View Poll Results: What Are Your Helmet Wearing Habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
52
10.40%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
24
4.80%
I've always worn a helmet
208
41.60%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
126
25.20%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
90
18.00%
Voters: 500. You may not vote on this poll
The Helmet Thread 2
#2801
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
I think I said quite a bit, addressing what appear to me to be gaps in your understanding of the subject. You didn't understand how bike helmets mitigate impact for instance. I suspect that the role of rotational acceleration in concussions is new to you. I can explain how you've mistaken maeloch's reasoning if you like, or not if you wish to remain unaware of what he meant.
#2802
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Humorous? After 2800 post you'd think there would be some concensus. Yet some of us return to look back down the hole.
https://youtu.be/GAPbZDit5_w
https://youtu.be/GAPbZDit5_w
#2803
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: France
Posts: 1,030
Bikes: Brompton, Time, Bianchi, Jan Janssen, Peugeot
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
I think I said quite a bit, addressing what appear to me to be gaps in your understanding of the subject. You didn't understand how bike helmets mitigate impact for instance. I suspect that the role of rotational acceleration in concussions is new to you. I can explain how you've mistaken maeloch's reasoning if you like, or not if you wish to remain unaware of what he meant.
Pleased to see that, thankfully, the voting shows people are not fooled by this nonsense being promulgated here. On that happy note, ciao amici, tea calls.
#2804
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Regardless of whether maelochs is "always right in his own mind", he has in this case made a rational argument that refutes your idea. Specifically that because helmets are safety devices, and because head injuries do happen while cycling, it stands to reason that any rider should rationally use a helmet. He was trying to illustrate that your reasons are insufficient to rationally form that conclusion.
#2805
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: France
Posts: 1,030
Bikes: Brompton, Time, Bianchi, Jan Janssen, Peugeot
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
I'm not talking about anyone personally, neither him nor you. I don't really see the attraction of it, and will not continue in that vein, but I am willing to continue to present facts and logic.
Regardless of whether maelochs is "always right in his own mind", he has in this case made a rational argument that refutes your idea. Specifically that because helmets are safety devices, and because head injuries do happen while cycling, it stands to reason that any rider should rationally use a helmet. He was trying to illustrate that your reasons are insufficient to rationally form that conclusion.
Regardless of whether maelochs is "always right in his own mind", he has in this case made a rational argument that refutes your idea. Specifically that because helmets are safety devices, and because head injuries do happen while cycling, it stands to reason that any rider should rationally use a helmet. He was trying to illustrate that your reasons are insufficient to rationally form that conclusion.
Yes, I'm happy you've finally decided to start using facts and logic, though you may find it an uphill battle at first. I look forward to seeing your tentative steps in the right direction tomorrow.
#2806
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Have to sign off now, cricket is on the TV. Frankly, I don't really care, since rationality and he seem to be on different sides of the fence - here's the definition from the OED of rational, so you can understand. By the way, how do you think people should rationally use a helmet? In my experience, there is only one way you can wear a helmet, but you might have different ideas on your side of the pond.
Yes, I'm happy you've finally decided to start using facts and logic, though you may find it an uphill battle at first. I look forward to seeing your tentative steps in the right direction tomorrow.
Yes, I'm happy you've finally decided to start using facts and logic, though you may find it an uphill battle at first. I look forward to seeing your tentative steps in the right direction tomorrow.
#2807
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Groningen
Posts: 1,308
Bikes: Gazelle rod brakes, Batavus compact, Peugeot hybrid
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6037 Post(s)
Liked 969 Times
in
742 Posts
That's my stake in this discussion, I know I'm lucky with my cycling environment and I don't feel I have to defend my choice not to wear one, it's even not really a choice and it will never be mandatory here. It's about keeping the idea of safe and therefore helmetless cycling alive everywhere.
My own view is that "studies" are not going to settle this matter anytime soon. Look up "replication crisis" in the behavioral sciences. Car safety involves far more vehicles and miles of travel, making it more amenable to scientific study, and still it's difficult. Also, the insurance companies have a vested interest in gathering good data for cars. Cycling will always be rare enough in the US that it won't rise to the level of being a public health issue. We have bigger fish to fry. Driving a car is more dangerous than it should be.
In the absence of convincing studies, the next best thing for me is just to use my own common sense. Naturally I can't force that on anybody else.
In the absence of convincing studies, the next best thing for me is just to use my own common sense. Naturally I can't force that on anybody else.
#2808
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 13,026
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 131 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4894 Post(s)
Liked 4,064 Times
in
2,633 Posts
Every time I've sat down to do the math with probability, the cost of helmets and the cost of an accident where a helmet was not worn vs one where it was, and extrapolating this to a calculated "dollar value" to the brain that the helmet is designed to protect, I keep coming to the same conclusion. That those who choose to not wear helmets either didn't go through this process, have no idea what a brain injury can cost (even just in greenbacks, never mind the life quality stuff) or they have a realistic idea of what their life and noggin are actually worth. (Not enough to justify $100 for a helmet and put it on.)
