in a pedestrian protective gear shop - like a couple of bike
helmets I've seen.

(Have people noticed there are not mandatory pedestrian
helmet laws even for kids?)



I don't doubt you. Our local news also periodically covers
minor slips and falls on ice with much less impact but yet
fatal. We all have our favorite anecdotes which, even when
each true and complete, are not dispositive to any larger
trend or principle.

If one mocks 'helmet saved my life', then 'no helmet, didn't
die' is equally unconvincing.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I have not made baseless claims. I have actual research that shows that the Styrofoam lid has no detectable results. I have looked at the latest numbers comparing pedestrian deaths with cyclists deaths and indeed as helmet use has risen the ratio of cyclist deaths to pedestrians has decreased.

The problem with this is that if helmets were somehow more effective, the ratio of deaths to injuries would drop and it hasn't.

This means that what is causing fewer cyclist deaths isn't increased use of helmets but the greater number of cyclists on the road raising driver awareness and educating them about how to drive around cyclists.

But suddenly there is an awareness among scientists that skull fracture isn't the cause of brain death but rather concussion is. Trek's Bontrager brand is using what they call Q-Cell technology that is supposedly 48 times more resistant to concussion injuries and this morning on TV there was a news story about a man who is making sports helmets for all sports that have varied density Styrofoam to prevent concussion. I do not believe that this will be really effective but that remains to be seen.

Trek's development certainly signals that a helmet that actually works is not available though they look a bit Neolithic as of yet. I'm sure that with the actual knowledge of what the helmet is supposed to do many forms of working protection will become available.

Frank may opt not to wear a helmet as is his right. And the rest of you may opt to wear that racy looking helmet that doesn't actually work to be one of the cool-crowd. But I am an engineer and have used logic and research to give me a better idea of what will work and what won't.

On 1/21/2020 11:05 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:51:25 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with Jeff Liebermann wrote:

So, what is an RBT reading geek to do? If helmets are not going to
disappear, and many people seem to want helmets, then at least make
them better, more functional, more usable, cheaper, and in this
case, less dangerous to small children. Minor tweaks to the design
of a chin strap are not going to affect global use and sales of
helmets, but it might save the lives of a few kids.
No way. Changes as such would draw on profits.

I suspect you don't understand how most product cycles operate.

Please rest assured I enjoy your writings, no offence. But with this
one there's one little problem: there's no fast-release straps (for
kids or otherwise) in objective reality. Why so? Because profits?

*CUT*


I'm not very interested in the problem but Chrome has a nice
one-smack-release fastener:

https://www.chromeindustries.com/dw/...G-002-ALLB.jpg

which brings a question - what's to keep such a fastener
from releasing on first impact? (putative risk of secondary
impact gets some amount of attention over there in helmet land)

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:37:15 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:25:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 10:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:25:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it is very unlikely that
bicycle helmets will disappear or be outlawed in the foreseeable
future. Even if some neutral organization could be found to sponsor a
long term study proving that bicycle helmets cause some accidents, are
unsafe, and generally fail to deliver on advertised promises, bicycle
helmets will not disappear from the market or from general use.

That's because the PERCEPTION of safety is what sells bicycle helmets.
To the GUM (great unwashed masses), one is simply not riding safely
without a bicycle helmet.

I admit, I'm hoping for a sudden epidemic of acute rationality. Heck,
I'd be satisfied with slowly increasing chronic rationality.

I'm hoping that gradually, people will begin saying "Wait a minute, the
data shows there's just not much head injury risk in riding a bike." And
perhaps "It looks like bike helmets really aren't doing much good."

It's not impossible. The idealists who want to promote bicycling so
people stop driving cars are beginning to say "Helmet laws are
counterproductive" and sometimes even saying "Helmets aren't needed."
They're pointing out facts like tens of millions of American bike share
trips, with a total of only one fatality ever. They're actively
countering some of the worst nonsense.

