# The helmet debate



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

Not everyone agrees...

http://tinyurl.com/zma99

george


----------



## jonlong (Sep 29, 2004)

Interesting. Which is more important, fitness or safety? I think they need to do more research, though, to see if the helmet law is actually the cause of the decrease in cyclists.


----------



## TrekFan (Apr 21, 2005)

are there really people running around not riding their bikes because they have to wear a helmet? sounds pretty silly, and if there are such people, i'd be inclined to think they're just looking for any excuse not to exercise in the first place


----------



## Mynamesrob (Jul 25, 2004)

I wear a helmet regardless. This way, when the kids see me wearing it and riding the way I do, they will want to wear one too. You just have to get to them young enough. Or let them learn their lessons the hard way!


----------



## BontyRider (Feb 18, 2004)

"The overall effect on public health is bad, with less people getting fit by cycling since the laws came in, and more driving."

1. Fewer, not less.
2. Laws are passed; they don't 'come in.'
3. I, for one, look cooler with helmet-head.
4. I was going to type a diatribe about how the argument that helmet laws are wrong because one should be free to take on the risks associated with not wearing one since one is only endangering one's self by doing so, is fallacious because society bears the burden, and the costs are distributed through insurance and other means, but I changed my mind because it's irrelevant to the original post, and because it's late, I'm tired, and this is the worst run-on sentence ever.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

BontyRider said:


> 2. Laws are passed; they don't 'come in.'


Complete the following sentence:

The new law, which was passed last month, will _______ ____ effect on January 1st.

A. pass into

B. come into

C. be in full

D. fo rizzle dizzle


----------



## Rootberry (Jul 27, 2005)

I dont wear a helmet for the 1.9 mile ride to and from school everyday, but for every other situation/ride I always wear one. It took two stolen helmets for me to decide not to even mess with it any more. Why do people take the time to cut peoples helmets off their bike locks?? you cant wear them after you get them off... oh well


----------



## PAmtbiker (Feb 2, 2005)

*Interesting...*

I for one wear a helmet for anything more complicated then pedaling around my neighborhood and running errands. I think I get laughed at by non-cyclists more for the helmet I wear when doing "serious" rides (road or mountain) than I do for walking out of the main entrance of my school completely clad in lycra. It's very strange come to think of it. The teachers at my school (a boarding school) are very strict with helmet use; they even want you to wear one when pedaling between classes. I am the only one with a bike on campus that probably even owns a helmet, so I get yelled at the most when I am not wearing one... go figure.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*Interesting...*



jonlong said:


> Interesting. Which is more important, fitness or safety? I think they need to do more research, though, to see if the helmet law is actually the cause of the decrease in cyclists.


you mean, you can be dead by a head injury, or be 'dead' watching sitcoms on the couch?


----------



## Pain Freak (Dec 31, 2003)

If they don't want to wear them, their chioce, and every one knows they are always looking for organ donors. I've seen to many lifes saved by helmets. I will always wear one.


----------



## Johnny Hair Boy (Jul 11, 2004)

Anyone who would stop ridding because they have to wear a helmet is an idiot plain and simple.


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

Johnny Hair Boy said:


> Anyone who would stop ridding because they have to wear a helmet is an idiot plain and simple.


It's not that they'll stop riding, it's that they won't start riding.

What kills more people each year. Accidents on bikes without helmets, or being fat and lazy? Which costs society more money?

george


----------



## GuruAtma (May 17, 2004)

So if you don't want to start riding a bike because you don't like the helmet, then start jogging. Or wear one of the skate/downhill helmets with the straps undone.


----------



## BontyRider (Feb 18, 2004)

Black Bart said:


> Complete the following sentence:
> 
> The new law, which was passed last month, will _______ ____ effect on January 1st.
> 
> ...


Correct:
The new law, which was passed last month, will come into effect on January 1st.

Not so hot:
The new law, which was passed last month, will come in on January 1st.

Different verbs. The second one don't make no sense fo rizzle dizzle!


----------



## 4212darren (Nov 15, 2005)

*I'm so old....*

...that I rode all through the 70's without a helmut. It wasn't even mentioned. Maybe the odd over protective parent would make junior put on a hockey helmut for his first couple of times out but that was it. I crashed and burned quite a few times and had a few concusions but miracalesly(sp?) I escaped serious injury.

Fast foward 30 years and I'm amazed at the number of cyclists that wear a helmut. Kids and adults. Though it's the law in a few provinces it's mostly voluntarily. Mushroom heads rule!


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

I am all for safety and I wear a helmet and make my kid wear a helmet but these laws are getting too crazy in my opinion. How about if they made them wear full face helmets so they don't get their teeth knocked out? Or full body armor?? Just where does it end? You can legislate everything except for common sense. Get use to this big brother thing. There is no end in sight in my opinion. They start with the little things and then they get bigger.

Now in CA they don't let kids drive other kids around once they get their driver's liscenses. So what do they do? They all drive separate to an agreed upon location and then they start street racing. It seems like every time they try to legislate away a problem they create more.

Would you be in favor of GPS systems standard on all cars connected to the DMV and they would send you a ticket any time you went over the speed limit. Far fetched? Who knows? They could use the old argument that if you are doing nothing wrong then you should not care. And would it not be for the greater good?


----------



## GT2005 (Mar 23, 2005)

*fill in the blank with...*

e. take 



Black Bart said:


> Complete the following sentence:
> 
> The new law, which was passed last month, will _______ ____ effect on January 1st.
> 
> ...


----------



## BontyRider (Feb 18, 2004)

If someone would make this t-shirt I'd buy one...


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

BontyRider said:


> If someone would make this t-shirt I'd buy one...


Even though I am not totally with you on the sentiment I have shirts and a heat press where I could make something like this for you. Just PM me and me know. $15 plus shipping.


----------



## Pugdawg1 (Aug 28, 2005)

I'd like to see more education and not so many damn laws. I'd love for our town to have some sort of bicycle safety thing at the park. Something, anything. Here they don't have a helmet law.. nor do they educate folks and encourage them to wear helmets.. so I see few wearing them. I do think it should be very much encouraged, yes, but not a law.


----------



## lebikerboy (Jan 19, 2005)

Visit a spinal cord injury unit and be surprised how many are there as a result of head injuries from cycling, skateboarding, skiing,etc.


----------



## Th' Mule (Aug 31, 2004)

I personally have been involved in two crashes where if I were not wearing my helmet, I would be so messed up I would wish for death. I won't bug somebody about wearing a lid unless they want to ride with me. I do not hit the trails so I can be a hero and save some individual's life because s/he does not wear a brain bucket. Luckily up here I have only seen one serious rider without a lid. The ones I worry about are the kids who put the helmet on the handle bars (ooh, looks like an accident coming up, I'd better put on my lid  )and the casual adults who do the same, or don't even bring a can in the first place.


----------



## AndrewTO (Mar 30, 2005)

richwolf said:


> Even though I am not totally with you on the sentiment I have shirts and a heat press where I could make something like this for you. Just PM me and me know. $15 plus shipping.


SOLD!

BUT I want "the full monty" version. 

Then i'll KNOW when they've read it by the look on their face.  

As for the article - these people are talking about numbers from *1990-1996!* I don't see 2xxx anywhere there. They even acknowledge that some of these people _might_ have looked into another sport as a replacement. Maybe if this article was a little more contemporary i'd offer more input other then "it's your life to be responsible for - do whatever you want as long as it doesn't ruin things for me", but it's not, so ....

..... it's your life to be responsible for - do whatever you want as long as it doesn't ruin things for me.

I'll keep riding with my helmet, thanks. I'd like to live for a while longer and see just how screwed up this world will get.


----------



## QCRage (Dec 30, 2005)

lebikerboy said:


> Visit a spinal cord injury unit and be surprised how many are there as a result of head injuries from cycling, skateboarding, skiing,etc.


Visit a cycling meca like the Netherlands and be surprised how many are riding bikes instead of driving. Amuse yourself trying to use all fingers on one hand counting folks using their bike for basic transportation wearing helmets.

Tooling around town like most typical people are inclined to do (if at all) really does not pose the same risk as the riding style serious cyclists engage in (or skateboarding, skiing, etc). Sure you can get a severe head injury at ridiculously slow speeds on a sidewalk, but the risk is much lower. It would be interesting to know the injury rate of Dutch commuters without helmets to recreational cyclists, I suspect the carnage would be borne mostly by the rec riders, not the casual riders.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's important to wear a helmet during typical recreation riding and very rarely turn pedals without one but I am loath to impose my values on others, and think in this case it would be a mistake. I believe the "social good" of mandatory helmets does more "social damage" by deterring typical people (again, not mtbr types) from what little riding they would otherwise do.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

AndrewTO said:


> SOLD!
> 
> BUT I want "the full monty" version.
> 
> ...