Actually this analysis tends to favor non-helmet use, backed by my experience. Had I not worn a helmet on that ride in 1977, I would have saved the $35 I paid for it (had I left it in the store or roughly the same for its replacement). That crash would have cost my family $5000 in burial costs. End of stroy, Instead, many thousands of dollars went to medical costs. Lost earnings to the tune of, well, I'll just say a lot. A major university gifted me a seat in my old classrooms so I could get back up to speed. I went through many years of OCD, struggle with addiction, poor choices at every level, very poor choices with finances, etc., etc.; all of which is not uncommon among survivors of TBI.
Now there is a chance I might have lived without the helmet. In that case, apparent cost to me would have been nothing as I would have been reduced to a vegetative vacuum cleaner, sucking up money from insurance, family and the government the rest of my life.
Either way, without a helmet, you all would be spared my blathering.
Ben
Actually this analysis tends to favor non-helmet use, backed by my experience. Had I not worn a helmet on that ride in 1977, I would have saved the $35 I paid for it (had I left it in the store or roughly the same for its replacement). That crash would have cost my family $5000 in burial costs. End of stroy, Instead, many thousands of dollars went to medical costs. Lost earnings to the tune of, well, I'll just say a lot. A major university gifted me a seat in my old classrooms so I could get back up to speed. I went through many years of OCD, struggle with addiction, poor choices at every level, very poor choices with finances, etc., etc.; all of which is not uncommon among survivors of TBI.
Now there is a chance I might have lived without the helmet. In that case, apparent cost to me would have been nothing as I would have been reduced to a vegetative vacuum cleaner, sucking up money from insurance, family and the government the rest of my life.
Either way, without a helmet, you all would be spared my blathering.
Ben
#2809
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,893
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times
in
421 Posts
That's my stake in this discussion, I know I'm lucky with my cycling environment and I don't feel I have to defend my choice not to wear one, it's even not really a choice and it will never be mandatory here. It's about keeping the idea of safe and therefore helmetless cycling alive everywhere.
There are always interests, also personal and trivial ones. If you really want cycling safety you're not going to study helmets you're going to study what makes cycling safer and the helmet won't be a big part of such a study.
There are always interests, also personal and trivial ones. If you really want cycling safety you're not going to study helmets you're going to study what makes cycling safer and the helmet won't be a big part of such a study.
Addressing the full gamut of safety issues can and should be done, but my brain can't wait for that to happen. I take all of the safety precautions that I can think of, and then I wear a helmet as well. As for personal and trivial issues, there's no evidence that non-helmet use is not a preference driven by culture, aesthetics, and peer pressure.
Again, I believe it comes down to common sense.
#2810
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
In my view, needlessly contorted terminology tends to attract suspicion rather than clarifying anything.
Indeed. One of my interests is that my brain is supporting a family, a business, and my quality of life.
Addressing the full gamut of safety issues can and should be done, but my brain can't wait for that to happen. I take all of the safety precautions that I can think of, and then I wear a helmet as well. As for personal and trivial issues, there's no evidence that non-helmet use is not a preference driven by culture, aesthetics, and peer pressure.
Again, I believe it comes down to common sense.
Indeed. One of my interests is that my brain is supporting a family, a business, and my quality of life.
Addressing the full gamut of safety issues can and should be done, but my brain can't wait for that to happen. I take all of the safety precautions that I can think of, and then I wear a helmet as well. As for personal and trivial issues, there's no evidence that non-helmet use is not a preference driven by culture, aesthetics, and peer pressure.
Again, I believe it comes down to common sense.
Compare the two situations: you suffer an accident in a car while driving or as a passenger, and you suffer an accident while riding your bike. I'm not saying how bad the accident is, just consider that it may be any of the possibilities. with the corresponding likelihoods. It's a random car that you're in, or a random bike. Now, given that you have an accident, what is the difference in how likely it is that you'll suffer a traumatic brain injury, between the bike and the car? A whole lot, a little, none?
#2811
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,893
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times
in
421 Posts
I'm curious about something, regarding that common sense. @79pmooney also please answer if you're interested.
Compare the two situations: you suffer an accident in a car while driving or as a passenger, and you suffer an accident while riding your bike. I'm not saying how bad the accident is, just consider that it may be any of the possibilities. with the corresponding likelihoods. It's a random car that you're in, or a random bike. Now, given that you have an accident, what is the difference in how likely it is that you'll suffer a traumatic brain injury, between the bike and the car? A whole lot, a little, none?
Compare the two situations: you suffer an accident in a car while driving or as a passenger, and you suffer an accident while riding your bike. I'm not saying how bad the accident is, just consider that it may be any of the possibilities. with the corresponding likelihoods. It's a random car that you're in, or a random bike. Now, given that you have an accident, what is the difference in how likely it is that you'll suffer a traumatic brain injury, between the bike and the car? A whole lot, a little, none?