I don't agree with everything these people say, but I think they're
right about MHLs.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/...-laws-are-bad/

I've always been of the opinion that making laws to ensure people act
safe is the wrong way to approach the subject. I would rather see
something that obviously penalized the individual such as "if you
aren't wearing a helmet your hospitalization is null and void".

I guess you mean "your hospitalization insurance"? If so, I'd agree ONLY
if that were applied to absolutely everyone who appeared at a hospital
with a head injury. Not just bicyclists.

I'll note that statements like yours are not uncommon in helmet rants on
the internet, especially when non-cyclists post in comments on news
articles. But those non-cyclists always aim that prejudiced proposal
ONLY at bicyclists. Never at motorists and never at pedestrians,
although their count of head (or brain) injuries absolutely eclipses
that of bicyclists.

You are adapt at ignoring the point of the argument, aren't you. The
discussion is about bicycle helmets, not pedestrian helmets, auto
helmets, helmets for sleeping in, etc. Thus I was speaking of bicycle
helmets and posing a different solution, which I suggest is more fair
than, or at least offers more individual choice than, an all
encompassing "helmet law".
--
cheers,

John B.

Frank is quite right to see the plain attitude that if helmets actually worked that pedestrians would be the greatest benefactor of them. Rather than that we end up arguing not whether helmets actually work, but that we should wear them because one chance in a million it HIGHT be effective.

I was willing to accept that a helmet would protect me from very minor injuries and that the latest Trek helmet would actually have a much larger effect. But no one else believes that if it doesn't look good on your head that it is worth wearing.

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:43:16 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2020 2:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 9:42:50 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2020 12:18 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 6:55:10 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

There's no giant conspiracy [to pass a MHL in Oregon] because you already have a helmet law in
Oregon. You're just not part of the group subject to it. But there's
constant social pressure to maintain the meme that "Of _course_ you must
wear a helmet!" And if you ride into Washington State, you may find
yourself in violation of a MHL.

Yes, its true, I'm over the age of 16.

So every parent is now expected to tell their kids "Riding a bike is
really dangerous. You are NOT allowed to ever ride without wearing a
helmet!"

Luckily, I sired a non-stupid child. My son understood that there were rules to follow and did not get hysterical about wearing a helmet or the risks of cycling. There were times when he did not wear a helmet -- like our usual store run when I don't wear a helmet either. He also went through a phase when he didn't wear a helmet sometimes because of high school hair issues.

Ah, the good old days: https://attheu.utah.edu/home-page/be...alt-lake-city/ At Specialized, I think he can get a helmet for like $1. He's seen his friends injured and has had spills of his own racing and riding, so he generally wears a helmet when he rides.


If my local experience is any indication, that means a bunch of parents
will say "Look, why don't you do something else instead?" And a bunch of
kids will say "Screw it, if I have to wear that dorky hat, I'm not riding."

And this is portrayed as benign?

Hasn't cut down or ridership in Portland. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trans...article/407660 To you, it is an end-of-world issue. To the cycling population in PDX -- its meaningless. Kids are used to wearing helmets, and people over 16 do what they want.

Sorry, but "it hasn't cut down on ridership in Portland" is pure
speculation. I recognize that Portland has much more bicycling than
almost all U.S. cities. But that in itself is not proof that helmet laws
or promotions don't deter riding.

Logically, we know there are at least some kids who will choose not to
ride if forced to wear a helmet. Both our kids had that opinion at one
time or another, and I knew other kids with the same attitude. For the
policy to have no net effect, there would have to be other kids who say
"I never liked riding a bike, but now that I'm forced to wear a helmet,
I"m going to begin riding." I don't know any person who ever said that.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure you're braver than I am. I can tell that by
your tales of crashes.

Yes, like falling into a submerged pot hole and going OTB. I should have had Garmin sonar on my bike -- or going down on a patch of invisible black ice in front of my office. I've crashed riding at walking speed over a board-slat MUP bridge that was slimy (which now has indoor-outdoor carpet on it). This was ordinary riding/commuting and not crazy risk taking.

Jay, do you think I've never ridden below freezing? Do you think I never
rode on bridges or causeways with slippery wood surfaces? Do you think
we don't have potholes?