I need to know your mailing address. You can make good on it when I mail it out to you. I can print on the front too.

Lot's of people get spinal cord injuries from lots of stuff. Helmets are no guarantee though. My neighbor is a case in points. Helmet wearer, motorcycle accident and wheelchair for the rest of his life. Not a pretty sight.
And lots of kids who wear helmets are not fitted properly or they flop all over the place.
I make my kid wear em but it gets down to personal choice. I would rather see a kid riding a bike without a helmet vs. one with a ciggy or joint hanging out of their mouth with one on!
If you hang around a hospital too long you will see many dangers much greater than riding a bike without a helmet, such as smoking, lousy diets and lifestyles and just plain getting old.


----------



## jrm (Jan 12, 2004)

*I'm no "expert"*

therefore i always wear a helmet.


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

The HORROR!!!!!

People out riding bikes as part of every day life. And not one helmet..... the HORROR!

george


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

More crazys.

People who use cycling as basic transportation, every day. To work, to the store, to school. I wonder what their rate of heart disease and obesity is?

george


----------



## mtbmeister (Oct 14, 2004)

*Yep, stop and think big...*



george_da_trog said:


> More crazys.
> 
> People who use cycling as basic transportation, every day. To work, to the store, to school. I wonder what their rate of heart disease and obesity is?
> 
> george


Agreed, You know, the reality is that you could be plucked of the planet at any time either by God or Mother Nature, whomever you believe in. Who doesn't know someone who had a bad accident cycling or otherwise, that was completely undeserving of their fate. We don't pick our day to leave or jeopardize our mobility, but we might as well make ourselves somewhat accountable for the state we could end up in. Ride smart, it's as simple as that. Sorry for preaching...

Neil


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

City full of fools. Someone should explain the whole helmet thing to them.

george


----------



## ozlongboarder (Jan 12, 2004)

Drivers in those cycling friendly countries are probably way more considerate to cyclists then drivers here in Australia or the USA. I know from my experience in both countries, most drivers would rather run you off the road then share 3 feet of shoulder with you.


----------



## SuperNewb (Mar 6, 2004)

Everyone should be covered head to toe wearing body armor then injuries would be considerably lower!  

I feel wierd when Im out riding on the trail without a helmet but along the road I dont bother. The helmet nazi's can say whatever they want about it cause I dont care.


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

ozlongboarder said:


> Drivers in those cycling friendly countries are probably way more considerate to cyclists then drivers here in Australia or the USA. I know from my experience in both countries, most drivers would rather run you off the road then share 3 feet of shoulder with you.


So you wear a helmet to protect you from being hit by a car?

Really?

george

p.s. Realy?


----------



## Tacoma4.0 (Dec 2, 2005)

*Simple test*

To see if YOU should wear a helmet.

You will need:

A helmet

A ball peen hammer

Your head.

Step one: Wearing helmet strike your head repeatedly with ball peen hammer.

Step two: Remove helmet - strike your head repeatedly with ball peen hammer.

Which step hurt the most? If it did not hurt in either case YOU may not need to wear a helmet.


----------



## K'Endo (Dec 23, 2003)

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: spe·cious
Pronunciation: 'spE-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, visually pleasing, from Latin speciosus beautiful, plausible, from species
1 obsolete : SHOWY
2 : having deceptive attraction or allure
3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness 

Specious ... as in

"Pronouncing that helmet laws will reduce ridership, using outdated and questionable statistics, is a SPECIOUS argument."

Kn.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

george_da_trog said:


> City full of fools. Someone should explain the whole helmet thing to them.
> 
> george


I think he's got a ciggy in his hand.

This guy is gonna learn hard!


----------



## ozlongboarder (Jan 12, 2004)

george_da_trog said:


> So you wear a helmet to protect you from being hit by a car?
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


Come on George, not every cyclist that gets hit by a car goes underneath and comes out dead on the other side. Some get thrown from there bikes and end up on the road or in a ditch or on the shoulder.

Some get run over by the same car 4 (four) times and end up underneath it bleeding out there ears, nearly loosing their testicles, and getting spine and shoulder damage and under going months of rehab and painful skin graphs. But no brain damage.

Its common sense George, you have a better chance of survival with a helmet on then no helmet at all.


----------



## Roger G (Feb 10, 2005)

*Gloves!*

My hands are just recovering from yet another crash in which I fell on my hands
(and not my head - I haven't fallen on my head since I was five). I think gloves
help prevent serious injuries much more efficiently than helmets because they help
you to properly cushion any fall. A helmet doesn't do that - it just helps to lessen
the negative effects. I would even go so far to say that I fall much better without an
oversized head to take care of.

All tests that prove the beneficiary effects of helmets are done by using dummies or
watermelons or something like that. I normally don't drop like a sack of potatoes
when I crash or when I get hit by a car.


----------



## hugh088 (Feb 1, 2004)

I started wearing a helmet about 20 years ago just before my son was born. Within a week I took a header and landed chin first, 6 stitches but not a scratch on my new helmut. Since then I have landed head first only one other time. That was during a MTB race, I was in second place and dropped my front wheel between two rocks a a steep rocky drop. Three guys behind me jumped off their bike to render aid because they just knew I was seriuosly hurt. But I was up and on my bike before they were. They left they bikes at the top of the drop. That secured my second place. At the finish line they could not believe that I was not hurt. The helmet had a deep ding in it that if transfered to my head might have been fatal. I know, I know your head is stronger then foam but there is no way I would like to land on the rock that did that without a helmet. Think the ball peen hammer test mentioned above.
Chris


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Not to start any kind of flame war or anything, BUT all those places George posted pics of ar in countries where cycling is an accepted mode of transport and cyclist have proper lanes to cycle in and/or are treated w/ the proper respect. They are not the busy streets of the US/Canada or other such "developed" places where they think cyclist are not sposed to be on the rode, but on a bike path. All it is is an excuse by the lazy people of the world not to get some form of excercise - if the helmets to expensive strap on some spoort shoes and go walking/raunning - and personally think people don't want to wear them 'cause they don't look cool not the cost.

I truly wish that there were helmets back when I was a kid 'cause I had a good few concusions doing diff things and feel that it HAS effected me later on now in life - I will admit this, but I know most people won't. I won't ride w/ anyone unless the wear a helmet because I don't want to have to be responsible and try to play doc on them.


----------



## crashedandburned (Jan 9, 2004)

Funny, growing up in the late 70's and early 80's, the only time I wore a helmet was at the BMX track or riding my friends Yamaha trike (u guys remember those don't ya?) otherwise I never bothered. Nowadays, I feel silly if I DON'T wear a helmet. I have to wear one to get on base wear I work or I can get fined. Outside of base it doesn't matter, but I still do anyways.

I, like many others I also suspect, never felt it was the governments place to mandate bicycle/motorcycle helmet and seatbelt use. I mean we're adults. I think most of us can figure out for ourselves if we want to wear a helmet. Mandating helmet use for kids I have no problem with though. There was a big uproar here last summer involving the Maryland state PD. A local news station did a report showing the MSP using night vision goggles to "catch" people not using seatbelts at night.  What a bunch of a-holes!!! Nothing better to do???? Anyhow, the next couple days the radio stations had all kinds of calls w/ the typical outrage. Big Bother watching our every move, Nazis, Nothing better to do, nothing but money for the state, etc.... So the Maryland Governor ordered the MSP to immediately stop using the night vision. 

As far as not riding because of having to wear a helment, I also think it's pretty stupid.


----------



## Pain Freak (Dec 31, 2003)

Money....

How much money do they have to spend on helmets in those 3rd world countries?

Seems to me it would take close to 6 months salary to be able to buy a good one. Or at least a month to buy a cheapy, which might or might not work for them.

I work in plastics and the shell on a helmet can absorb over 5 times the amount of impact that a human skull does before it will crack. This is not to say that a helmet will protect you all that great either. I have personally seen 3 different people get knocked unconsious while wearing top of the line helmets. Without these helmets though all 3 would very likely be dead. One for sure, as he had a subdureal hematoma (bleeding on the brain).


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

ozlongboarder said:


> Its common sense George, you have a better chance of survival with a helmet on then no helmet at all.


How much better?

george


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

Pain Freak said:


> Money....
> 
> How much money do they have to spend on helmets in those 3rd world countries?