Fun fact: About three years ago the mayor of our village was lobbying
for a new village levy, to be devoted entirely to road paving, because
so many village streets were in terrible shape. Guess which street he
chose to pose on, for the newspaper photo?

He chose my street, which he apparently considered the most dramatic
photo of potholes and patches. And it worked! The levy passed.

Now guess which was the first street to get paved.

OK, that's not fair, so I'll tell you. It was the street the mayor lives
on. My street was not the second. Nor the third, fourth, fifth or sixth.
I don't know where the count is now, but our street still looks exactly
the same. And until about three weeks ago, it included a pothole about
one foot by 18 inches, and maybe five inches deep. I had to avoid it
every time I turned into our street, either by car or by bike, whether
wet or dry.

In any case, I deal with these things, and somehow I don't fall. Perhaps
I'm more afraid of falling than you are.
It hasn't caused me any emotional distress, unlike some.

Apparently it doesn't cause you intellectual distress either.

Nope. My helmets have paid off. It's the intellectually right move for me. Maybe not for you.

Apparently it's not the right move for me, since I've never needed one
in over 45 years of avid adult riding.

My intellectual distress is with the propaganda that always accompanies
helmet promotion. It's always either implied or stated that you NEED one
of these things, because riding a bike is a big injury risk. I remain
astonished that so many people, including so many avid cyclists, are so
taken in by the propaganda, and so ignorant of the relevant data.

But there are plenty of cyclists who could get prosecuted for
perfectly reasonable behavior.

Prosecuted? You men a ticket (that doesn't go against your license and can't be used for rating your insurnce)?

Are you implying that's no trouble at all, and people shouldn't fuss
about it?

No more than they should fuss about the ten-bazillion other things for which you can get a ticket from a municipality. We were talking about the local Washington MHLs -- which are ordinances and not state laws.

Whatever. It does bother me that an activity that is beneficial to the
individual and beneficial to society is ladened with senseless laws,
ordinances, or whatever you call the regulations.

If there were ordinances saying you can't have your porch light on
during daylight, or your car must be red, or you're not allowed to put a
sign in your yard, I'd think those were stupid too. But bicycling is
rather more important to me; hence I give more attention to stupid
bicycle regulations. (We can talk about AFRAP laws again if you like.)

We don't have those ordinances here in PDX, but we do have the state MHL for kids under 16, which doesn't seem to be keeping kids off bikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4FO_9rKLO4 How are you doing there in helmet free Ohio?

You've got great promotion of bicycling. I think it's partly because of
a court case that mandated spending a certain percentage of
transportation funds on non-motorized transportation, no? ;-)

OTOH, there are other places that have bike mode shares that dwarf
Portland's. And they don't promote helmets at all, let alone mandate
them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVhYcJH_m5o See what Portland
could be if not for helmets?

OK, more seriously: There are many things that affect ridership.
Fashion, local culture, city density, traffic levels, trip distances,
climate, terrain, economy, privileges or penalties for motorists, etc.
But there's no way that helmet promotion or mandates are a positive
influence.

This is one of my nearby climbs with a typical Portland driver. You would wear a helmet, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fzwm4m3ZFI

Note at about 1:00 into the video, the driver is wearing a helmet. By
some of the bike helmet promotion logic, every motorist should strap on
a full face helmet before pulling out of the driveway.

"Racers wear a helmet, so you should too!"

Uh, no -- most drivers are not drifting up Rock Point which, in some places, just falls off a cliff.

But that _has_ been said about bicyclists! I've rebutted it in this
discussion group with references to NASCAR.

BTW, that descent on a bike is very helmet worthy, particularly on wet pavement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NPqQptjbF0

And I'm sure I would descend much more slowly and cautiously than you.


--
- Frank Krygowski

As some little support - around my neck of the woods, people simply cannot afford to buy a helmet for their kids and California has a mandatory helmet law for anyone under 18. That automatically reduces cycling for the class of people most likely to benefit from riding.