First pic, third world contry?

george


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

LyNx said:


> Not to start any kind of flame war or anything, BUT all those places George posted pics of ar in countries where cycling is an accepted mode of transport and cyclist have proper lanes to cycle in and/or are treated w/ the proper respect. .


So you too wear a helmet to protect you when you're eventually hit by a car.

If riding a bike is so dangerous and the chance of being hit by a car so great, why even ride WITH a helmet? My head may survive, but I'm going to be pretty torn up. I'll most likely have to go to the hospital, miss work, go through physical therapy.

I understand why people drive a few blocks to the store to pick up a few things as apposed to hopping on the bike, getting a little exercise and saving gas. It's just to dangerous.

george


----------



## ozlongboarder (Jan 12, 2004)

george_da_trog said:


> How much better?
> 
> george


Even if its .01 of 1% better its still better.


----------



## djcrb9 (Jan 13, 2004)

george_da_trog said:


> So you wear a helmet to protect you from being hit by a car?
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


I've been hit by a car. A helmet saved me.


----------



## Roger G (Feb 10, 2005)

*cost of freedom*

@ djcrb9: how do you know? Did you have a twin brother who got hit by the very same car
exactly the same way and he died? No - even that doesn't work. It would have to be a mirror universe
or so. My point being that "what if" questions just don't apply here or else I'd just say:
"what if you hadn't worn a helmet and therefore hadn't ridden so fast?" 
I ride much faster on trails when I wear a helmet (I normally do, because I race)
or when I wear "protective" clothing over my lyrca.



ozlongboarder said:


> Even if its .01 of 1% better its still better.


No it isn't. If it's only marginally better, the negative sides outweigh the positive sides.
Otherwise we'd have to be riding around in full body armour with flashlights all over.
Safety isn't everything in life. I personally much prefer freedom of choice.

Oh - by the way: I nearly had a frontal collision with a car today. I was doing 32 mph
on my racebike and the car about 12 mph (tried to slowly overtake some cyclists on a
narrow but straight road and didn't see me coming). Because I wasn't wearing a helmet,
I chose not to ram the car but passed it on the dirt shoulder.


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

ozlongboarder said:


> Even if its .01 of 1% better its still better.


Agree.


----------



## stolpsgti (Jan 25, 2006)

we can go back and forth over the personal choice to wear a helmet all day...and get nowhere. But do we really need another stupid law protecting people from themselves?

..btw, I wear a helmet each time I get on the bike; too many serious crashes no to. (I have an issue with balance  )


----------



## Captain Kana (Jan 13, 2004)

*What are the odds?*

It all comes down to numbers. You have a greater chance of a head injury driving or riding in your car to the trail, then when riding your bike on the trail.

Why aren't you wearing a helmet in your car?

The worst injury I have received was a branch catching in my helmet and jerking me off the bike.

Now, I don't say don't wear a helmet, do what you want. Keep your mouth shut out on the trail about my beautiful blond locks flowing in the breeze or just say "Goodday".

Dan C.


----------



## Jouster (Aug 1, 2005)

george_da_trog said:


> So you too wear a helmet to protect you when you're eventually hit by a car.
> 
> If riding a bike is so dangerous and the chance of being hit by a car so great, why even ride WITH a helmet? My head may survive, but I'm going to be pretty torn up. I'll most likely have to go to the hospital, miss work, go through physical therapy.
> 
> ...


I thought the same until I went ~ 1 mile to a convenience store ~ 10 years ago, just happened to wear the helmet, took a corner that had some slime running over the cement (someone was washing something off their driveway) and went down fast. Helmet hit the edge of the curb hard....put a nice dent in it. In fact my sunglass rims tore out some flesh on the edge.

I'd probably be a smurf right now if it wasn't for that helmet. Seems pretty common sense to me from then on. Speed, hard objects and physical events that you may not fully control feed into the equation. I don't need a law to over-ride stupidity.


----------



## Jouster (Aug 1, 2005)

Captain Kana said:


> It all comes down to numbers. You have a greater chance of a head injury driving or riding in your car to the trail, then when riding your bike on the trail.


Put the bong down and back away slowly! Not only are your stats suspect and unsupported, you completely overlook all the safety refinements for head injuries that they've put into cars over the last 50 years.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

Okay, here's a story:

I ride a lot, like every day and I always wear a helmet. 

Why? Because my wife is a nurse at Kentfield rehabilitation clinic and she teaches people with brain injuries how to eat and wipe their a$$ and remember their name. She tells me these stories and is concerned about me hitting the ground. But, not every one gets hurt like this but the poor unfortunate fellows and ladies that do smash their skull into hard objects have taken huge steps backwards in their life.

Now the real story. I've broken two helmets. Once smashing into a storm-lowered tree branch around blind corner at about 10 mph. It knocked me off my bike and down the hillside. I got up, had a stiff neck but rode home and bought a new helmet. 

The other time, commuting home from SF. I was approaching the Golden Gate Bridge at night on the pathway, again no cars around, and my roadbike stem snaps off and I immediately smash into the ground and unfortunately into the curb. The four inches or so of curb caught my helmet on the temple side and smashed it open, and the impact still drove my cheek into the curb and I broke the zygomatic arch on my face in three places. I got up called the wife and she took me to emergency. And I bought another helmet.

I've survived twice now. Enough preaching, but if you have people that love you, and if you love yourself. Wear a helmet.


----------



## Captain Kana (Jan 13, 2004)

Jouster said:


> Put the bong down and back away slowly! Not only are your stats suspect and unsupported, you completely overlook all the safety refinements for head injuries that they've put into cars over the last 50 years.


Haven't touched a bong or the evil weed in 25 years . No personal attacks coming from this guy.

I didn't post any stats. You got any? The number one killer in the USA is car accidents. Number 2 is the regular old normal common flu. Do your own search.

Your head in a car can hit several places inside even if you are using your belt and have an airbag. You ever watch the crash dummies necks whipping around, the big old heavy noggin goes where momentum takes it. Someone hits the side of your car, your head is hitting that side window.

And again, I didn't say don't wear a helmet. Do what you want. I wear mine sometimes, sometimes I don't.

Over your lifetime, your 21 more times likely to die in a car accident then on your bike. Why aren't you wearing a helmet in you car? Odds! 

Dan C


----------



## Porter (Jan 13, 2004)

*Choose your poison*

Here's a pic of my helmet from a crash that I had three years ago that was the result of a mechanical failure. I didn't really care for the concussion, but it was better than death or becoming a vegetable.

It is beyond me why anyone would choose not to wear a helmet. But, I see people doing stupid stuff every day. Hopefully Darwin will sort them out before they breed and pass on their ways.


----------



## QCRage (Dec 30, 2005)

Captain Kana said:


> Your head in a car can hit several places inside even if you are using your belt and have an airbag. You ever watch the crash dummies necks whipping around, the big old heavy noggin goes where momentum takes it. Someone hits the side of your car, your head is hitting that side window.


I just put down the bong and decided we should pass a law that requires helmets in cars. And on a couch (you ever fall off one of those things?!)

I can't believe I'm still reading this thread. They should pass a law for that too...


----------



## crashedandburned (Jan 9, 2004)

richwolf said:


> Would you be in favor of GPS systems standard on all cars connected to the DMV and they would send you a ticket any time you went over the speed limit. Far fetched? Who knows? They could use the old argument that if you are doing nothing wrong then you should not care. And would it not be for the greater good?


Actually there's something in the works now. Won't send you a ticket, but .....ah just read one of my old post "In the words of Sylvester Stallone in Demolition Man"


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

Do you have a seat belt or an air bag on your bike?

Cars have safety devices. If you have your seat belt on there is a minimal chance of your head crashing by the side or the top into anything, most of the damage is done to the neck when your head moves forwards and backwards.


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

I at no point said you shouldn't wear a helmet. But I do believe that helmet lawas and helmet nazis hurt cycling and the promotion of cycling. Cycling is a utilitarian activity and there is no reason people shouldn't be cycling daily. To work, to the store, to school, just around the block for fun.

But if I were a non cyclist and listened to the way some of you describe the dangers of just cycling to the store I wouldn't come within 10 ft of that dangerous thing.

"You can ride to the store and DIE!"

"I have friends who see people brain damaged from cycilng every day!"

"I was riding 3 years ago and almost DIED!"

"I won't ride with people without helmets, they might DIE!"

Why in the world would anyone get even close to a bicycle?

Why do you guys participate in such a dangerous activity. You may DIE at any moment.

Yeah, you might die, but probablly not. There are far more dangerous things you do every day that are more likely to kill you than riding a bike.


What's more dangerous....
Riding a bike 1 mile to the store without a helmet or driving the car to the same store?

What bothers you more? Seeing someone riding a bike to the store without a helmet, or seeing someone driving to the store when they live only a few blocks away?

george


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Dec 2, 2005)

I can't see any reasons for not wearing helmets.. old helmets that were really heavy could actually cause injuries to the neck and such.. newer helmets not so much because they're getting to light. Some of the newest helmets are so light and comfortable that you don't know you're wearing them.. hell they even look better than they did years back. I wear my helmet on all of my rides.. might as well be safe.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

*I've done some legwork for y'all.*

Okay,

I've done some legwork for y'all. 
I keep getting these emails from this topic so and I'm at work all alone on a Sunday  
And if you feel like reading.

From here: http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

2004

There are 85 million bicycle riders in the US.

725 bicyclists died in traffic crashes in the US in 2004.

About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have injuries serious enough to be hospitalized.

Bicycle crashes and injuries are under reported, since the majority are not serious enough for emergency room visits.

1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries has a brain injury.

Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury.

A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.

Many years of potential life are lost because about half of the deaths are children under 15 years old.

Direct costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $81 million each year.

Indirect costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $2.3 billion each year.

Helmet use in the US varies by orders of magnitude in different areas and different sectors of our society. White collar commuters probably reach 80 per cent, while inner city kids and rural kids would be 10 per cent or less. 
Overall, our best wild guess is probably no more than 25 per cent. Sommers Point, NJ, where a state helmet law is in effect, found that only 24 of the 359 students who rode to school in one week of the Winter of 2002 wore helmets (6 per cent) until the School District adopted a helmet rule. North Carolina observed 17 per cent statewide before their law went into effect in 2001.

Twenty-four percent of bicyclists killed in 2003 had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above 0.08 percent.

In 2003, about 8 times as many bicycle deaths were males compared with females. At every age, more male than female bicyclists were killed. Deaths per million people were higher among males than females at all ages. Bicycle deaths per million people were highest among 12 year-old males.

Deaths among bicyclists younger than 16 have gone down dramatically since 1975 (79 percent). Now they represent just a quarter of bicycle deaths in 2003 compared with two-thirds in 1975.

In 2003, bicycle deaths were most likely to occur in summer and fall and between the hours of 6 pm-9 pm.

Older bicyclists represent a larger percentage of bicycle deaths than in the past. Seventy-six percent of 2002 bicycle deaths were riders 16 years and older. This compares with 32 percent of bicycle deaths in 1975.

More bicyclists were killed in urban areas than in rural areas (68 percent compared with 31 percent) in 2003.

Thirty-five percent of bicycle deaths on roadways in 2003 occurred at intersections.

Sixty-one percent of bicycle deaths on roadways in 2003 occurred on major roads, and 35 percent occurred on minor roads.

In 2003, 57 percent of bicycle deaths among children younger than 16 and 28 percent of adult (age 16 and older) bicycle deaths occurred on minor roads. Adult bicyclists were more likely than children to have been killed on major roads (66 percent compared with 42 percent).

Statistics from the Consumer Product Safety Commission
October, 2005
NEISS Data Highlights - 2004

CPSC has the following injury data for bicycles and accessories:
Estimated Number of Injuries: 534,883 (2001: 565,742 - 2002: 539,642)

Coefficient of Variation: .08 (probable accuracy of sample)

(Based on hospital samples including 15,417 actual injuries.)

Estimated Number of Injuries in the United States and Territories that were treated in Hospital Emergency Departments.

All Ages: 534,883

Age 0 to 4: 32,175

Age 5 to 14: 265,554

Age 15 to 24 84,201

Age 25 to 64 138,120

Age 65+: 14,802

Sex: Male 385,797

Sex: Female 148,946

Disposition:

Treated and Released: 507,889
Hospitalized or Dead on Arrival: 27,629

Footnote: NEISS data gives estimated national totals based on hospital samples. See this October, 2005 CPSC newsletter for more background and totals for other activities.
BHSI Note: The most important data lacking here is exposure data that would indicate more about the riders and how much time they spend on their bikes in relation to the number of injuries for a given group. The following data has that for a comparison of sports.


----------



## djcrb9 (Jan 13, 2004)

Roger G said:


> @ djcrb9: how do you know? Did you have a twin brother who got hit by the very same car
> exactly the same way and he died? No - even that doesn't work. It would have to be a mirror universe or so. My point being that "what if" questions just don't apply here or else I'd just say:
> "what if you hadn't worn a helmet and therefore hadn't ridden so fast?"
> I ride much faster on trails when I wear a helmet (I normally do, because I race)
> ...


You're a moron.

I'll randomly point out some of your comments that i think help prove my theory. Re: body armor... I wear some body armore when i am at Whistler, and the chance for a serious accident is much higher. I always wear gloves when i mountain bike, and that helps some of the more common simple injuries. Those aren't major, but i severly lacerated hand will irritate a person for quite a while. I have broken my wrist a couple times. That sucks. Breaking one's head is worse, at least for most of us.

I don't have a twin brother. I know because i was knocked from my bike and hit my head on the ground (hard) cracking and destroying the helmet. I had a minor headache. You ever hit your helmet-free head on pavement while changing direction quickly at 20 mph? It would cause a bit more than a minor headache.
I do sometimes pedal to the bank or grocery store without a helmet. Whether i ride there with a helmet or without, i ride the same. That is to say that i don't ride slower without a helmet. That's just dumb random hypothesis on your part, and much less scientific than my theory of you being a moron.

If you had rammed the car with your helmet, then good for you. I know you like to make extreme examples to make your entire life easy and black and white, but no one ever said a helmet was a get out of jail free pass.

Though i was with a friend who screwed up a jump pretty bad, and landed on his head from about 8 feet up. He cracked his helmet and had a severe concussion. The nurse at the ER i drove him to said he'd definitely be in much worse shape without a helmet.

All that said, go ahead and don't wear one. Just don't take my tax money to either pay for your life support, or shovel your brains off the side of the road, depending on what the case could be.


----------



## djcrb9 (Jan 13, 2004)

george_da_trog said:


> What bothers you more? Seeing someone riding a bike to the store without a helmet, or seeing someone driving to the store when they live only a few blocks away?
> 
> george


On this point, i totally agree with you. There's fat people everywhere that could use a little riding. And skinny people, too... as gas becomes more of a world issue and global warming is going to change everyone's lives int he coming years.

Also, i don't think it should be a law to wear a helmet... just like i don't think drugs shoud be illegal, or smoking. If that's what people want to do with their lives, fine. And like i said, i periodically ride a couple blocks to the bank or grocery store without a helmet.


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

johnnyb said:


> Okay,
> 
> I've done some legwork for y'all.
> I keep getting these emails from this topic so and I'm at work all alone on a Sunday
> ...


0.00085%

Of those, some were obviously wearing helmets, and some would have died even if they were wearing helmets. So the chances of a helmet saving your life when being hit by a car is less than that.



> About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have injuries serious enough to be hospitalized.


.079% of 85 million riders end up in the hospital due to head injuries.
.03% of 85 million end up in the hospital over night with a head injury.

So lets figure this out.

How many days in a row per year would I have to ride to expect an head injury incident?
Over 3333 days a year. So in reality, the odds of me ending up in a hosptial due to a head injury on a bicycle or close to zero.

Good to know.

So, the next time I see someone riding their bike to the store, without their helmet I'll say, "Nice day for a ride isn't it."

Instead of an obnoxious, "Wear your F'in Helmet." shirt.

george


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

george_da_trog said:


> 0.00085%
> 
> .079% of 85 million riders end up in the hospital due to head injuries.
> .03% of 85 million end up in the hospital over night with a head injury.
> ...


Well, Mr. Trog you are a bit confused, aren't you? You're stats are considering the OVERALL odds (making a proportion of all bikes sold) of being hit, not being hit and sent to the hospital. These stats are for victims.

Like I said; I've broke two helmets over 30 years, and I've been to the emergency room over 6 times from breaking a hand, getting rocks scrubbed off my a$$, etc. But, I ride bikes all the time. So my odds are that I will hit the ground probably more often than the Wal-mart bike guy who rides it to the market for his beer or you. I wear a helmet when I ride. I don't wear a helmet when I go to my market, yeah, a half mile to the market is silly to get your kit together.

And I don't say "Wear your F'in Helmet."


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

johnnyb said:


> And I don't say "Wear your F'in Helmet."


Someone does. Go back and check the thread.

The point of the original article is that helmet laws discourage riding which is a out weights the increase safety of wearing a helmet.