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:44:01 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 1/20/2020 7:32 AM, wrote:

snip

Personally I agree with Frank that helmets should not made mandatory.

I don't think anyone on r.b.t. has ever advocated for making helmets
mandatory. But those that dismiss the overwhelming scientific and
statistical evidence just to try to justify their personal choices, are
not helping to prevent MHLs, it's the exact opposite.

Imagine a government hearing on an MHL. On one side you have ER doctors,
EMTs, RNs, etc., explaining the benefits of helmets and showing
statistical evidence comparing injury and fatality rates of helmeted
versus non-helmeted cyclists. On the other side you have someone talking
about foam hats and gardening helmets, and asking why driving helmets
should not also be made mandatory. The legislators have to decide who to
believe. The people in the middle, who say that while helmets are a good
idea, the actual absolute number of injuries and fatalities that they
prevent does not make compulsion is the best approach, and hence
education is a better approach, are ignored.

Some politicians want to pass more laws to make everything safe for
everyone, and to exert control over every aspect of people's lives. I
don't think that that is a good approach. It's especially annoying when
we're presented with ordinances that address non-existent problems and
that if there was a problem there are already laws that address it.

So as long as helmet wear is not made mandatory I see no point in getting so upset as Frank does.

+1.

As far as I know the most populated states and cities ALL have mandatory helmet laws pertaining to children.

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:06:43 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, 20 January 2020 09:36:47 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
On 1/20/2020 6:17 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 11:00:17 AM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 03:55:02 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:40:34 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:39:07 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2020 12:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Even on this group, we've
had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain
injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to prevent minor
injuries.

But they never ride without it.

. . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection.

You're allowed to wear it, Jay. You can justify it to yourself however
you like. Ditto the gloves.

But two points:

First, I also ride roads that are famous - or rather, notorious - for
roughness. (I can explain why in terms of state funding for county
roads, if you like.) I'm sure I ride far fewer miles on wet roads than
you, but I still ride them, the last time being about five days ago.
It's certainly possible to do these things without hitting one's head.
Since becoming an adult, the only time my head ever touched earth
(lightly) from a bike crash was about 12 years ago, when our tandem's
forks suddenly snapped off.

I think I'm more cautious than you. Maybe that's because I don't feel
protected by a helmet?

Second point: The people I'm talking about say they _never_ ride without
a helmet. I also know people who never ride without gloves. Really? Is
_every_ ride so dangerous that protective gear is needed?

I strongly suspect that most of those people will jump in a car to ride
two blocks to buy a magazine. And indeed, I recall the day when I had
ridden my bike less than half a mile to a store, where a guy I know said
"Where's your helmet??"

This mania for protection - but ONLY when traveling by bicycle - can't
help but dissuade a lot of bike use.

Speaking of manias, you've made helmets your own white whale or bete noire -- pick your color. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. Helmets have prevented me from having more extensive injuries, so I wear one. I don't see the same deep, deep downside as you. And no, there is no giant conspiracy to pass a MHL in Oregon, so I'm not going to agonize over looming helmet laws and the possible enslavement of my hair.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay what would Frank do with his time when everyone agreed with his views. Like you I make my own judgement and distrust any data of any study about helmet use. Saves me a lot of time which we can spend on actual riding our bike(s).

Lou

A number of years ago I wiped out with such force that my helmeted head bounced off the pavement twice and had a very nice dent in the temple area. Frank's response to my post about that incident was if I had not been wearing the helmet my head would not have struck the pavement. It's amazing what Frank can see from thousands of miles or thousands of kilometers away from every incident.

Cheers

I think annoying is that if someone report a crash or fall and claims that he benefited from wearing a helmet (not save our life) he often says because it never happened to Frank to him that:
- he/she took too much risk/misjudged the situation,
- he/she could prevented it by riding more carefully or should have taken a course or read a book,
- wearing a helmet didn't make a difference,
- wearing a helmet make us guilty of the fear mongering.

And the most annying is that after this he says: 'you can do/wear/buy' whatever you want.