Now, the helmet evangelists have gone on to explain how dangerous cycling is, and to prove it they explained how they would have died if not for their helmet. They won't ride with people who don't wear helmets, even riding to the store almost cost them their lives, etc etc.

The stats you posted actually showed how rare cycling head injures are over all. I'm specifically talking general population.

It'd be interesting to see those stats broken down for people who are recreational cyclists vs those who ride bikes utilitarily.

On a per mile basis, I seriously doubt that a recreational cyclist is at a higher risk than an average cyclist. I have no stats to back it up.

But, very few people on a bike get killed every year. Giving someone a hard time for not wearing a helmet is like giving a jogger a hard time for running outside since he might get struck by lightning.

george


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

George,

I went back to the site I was getting my stats from and found this interesting report about baby boomers (i.e. us) are a lot more active and are hurting ourselves more in sports--especially cycling. I agree the numbers are miniscule, but tell that to the person that gets hurt. 

Your point about other countries that have dedicated lanes and that more people ride and ride without helmets says alot about the respect cars and riders give each other. I wonder what the stats are for like China or Amsterdam?

But getting back to us Americans riders, its really important to think about the activity at hand and getting prepped for it. Personal responsibility will probably save your life more than a helmet will. Did you look at the "Portal thread"?

He said, "There wasn't room for error on that trail, but whose to say you shouldn't ride something if you know you can do it clean. If I rode it every day I don't think I'd ride through the sketchy bits each time, but as an occasional visitor I'll probably keep doing it."

Those guys are prepped, but I don't think a helmet or armour will save them if they freefall---but they took their odds and made it. 

You just got to be aware of what you're doing.

Here's the report. I'm going home now.

j

Consumer Product Safety Review - Spring, 2000
Baby Boomer Sports Injuries

Sports-related injuries among those ages 35 to 54 (Baby boomers) increased 33 per cent from 1991 to 1998.

The population in that age bracket increased from 65 to 79 million, explaining some of the increase.

In 1998, bicycling accounted for the largest number treated in hospital emergency rooms. Bike injuries were over 65,000, while basketball injuries in second place were under 50,000.

In 1998, a total of 290 boomers died in bicycle crashes, with 255 involving a car (88 per cent).

In 1998, no other sport killed as many boomers. Swimming was a distant second with 67 deaths, skiing third with 7 deaths.

In 1998, baby boomers on bicycles died from head injuries at nearly twice the rate of children on bikes. CPSC believes that the difference in death rates is due to more helmet use by children.
CPSC believes that 69 per cent of children wear bike helmets and only 43 per cent of boomers.


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

No it's not George. You can't use overall accident occurrences in the entire bicycling population as the crux of your argument. If you're inhabiting this forum it suggests you ride a lot, probably on trails and in hazardous areas and are probably pushing yourself and your limits regularly when you ride. This moves you way up the list of likely candidates for an accident. 

Can I also point out that, if my guessed figures are right, approx 1 in 4 people in the US is classified as a bike rider. Do you see those ratios around you? Or are they, most likely, derived from bike sales per year, most of which end up in someone's back shed after a couple of rides.


----------



## CranxOC (Jun 28, 2004)

I have a saying about helmetless rider:

There are two types: Those who ARE retarded and those who are destined to become that way. 

There is no "in between."


----------



## CranxOC (Jun 28, 2004)

4212darren said:


> ...that I rode all through the 70's without a helmut. It wasn't even mentioned. Maybe the odd over protective parent would make junior put on a hockey helmut for his first couple of times out but that was it. I crashed and burned quite a few times and had a few concusions but miracalesly(sp?) I escaped serious injury.
> 
> Fast foward 30 years and I'm amazed at the number of cyclists that wear a helmut. Kids and adults. Though it's the law in a few provinces it's mostly voluntarily. Mushroom heads rule!


In the 1970's Asbestos was "A OK," Ford Pintos were considered decent cars and the color of choice for many North American households was mustard yellow. In other words, just becasuse you did or did not do something "back in the 70's...," that does not mean that whatever it was that you were doing/not doing was smart.

BTW, "Helmut" is a German name, "helmet" is the thing one puts on their heads for protection.


----------



## Jouster (Aug 1, 2005)

Captain Kana said:


> Haven't touched a bong or the evil weed in 25 years . No personal attacks coming from this guy.
> 
> I didn't post any stats. You got any? The number one killer in the USA is car accidents. Number 2 is the regular old normal common flu. Do your own search.
> 
> ...


It's just a saying, don't get the panties twisted. 

Yes, I have stats.

First, heart disease is, by far, the leading cause of death:
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Second, you have to normalize the stats from the page you quoted. This means that you have to divide the death rates in driving cars by the total number of hours that everyone spends driving. Do the same for biking.

Third, cars have numerous safety features including airbags. Any idea why they are there?

Actually, I agree that there doesn't need to be laws . However, my reason is Darwinian in nature.


----------



## Bob the Wheelbuilder (Sep 21, 2003)

Libertarianism is attractive, but not very practical. Kind of like communism for people who got B's in High School instead of C's. 

If taxation makes me want to skip work, should the government stop levying taxes altogether or can individuals be inconvenienced in order to benefit the whole of society? Do we really bear the brunt of our mishaps all by ourselves, or does society have a say in regulating our behavior because of its societal impact?

Immunizations, seatbelts and bicycle helmets are going to save some indivuduals catastrophic injuries and illnesses. The financial cost of the most severe problems will usually be paid by society, as most people can't pay for a lifetime of disability on their own.

I say if you have a trust fund or are paid up on your multimillion dollars of insurance coverage, do what you want. If not, wear a helmet.

Car accidents and flu are quite a ways down the list for causes of death, at least until avian flu becomes transmissible human to human.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

*I'm wearing a helmet that finally fits right...*

What I don't like are riders who scold others for NOT wearing a helmet.And what do the helmet police do? Run a red light through a busy intersection while wearing a helmet and day-glo yellow safety vests. 
That really looks good to the non-riding public.YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.


----------



## Roger G (Feb 10, 2005)

*gloves*



djcrb9 said:


> I don't ride slower without a helmet. That's just dumb random hypothesis on your part,
> and much less scientific than my theory of you being a moron.


Besides the fact that I'm a certified non-moron,  I've actually measured my speed
going down the same descent with different degrees of protectional clothing
and I was _considerably_ faster with more protection, but maybe you are right
and this only applies to people with at least a minute amount of body awareness.
I really pity people who are not capable of adapting their riding style to their degree
of protection or to the danger potential of the situation. Risk compensation is the keyword!

I _do_ wear gloves all the time because I fall on my hands a lot when I'm mountain biking
(well, like once every two months maybe) and I do wear a helmet because I can ride much 
faster than without one, because I think it looks more "professional" and because it's
mandatory in races anyway. Oh - sunglasses are far more important than helmets for 
riding safety, too. Any object that hits you in the eye at 30 mph will make you crash with 
a very high probability.



Bob the Wheelbuilder said:


> Immunizations, seatbelts and bicycle helmets are going to save some indivuduals catastrophic injuries and illnesses. The financial cost of the most severe problems will usually be paid by society, as most people can't pay for a lifetime of disability on their own.


Well, you can minimize thes cost by making people wear helmets or you can make riding
safer, like it happened in bicycle-friendly countries:


british medical journal said:


> The board's previous reports have concluded that the benefit to health of regular exercise from cycling outweighs the British cyclist's comparatively high risk of trauma. In countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark pedestrians and cyclists form a much smaller proportion of those injured or killed on the road, though helmets are little used. Instead, these countries have concentrated on safety programmes to reduce motor traffic speeds to 30 km/h in urban areas and separate cyclists from fast moving traffic.


But then, slowing down traffic wouldn't be very popular with the car industry and not
making helmets compulsory would be even less popular with the helmet manufacturers...
The money makes the laws.

"Casualty trends from countries and towns where helmet use has become significant show no reductions in serious or fatal injuries attributable to helmets. In many cases the number or severity of injuries has increased."
read more here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/index.html

Quite good Australian link:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

george_da_trog said:


> So you too wear a helmet to protect you when you're eventually hit by a car.


YES actual that is one reason and it's also why I try to stick to off-road riding to avoid cars - I've seen the underside of a 240ZX and it wasn't a fun experience. As for being hit by the car, you're assuming (and you know what they say when you assume) that everyone will get hit head on by the car or something like that, when in fact most such contact would be more of a brushing as they pass you that would knock you into the ditch and away from them.

Also the amount of times a helmet has saved my head while on a trail I cannot count - from low hanging branches etc. I will always wear a helmet as I've not got a lot left to damage I fear from earlier forays into many objects without a helmet as a kid. As for seatbelts I'm proof they work, if not I would have gone through the windshield of my car and rammed head first into a lorrie (sp?)



george_da_trog said:


> If riding a bike is so dangerous and the chance of being hit by a car so great, why even ride WITH a helmet? My head may survive, but I'm going to be pretty torn up. I'll most likely have to go to the hospital, miss work, go through physical therapy.
> george


Yeh I mean $hit that would be horrible to not actually die and have to go through some months of physical therapy and miss a little work - I mean seriously, how horrific and un-manly would that be.


----------



## hugh088 (Feb 1, 2004)

You can make stats make any point. Yes the odd of getting killed are very low, sort of like the chances of winning the lottery. But some people put far more money in the lottery every year then the cost of a helmet. At the end of the day if you lost the lottery you will still be alive just out the money you wasted on the ticket. On the the other hand if you win the dead bicyclist lottery, your dead, or you could be a runner up with brain injury.
Another stat is that of the 725 people who died that year 100%...
will never ride again.
left loved ones behind
will never give their children a hug again
will never come up behind their wife while she's doing the dishes and rub your cheek in her hair. God, I love doing that and what follows.......... me drying.
Don't look at the stats look at the cost. 
Chris


----------



## ochirider (Dec 15, 2005)

Do the laws we are talking about specify what kind of helmet, maybe we should all be nipping round to the corner shop with a full-face! One thing i find is that when i am just messing around the neighbourhood i usually find something cool to jump off or hop onto. I often forget that i don't have my lid on if i have decided to ride without, and usually realise afterwards that i just did something really stupid. So i tend to wear even for short road rides, not sure it should be a law though, we got too many of those already!


----------



## hugh088 (Feb 1, 2004)

You can make stats make any point. Yes the odd of getting killed are very low, sort of like the chances of winning the lottery. But some people put far more money in the lottery every year then the cost of a helmet. At the end of the day if you lost the lottery you will still be alive just out the money you wasted on the ticket. On the the other hand if you win the dead bicyclist lottery, your dead, or you could be a runner up with brain injury.
Another stat is that of the 725 people who died that year 100%...
will never ride again.
left loved ones behind
will never give their children a hug again
will never come up behind their wife while she's doing the dishes and rub your cheek in her hair. God, I love doing that and what follows.......... me drying.
Don't look at the stats look at the cost. 
Chris


----------



## tonyl11 (Aug 31, 2005)

I'm almost afraid to post to this thread because it's one of those topics that will fore ever be deadlocked.

We as humans don't think anything bad will happen to us until it does. I ride my bicycle (NO Winter) 3-4 times a week (now) and have a motorcycle for ten plus years.

when I was a teenager on my stupid 10 speed just around the start of the whole helmet push (Early 90's for me). I was riding to work down a hill went around a corner and must of hit some sand? and wound up in the Intensive care unit for about a week with severe head trauma. I now have a scar from about a 1/2 inch above my right eye to about 4 inch's to the back of my head. Luckily I have thick hair that covers most of it (For now!!) If I had been wearing a helmet with out a doubt I would have been maybe late for work instead of in the E.R.

The whole debate is deeper than the actually aspect of wearing a stupid helmet. I try to wear my helmet(s) all the time. There has been a few rare moments (Bike week under peer pressure sitting in line with a million other bikers) and I was hyper aware that I didn't have my helmet on and all I could think about was the fact I don't even remember what happened to me when I was a kid( Hitting a tree is what the E.R. told my parents.)

Nobody can argue that any kind of protection is helpful. It's the aspect that nobody wants to be told what to do! I can't believe some the stupid arguments that I've heard from people (Bicycle or motor) about not wearing a helmet vs. wearing one. We don't believe it will happen to us because it hasn't yet. And we believe the odds are in our favor. 

If you want to endanger yourself I'm not going to stop you. If you ride with me I'll say something once but that's it. 

Let this thread continue……..


----------



## jrm (Jan 12, 2004)

*Notice also that..*

in neither pic are the cyclists sharing the travelway with vehicles.They have a separated travelway..This sez alot for other countries treatment of cycling as a viable egknowledged form of transpo..

PS: im still wearing my helmet..


----------



## scrublover (Dec 30, 2003)

george_da_trog said:


> So you wear a helmet to protect you from being hit by a car?
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


not to protect from cars, but.....

been hit twice. both times came away unscathed, other than broken helmets. will a helmet save a life? maybe. maybe not. perhaps i'd only end up eating through a straw and brain damaged. perhaps minor injuries. perhaps none. no easy anser, no way to predict. i wear mine anyhow.

now, if i lived in a more cycling friendly society with fewer cars on the roads, i'd be more inclined to go without.

p.s.: pete does it better.


----------



## Impy (Jan 6, 2004)

jonlong said:


> Interesting. Which is more important, fitness or safety? I think they need to do more research, though, to see if the helmet law is actually the cause of the decrease in cyclists.


Since we don't have a helmet law in the states, we can easily see by the general fitness and lack of obesity in the US that lack of helmet laws do encourage cycling.  

As far as safety thing goes, it's all about personal choices. It's the same when I see some fat diabetic smoker roll into the hospital with a gangrenous leg from not taking care of himself - I'm irritated that his lack of self care led to an obvious and preventable medical condition that is now a huge expensive problem that drains from resources that might be available for basic health care and prevention for a larger segment of the population. But in the end I still take care of him, think *"thank god that's not me"* and do as much as I can to promote my own health and prevent my own legs from getting gangrenous.

I wear a helmet most places. I don't generally care if you do or not, I'll still be there in the hospital and still take care of you when you end up there, but I will be thinking *"thank god that's not me"*.


----------



## blender (Oct 28, 2005)

johnnyb said:


> Now the real story. I've broken two helmets. Once smashing into a storm-lowered tree branch around blind corner at about 10 mph. It knocked me off my bike and down the hillside. I got up, had a stiff neck but rode home and bought a new helmet.


this just happened to me last weekend.. result -> a cracked helmet, and a really sore neck.
thank god for the helmet, would have been dead otherwise.. i don't get on my bike without it, even if i'm tooling around in the parking lot.


----------



## nogearshere (Mar 7, 2005)

...let those that ride decide...
i decided, i wear one everywhere, regardless of distance - my choice. i have just needed it one too many times.

now for fellow CDN's (with gratis healthcare - give or take) i think that if you ride 'sans-lid' you waive your right to complete medical coverage...but i also think nonseatbelt wearers, smokers, overweight people and others flipant with their health should pay user fees. but i, sir, am an ass.


----------



## Captain Kana (Jan 13, 2004)

johnnyb said:


> Okay,
> 
> I've done some legwork for y'all.
> I keep getting these emails from this topic so and I'm at work all alone on a Sunday
> ...


I find it funny that the page you link says right at the top:

"Summary: Below are acres of stats from every source we can find. Most of them are probably inaccurate. Take your pick!"

Dan C.


----------



## jakazz (Feb 15, 2006)

screw the laws, i first started riding without a helmut, never crashed, got helmut started crashing, got armor started crashing more, got full armor protection started breaking bones,......... whats the moral, who give s a ****. if you die screw ya... no one's innocent.... and thats the lesson, everyone dies its a fact of life, either accept it or hide in a closet


thats all folks


----------



## Captain Kana (Jan 13, 2004)

Jouster said:


> Second, you have to normalize the stats from the page you quoted. This means that you have to divide the death rates in driving cars by the total number of hours that everyone spends driving. Do the same for biking.


I was wondering if you would see that. That being said, you cannot deny that you have a much greater chance of death and injury in a car then on a bike.

You still haven't answered the question. Why don't you wear a helmet in your car?

Why don't people refuse to drive on the road because the person in the car next to them doesn't have a helmet on?

I guarantee, more people have experience with friends, reletives, and strangers being in car accidents then bike accidents. The biggest factor is the speed that is traveled. If I'm climbing a hill at 5 to 8 mph with no helmet, it can't be any worse then running down the road on foot with no helmet.

Dan C.


----------



## jakazz (Feb 15, 2006)

no its true, if youre fat u should pay more, if you smoke you should pay more, if you have kids, you should pay more prop tax, if you use more u should pay more. this aint comunism people, u pay for ur actions, my health insurance is way up there because the program i'm in doesnt differentiate between families and singles, so i'm getting screwed, i'm paying for your kids, oh and the auto ins in my state same, i pay for dumbass's who drive like ****. i'm so sick of people crying that someone else needs to take care of them because they **** on themselves. 

hey i dont mind paying for mentaly challenged, "at birth", not these jerks whose wife left them , they got hooked on crack and now get ss benefits, that i will never recieve..... screw them all I say, and let those who are the strongest prevail......


wowow a little over the edge maybe ...............but eh!