Lou

+1

You forgot about the bit where you say you cracked your helmet and get
back "you only hit your head because of the added thickness of the
helmet." Like SRA says, it's not possible to make such conclusions with
no clue of the circumstances.

I'm with Jay and Andre. I wear a helmet because road rash on my head
hurts like hell and scalp wounds bleed a lot and though my ears are
larger than necessary I don't want to scrape them down in size.

I have no confidence that a bike helmet with prevent concussions. Hell
football helmets don't and they're a lot stronger than bike helmets.
Both may mitigate the damage but I wouldn't depend on it.

Okay I agree with you about helmets and concussions.

When I saw the deep dent on the temple area of my helmet I sure was glad that I had the helmet on that ride. A fellow not riding with us, who was behind us, saw me fall and bounce and was ready to key in 911. He couldn't believe that I just got up, checked my bicycle, rinsed off my scrapes on the arms and shoulder and was ready to continue my ride. At the very least I didn't have scrapes on my head where scrapes usually bleed quite freely. I'm just glad that the helmet was there to take the impact instead of my temple taking that impact.

I don NOT repeat NOT like the idea of mandatory helmet laws.

Helmets don't protect nor can they protect from everything. Sheesh, when I was in the army I saw bullets go clean through M1 style steel military helmets. Does that mean no soldier should wear a helmet? LOL VBEG

Cheers

But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to
phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one
side of a helmet at 500 yards.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were not designed to be bulletproof? This is the 21st century and I suggest you come up to date.

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:37:39 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:48:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/20/2020 6:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:55:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/20/2020 5:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:25:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 10:39 PM, John B. wrote:


I've always been of the opinion that making laws to ensure people act
safe is the wrong way to approach the subject. I would rather see
something that obviously penalized the individual such as "if you
aren't wearing a helmet your hospitalization is null and void".

I guess you mean "your hospitalization insurance"? If so, I'd agree ONLY
if that were applied to absolutely everyone who appeared at a hospital
with a head injury. Not just bicyclists.

I'll note that statements like yours are not uncommon in helmet rants on
the internet, especially when non-cyclists post in comments on news
articles. But those non-cyclists always aim that prejudiced proposal
ONLY at bicyclists. Never at motorists and never at pedestrians,
although their count of head (or brain) injuries absolutely eclipses
that of bicyclists.

You are adapt at ignoring the point of the argument, aren't you. The
discussion is about bicycle helmets, not pedestrian helmets, auto
helmets, helmets for sleeping in, etc. Thus I was speaking of bicycle
helmets and posing a different solution, which I suggest is more fair
than, or at least offers more individual choice than, an all
encompassing "helmet law".

Explain why you think that would be fair if applied only to bicyclists.


Oh, I must have been confused. I thought we were talking about bicycle
helmets, I had not realized that you were addressing a much broader
spectrum and were referring to auto helmets and perhaps even helmets
made for bungee jumping.

But you left out Ballet, all those folks leaping and spinning around,
sometimes on only one foot. They really should be wearing helmets,
shouldn't they?

That's one of the major points, John. People have been taught to pretend
that bicycling - any bicycling, even in the calmest locations at the
most casual speeds - is a major risk for brain injury; and therefore
they're told any bicyclist - no matter how short, tame or careful their
rides - really ought to wear a helmet for every ride.

Ah but... bicycling is dangerous. In the neighborhood of ~700 die
annually. You can argue about the degree of danger but the fact
remains they are laying there in the street, One can also argue that a
substantial number, in some studies more than half, died through their
own stupidity, thru reckless riding, but, I suppose, one does not want
to talk bad about the dead.

And people want the cheap and easy solution and just as you seem to
believe, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that more gun laws
will stop the carnage, so advocates of bicycle helmets seem to believe
that if everyone just wore a helmet that everything would be
hunky-dory.