----------



## burdenofproof (Mar 27, 2006)

*Simple human*

It seems a lot of people are running with the same concept of non-seatbelt wearers, "I"d rather be thrown free than stuck in a burning car." Part of the question is does the pros of wearing a helmet out weight the cons. When a con is the potentiality of being a vegetable or brain damage in general. Even with paralysis you still have a productive mind.

The basic idea here is without you brain, you have nothing. No self, no bike, no perception, no nuthin. Avoiding an existential argument beyond that, grow some nuts to go along with that brain and wear a helmet despite what ridicule you may endure. As is the case with a friend of mine, do you want have to look back and think "maybe if I had been wearing a helmet I could remember how to ride a bike?" Thats one ***** of a maybe.

Or as my father used to say, "If you don't know why you need a helmet, then you probably don't need one." Here's to evolutions last throes.


----------



## carnage (Nov 17, 2005)

do seat belt laws discourage people from driving?

on a side note, a helmet DID save my life 2 years ago. end of story. i was out for close to 3 weeks. when ever i go on a major ride i wear my helmet now, if im just going to the 7-11 around the corner then more often then not ill leave the helmet at home


----------



## fsp (Feb 15, 2006)

george_da_trog said:


> Not everyone agrees...
> 
> george


No kidding.

It's neat to observe this thread. Regardless of what people think, they're committed 1000% to their hypothetical situations & anecdotal "evidence".


----------



## Fisty (Sep 19, 2005)

After hitting my head into the corner of a concrete retaining wall at 30mph , there is no debate for me as far as health concerns. Dead guys arent too healthy!!!!!


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

CranxOC said:


> I have a saying about helmetless rider:
> 
> There are two types: Those who ARE retarded and those who are destined to become that way.
> 
> There is no "in between."


So, when did you stop wearing a helmet?

Go back and refer to the pictures of people who spend every day riding to and from work most thier lives and somehow manage to escape the pull of retardation, unlike some of the comments on this page.

george


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

tonyl11 said:


> Nobody can argue that any kind of protection is helpful. It's the aspect that nobody wants to be told what to do! I can't believe some the stupid arguments that I've heard from people (Bicycle or motor) about not wearing a helmet vs. wearing one. We don't believe it will happen to us because it hasn't yet. And we believe the odds are in our favor.
> 
> If you want to endanger yourself I'm not going to stop you. If you ride with me I'll say something once but that's it.
> 
> Let this thread continue&#8230;&#8230;..


From my end this has nothing to do with if you should or shouldn't wear a helmet. My point deals with helmet nazis and helmet laws and their effects on cycling as a whole.

Again, I believe that these attitudes prevent more people from cycling and hurt the overall health of the society. A helmet will rarely save someone's life but cyclign daily will surely improve it. It's better for you health, it's better for the environment it's better all around.

None has yet to answer this question, I've asked it repeatedly.

What bothers you more?

Someone riding to the store without a helmet.

or

Someone driving a short distance to the store in their car.

george


----------



## nonoy_d (Jun 27, 2005)

*Media Twist*

George_da_trog,
This is just one way by which media whether written, television, radio, and now the blog could twist information. I believe Ms Robinson did have an observation which she published. Unless I see the whole journal article then I would find out how she (they) collected her data and how it was analyzed. It is easy to make conclusions on so trivial results, magnify it and think this is real, palpable. That way funding for further study can be done, at times it is a waste of resources and if the funds come from the federal budget our tax dollars.
Bottom line just be skeptical...
JD


----------



## Joe Sausagehead (Feb 27, 2006)

*This thread is too long already....*

...and I haven't read all the posts, but it's interesting to note that more pedestrians are killed by cars annually in the US than are bicyclists, and no one is advocating mandatory helmet laws for walkers.

Moreover, head injuries cause something like 150,000 deaths in auto accidents in America every year, but no one advocates mandatory helmets for drivers.

When I look at the plastic hats full of holes that Giro is selling for $129, I have to wonder if we aren't all being suckered into a false sense of security anyway. The ANSI and SNELL tests don't exactly replicate real-world conditions. I'm guessing that safe riding practices would save more lives than helmets, and that helmet use probably inspires more reckless riding.

Wear one if you want to -- I often do -- but mandating or haranguing people into buying overpriced beer coolers for their heads seems invasive to me.


----------



## Jouster (Aug 1, 2005)

Captain Kana said:


> I was wondering if you would see that. That being said, you cannot deny that you have a much greater chance of death and injury in a car then on a bike.


Per hour? I can debate it!



Captain Kana said:


> You still haven't answered the question. Why don't you wear a helmet in your car?


I don't wear a helmet because I have an airbag. Side and front. Don't have those on the bike. But it's still an excellent point because many don't.



Captain Kana said:


> Why don't people refuse to drive on the road because the person in the car next to them doesn't have a helmet on?


I have no idea. I have no problem sharing the trails with people who don't wear them on the bike.

They say 3 percent of the people use 5 to 6 percent of their brain
97 percent use 3 percent and the rest goes down the drain
I'll never know which one I am but I'll bet you my last dime
99 percent think with 3 percent 100 percent of the time
64 percent of all the world's statistics are made up right there on the spot
82.4 percent of people believe 'em whether they're accurate statistics or not
I don't know what you believe but I do know there's no doubt
I need another double shot of something 90 proof
I got too much to think about

The rest is at http://www.toddsnider.net/lyrics/stats.pdf


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

Here's a philosophical thought: Solipsism. Meaning, we or I, are or am the center of our or my reality and everything around us is the creation of our own reality. Take that away and what do we or I have? Nothing. When you black out from a crash, that is what you get.

But getting back to what George says his point of the thread:

What bothers you more?

Someone riding to the store without a helmet.(?)

or 

Someone driving a short distance to the store in their car. (?)

I have to say driving a short distance in a car. By the way, gas is going to get more expensive. Are you going to wear a helmet when you decide that getting beer is more important than buying a gallon of gas that is more expensive than a six-pack?


----------



## Joe Sausagehead (Feb 27, 2006)

johnnyb said:


> What bothers you more? Someone riding to the store without a helmet.(?) or Someone driving a short distance to the store in their car. (?)


One of Solipcism's flaws: The proposition 'I am the only mind which exists' makes sense only to the extent to which it is expressed in a public language, and the existence of such language itself implies the existence of a social context. Solipsism presupposes the very thing which it seeks to deny: the very fact that solipsistic thoughts are thinkable in the first instance implies the existence of the public, shared, intersubjective world which they purport to call into question.

But more to the point, what bothers me more than any either of those two options above is the notion that as an adult I need strangers or the government to parent me.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

Joe,

I bring up solipcism as an idea because of the comments people on this thread have made about wearing a helmet or not. Personal responsibility SHOULD be based on your own choices and the awareness of your own consciousness to the surroundings around you. I don't need the government or Dad to tell me to wear a helmet, because I've experienced the hard way the differences of wearing a helmet or not. I make a personal choice everytime I ride regardless of what other people think. 

The theory (solipsicm) is flawed, I agree, because you can't fully participate in society from that point of view. Its selfish, but it sums some of the comments people make on this topic. The compulsive couch potatoes who become a burden to society in the end of their indulgent lifestyles are ruining the economy and probably the planet.

I just want it to stop raining here in Northern California so I can go out and get a ride where I don't get muddy chainsuck.

j


----------



## Fisty (Sep 19, 2005)

johnnyb said:


> Joe,
> 
> I bring up solipcism as an idea because of the comments people on this thread have made about wearing a helmet or not. Personal responsibility SHOULD be based on your own choices and the awareness of your own consciousness to the surroundings around you. I don't need the government or Dad to tell me to wear a helmet, because I've experienced the hard way the differences of wearing a helmet or not. I make a personal choice everytime I ride regardless of what other people think.
> 
> ...


Ok, I think I understand, Wear a helmet or not and the world is goin to $#*T. Gotcha!


----------



## Captain Kana (Jan 13, 2004)

johnnyb said:


> I just want it to stop raining here in Northern California so I can go out and get a ride where I don't get muddy chainsuck.j


Ride a singlespeed. I will today in the rain. Of course, that's another discussion but no chainsuck.

Dan C.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

Captain,

I'm ordering up the Redline 29er when it comes out April 8 (thats what Mikes Bikes sez).
Can't wait, mmmm 29 inches of fun for under $500 bucks!


----------



## Duncan! (Jan 15, 2004)

My kid is "forced" to wear a helmet so I guess I'm one of those over-protective parents. He doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Sorry, the "helmets stopped me from exercising" excuse is lame-sauce. Have fewer kids played organized football, baseball and hockey since helmets became mandatory? As for the adults, whatever became of taking *personal responsibility* for your own well-being (health and safety)?


----------



## fsp (Feb 15, 2006)

Duncan! said:


> As for the adults, whatever became of taking *personal responsibility* for your own well-being (health and safety)?


Personal responsibility? You sound like an anarchist. Here in the civilised world, we are above personal responsibility. We have laws instead. What we can and can't get away with in the eyes of the law is as responsible as we need to be.


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

No one is above personal responsibility. To assume that personal responsibility doesn't apply to them shows great ignorance or arrogance.


----------



## fsp (Feb 15, 2006)

Yeah, that sarcasms a *****.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

Umm, yeah I agree. Is he doing a 5-foot drop off the front porch? Nice looking helmet.


----------



## lebikerboy (Jan 19, 2005)

Well as luck would have it...I was out riding today and had an OTB experience. I came down headfirst on a babyhead with my Giro Semi MX helmet. Helmet's toast but I'm just a little banged up.


----------



## fsp (Feb 15, 2006)

lebikerboy said:


> Well as luck would have it...I was out riding today and had an OTB experience. I came down headfirst on a babyhead with my Giro Semi MX helmet. Helmet's toast but I'm just a little banged up.


That's nice. Glad you're ok.

What we're talking about in this thread is whether or not because something is "better" means we it has to be a law, forced upon everyone, with fines, and an infrastructure to support it. There are many people* that won't ride bikes because they don't like strapping uncomfortable headgear** on. The law, while keeping those on bikes safer on average, does keep some unknown number of people off their bikes, and in cars, actually making the roads more dangerous, not less, & contributing to the overall sloth, laziness, environmental damage, and dependency on oil and the auto industry that we have today.

The big issue is an annoyance with our government. It goes like this: For a long time, people learned from their mistakes. Then one day, people realized they could learn from other peoples mistakes. People got so used to this, that when new bad things happened, they blamed everyone else for not giving them an example to learn from. This made our government feel like they needed to pass a law to protect us from ourselves in every possible situation we might encounter. People continued to get away with everything they possibly could within the law, suing the government for not doing a good enough job, and the government in turn spend a lot of our money making very black & white laws to hopefully keep us in line and protect itself. All the while, the few lawyers and politicians raising the stakes are getting filthy rich while watching the circus unfolding in front of them.

Some of us pine for the days when we could touch a hot stove and get burned, learning things ourselves, painful or otherwise. We want to feel the risk associated with this life as we go through it, not be protected by it in a hazy cloud which we don't fully understand by people we don't know. We want to take that risk, that we could lose balance and ride off a cliff, or get hit by a car and maimed or killed, because sometimes, feeling the wind rush through your hair is enough. Some of us have the resources to afford to take these kind of risks without being a burden to others, and we're happy to take them. There are people who don't drive with a seatbelt on as well. I spent 5 years not wearing a seatbelt. I knew the stakes were higher, but I was willing to take that risk. I'd been in an accident where the car was crushed in such a way that neither of us could get out, and we could see the car was burning in back. It was total hell for an instant that stretched on for eternity. I didn't even want to get in a car after that, and when I did, strapping myself to it was not an option. I was also in a position where I'd done everything I wanted to do in my life, had all I wanted to have, and wasn't going to kill myself or anything, but if the opportunity came along to end it all, I'd take it, even at the risk of being a veggie. Hell I rode in traffic every day for a decade. Everyone who knew me was well instructed what to do with me should I wind up a vegetable. I got at least 20 tickets for not wearing a seatbelt. Paid em all, had a lot of interesting conversations with a lot of nice people that just weren't coming from where I was coming from. They knew they liked people and couldn't see for a second why they should just let some people be.

Incidentally, I wear a helmet every time I ride. But I've ridden from my car in the parking lot 100 feet to hand somebody a wrench and been yelled and hollered at "Put your helmet on!!!" like I'm some kind of idiot. I just say "You mean it's safer to ride my bike with a helmet? Thank you! I had no idea..."

* There are many. Whether those are the people included in the questionable statistic or not is beside the point. Most people I know don't bike, and when asked why not (and yes, I ask them) say "I would never go out looking like that.", or "I tried it once, but it was uncomfortable as hell wearing all that stuff. Even the bike hurt my ass".)

** Before we all need to point out that our nice helmets ARE comfortable, keep in mind, we're not talking about you & I. We're talking about people who don't know to adjust their helmet/ don't have a properly fitting helmet, or just don't like things strapped to their heads. People who gave it 5 minutes, hated it, and never tried it again.

This is more words than I've ever written at once. Jeez.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

fsp said:


> .
> 
> The big issue is an annoyance with our government. It goes like this: For a long time, people learned from their mistakes. Then one day, people realized they could learn from other peoples mistakes. People got so used to this, that when new bad things happened, they blamed everyone else for not giving them an example to learn from. This made our government feel like they needed to pass a law to protect us from ourselves in every possible situation we might encounter. People continued to get away with everything they possibly could within the law, suing the government for not doing a good enough job, and the government in turn spend a lot of our money making very black & white laws to hopefully keep us in line and protect itself. All the while, the few lawyers and politicians raising the stakes are getting filthy rich while watching the circus unfolding in front of them.


You don't get it, the problem isn't the government, the problem is US, the PEOPLE. We are the ones that take every and any opportunity to sue in situations, that's the reason we have to have laws like this. It's the people that can't act responsibly, and because of this, the government has to step in. The cause isn't with the officials, the cause is the people down the street from you that would sue you if they thought they could make money and get away with it. That's why we are protected from ourselves.

There is no way you can "take responsibility' when you don't wear a helmet. These laws exist in so many dimentions and situations, and besides the laws, there's human nature. If you tell your buddies you don't care and you are not going to wear a helmet, do you think they'll just leave you for dead when you slam your head on concrete? No, someone will probably call the medics, and you'll go to the hospital, and put a burdon on everyone and the system. And of course the parents or loved ones will try to sue the owner of whatever property it happened on, or whatever.

It sounds like you're one of the "blame everything on the government" people, oil prices, economy, global warming, jobs, and a multitude of other factors that actually result from our invidual resistance to make sacrifices and keep the "good life" going. The government will NEVER change unless the people change first and then elect the officials that represent their beliefs. That may not happen for a very long time, but that's what has to happen.

Look left and look right. That's the reason things are the way they are.


----------



## fsp (Feb 15, 2006)

Close, but you seem to be the one who didn't get it. Read that paragraph again. Does it sound like the governments fault? No. They reacted to our actions. That's exactly what I was saying. But thanks for talking down to me anyway. That was really neccessary.

And yes, when I slam my head into the concrete again, I'll either recover again on my own, or not, and I'm just fine with either. Yes, those friends of mine you seem to know better than I know damn well if they call the medics again like they did the first time, and it costs me another $200,000 out of my pocket like it did then, I'm going to be livid with them, & not because of the money. But they won't make that mistake again. We went through it after they botched it the first time.

I'm an idealist, and then theres reality. Mine or yours? No Jayem, I don't live in your reality. Clearly. But really, yours sounds great...


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

fsp said:


> Close, but you seem to be the one who didn't get it. Read that paragraph again. Does it sound like the governments fault? No. They reacted to our actions. That's exactly what I was saying. But thanks for talking down to me anyway. That was really neccessary.


Good. The gin and tonic sometimes makes it hard to read the complete paragraph. Cheers.


----------



## Bob the Wheelbuilder (Sep 21, 2003)

Wouldn't it be fair for me not to have to pay the percentage of my taxes that are spent:

on long term care for the care of the vegetating lumps of protoplasm who were people who took risks I won't...

for liver transplants and addiction treatment for those who abuse drugs I don't...

for those who suffer from sexually transmitted diseases I don't expose myself to...

for social programs and even food for those that can work but don't?

Fair, yes, but it sure ain't gonna happen.

I think it would be nice if people were smart enough to do the right thing, and responsible enough to pay the consequences if they didn't, but that's not the American way.

I don't think helmet laws will fix much of anything, but saying people aren't fit because of them is silly. There are a huge number of fat slobs that don't ride bikes in my town. We have no helmet laws locally. They must have some other excuse.


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

fsp said:


> Yeah, that sarcasms a *****.


Oops that'll teach me not to respond to what's in my email's inbox without reading the rest of the thread first.


----------