The fact that the kid was pulling wheelie in the middle of a four lane
high way when the 10 wheeler hit him or had diagnosed but untreated
mental problems before he shot up the school is rather complicated and
difficult to accept so just make a law and every bicyclist will be
safe and shootings will stop,

Why the special attention for bicyclists? Why the fear mongering? It's
certainly not because data shows great risk!

I believe here's why: Bicycling, at least in America (where this all
started) encompasses a huge market of people who are engaged in an
unusual activity, and whose most avid members "suit up" with special
clothes for any ride they do. So: "Hey, I bet we can sell them a special
hat!"

They suit up because they don't use their bike for much ordinary travel.
Most Americans who ride 100km at the drop of a hat won't bike to the
grocery or pharmacy. They treat each bike ride as a quasi-sporting
event. And sports - well, gosh, by definition that's pushing yourself to
your limits, right? And isn't pushing to the limit dangerous?

But aren't you more perceptive? Aren't you capable of looking up numbers
for the actual risk, relative to other common activities?

Why give those other activities a free pass?

Probably because they are the results of common happenings. As you
say, to ride a bike one must first don special clothing, fingerless
gloves and even special footwear but to drive down to Joe's house one
just hops in the car. Thus, auto accidents have become almost the norm
and are apparently acceptable to the public. In fact I doubt that the
U.S. public would stand for stringent auto laws, and their
enforcement.

One example is Singapore. They banned the use of hand phones while
driving a motor vehicle and established the penalty of a S$1,000
and/or several months in jail and enforced the law and guess what?
Nobody uses a hand phone while they are driving. I might add that at
the time the law was established $1,000 was more than a month's salary
for the average Singapore working man.

Ask SMS if he believes that recommending the promulgation a new law
providing a mandatory $1,350 fine and a possible jail sentence for use
of a hand phone while driving would enhance his efforts to be
reelected?
--
cheers,

John B.

More than 6,000 pedestrians die in traffic accidents each year. If helmets are so beneficial for hose dangerously fast bicyclist they should virtually end all pedestrians deaths. So why do you promote helmets for the one and not the other?

20% of all motor vehicle accidents with fatalities were from traumatic brain injuries which could be mitigated if a helmet actually worked that would save somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 lives each and every year. And these cases are INSIDE what essentially is a crash cage.

Frank is attempting to make a point and it is more than valid. Why are the lot of you refusing to see his point?

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:58:54 PM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:36:40 -0500, Duane
wrote:
I'm with Jay and Andre. I wear a helmet because road rash on my head
hurts like hell and scalp wounds bleed a lot and though my ears are
larger than necessary I don't want to scrape them down in size.

Well, if you don't care about impact protection, the design of a
bicycle helmet to protect against abrasion (road rash) is much
simpler. Instead of a web suspension and foam padding, all that's
needed is a sacrificial skull cap made of almost anything that can
prevent penetration when the road tries to act like a belt sander on
your head. Your brain might turn to mush from the impact damage, but
your skin, scalp, and ears will probably survive intact.

Time for some recreational math...
My Harbor Fright 1x30" belt sander runs at:
3260 ft/min = 54.3 ft/sec = 37 mph
https://www.harborfreight.com/1-in-x-30-in-belt-sander-61728.html
That's a bit fast for a bicycle, which I would guess can do 15 mph.
15 mph = 22 ft/sec
I need to slow down my belt sander by 1/2. A 40 grit aluminum oxide
belt should simulate a rather abrasive road surface. Now, all I need
to do is apply pressure to the half speed belt sander equal to the
weight of one's head (about 11 lbs), and see how long I might survive
before the belt breaks through the helmet. From the time, the
distance I might survive a head first skid into the pavement can be
easily calculated (1 sec = 22 ft at 15 mph).

Hmmm... let me think about this some more. I'm not sure I want to
know the answer.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

I've been power training and the highest average speed I've achieved over a 35 km course is 25 kph. Or if you prefer, 22.5 miles at 15.8 mph. I'm sure that you can see that since the course includes many stop lights and signs which must be obeyed since they all have heavy cross traffic that I am riding a little over 15 mph. And the young guys come by me as if I were standing still.