What I might not have been clear about is that my "common sense," such as it is, tells me to wear a helmet.
Well ... the helmet is 1 or 2 inches extra thickness, not 1-2%, and the nominal reason that a helmet protects against TBI is that when that thickness crushes the impulse is spread out over time. Which presents lower force to your skull. This does result in lower risk of traumatic brain injury, but of course does not prevent it.
#2812
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Again, what I'm calling common sense tells me that an injury is more likely with the bike because the cyclist is completely exposed, whereas the car has design features specifically to prevent these injuries -- despite being operated at vastly higher speed. Now those two things each have their own likelihoods. Those likelihoods are often cited on a per-mile basis, and I still put about 5x more miles on my car than on my bike despite calling myself an avid bike commuter. The overall likelihood should probably determine whether it rises to the status of a public health issue or not.
Your last sentence is spot on by the way; it is the likelihood of an accident with injury that should be the main concern. Risk is the probability multiplied by the severity. Many people using "common sense" with the helmet question ignore the probability part and think only of the potential severity.
That's interesting... I missed it in the thread. Spreading the impulse over time is also why it works to put a rubbery coating on a delicate gadget to protect it from mechanical shock.
#2813
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 154
Bikes: 1996 Cannondale R900, 2016 Trek Boone, 2005 Giant Yukon
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 584 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
54 Posts
I'm not sure what the main argument is. But if it's helmet effectiveness. To me even if it decreases my odds of a head injury by 1% in the event of a head strike. That's $50 bucks well spent. Energy has to go somewhere. So in the event of a head strike, the helmet will absorb some energy and disperse energy over a wider area. You can site all the studies or statistics you want. I'm sure I can show any correlation I want with the right data. Causation is a different story. So I'll rely on physics.
If it's legislation. We shouldn't legislate laws that step on personal liberty. If it doesn't hurt anyone else then who cares. If someone wants to willingly or unwillingly off themselves or hurt themselves. More power to you brother.
If it's legislation. We shouldn't legislate laws that step on personal liberty. If it doesn't hurt anyone else then who cares. If someone wants to willingly or unwillingly off themselves or hurt themselves. More power to you brother.
#2814
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Groningen
Posts: 1,308
Bikes: Gazelle rod brakes, Batavus compact, Peugeot hybrid
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6037 Post(s)
Liked 969 Times
in
742 Posts
Indeed. One of my interests is that my brain is supporting a family, a business, and my quality of life.
Addressing the full gamut of safety issues can and should be done, but my brain can't wait for that to happen. I take all of the safety precautions that I can think of, and then I wear a helmet as well. As for personal and trivial issues, there's no evidence that non-helmet use is not a preference driven by culture, aesthetics, and peer pressure.
Again, I believe it comes down to common sense.
Addressing the full gamut of safety issues can and should be done, but my brain can't wait for that to happen. I take all of the safety precautions that I can think of, and then I wear a helmet as well. As for personal and trivial issues, there's no evidence that non-helmet use is not a preference driven by culture, aesthetics, and peer pressure.
Again, I believe it comes down to common sense.
To me it seems more like: It's too dangerous, helmet could help in case of hitting your head, so wear a helmet and pretend it's safe enough now. Of course city planners like that idea, the car lobby likes that idea, drivers like that idea and doctors like that idea because they reason from the injury backwards instead of thinking about cycling safety and still believe they are experts speaking with authority on the matter.
#2815
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
I'm not sure what the main argument is. But if it's helmet effectiveness. To me even if it decreases my odds of a head injury by 1% in the event of a head strike. That's $50 bucks well spent. Energy has to go somewhere. So in the event of a head strike, the helmet will absorb some energy and disperse energy over a wider area. You can site all the studies or statistics you want. I'm sure I can show any correlation I want with the right data. Causation is a different story. So I'll rely on physics.
If it's legislation. We shouldn't legislate laws that step on personal liberty. If it doesn't hurt anyone else then who cares. If someone wants to willingly or unwillingly off themselves or hurt themselves. More power to you brother.
If it's legislation. We shouldn't legislate laws that step on personal liberty. If it doesn't hurt anyone else then who cares. If someone wants to willingly or unwillingly off themselves or hurt themselves. More power to you brother.
And likewise if someone wants to wear pointless gear because they believe that probability is inherently flawed, or think that improving their odds by 1% of a 1 in 940,000 chance per mile is worth the money, then I've got no problem with that either.
#2817
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: France
Posts: 1,030
Bikes: Brompton, Time, Bianchi, Jan Janssen, Peugeot
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
I'm not sure what the main argument is. But if it's helmet effectiveness. To me even if it decreases my odds of a head injury by 1% in the event of a head strike. That's $50 bucks well spent. Energy has to go somewhere. So in the event of a head strike, the helmet will absorb some energy and disperse energy over a wider area. You can site all the studies or statistics you want. I'm sure I can show any correlation I want with the right data. Causation is a different story. So I'll rely on physics.
If it's legislation. We shouldn't legislate laws that step on personal liberty. If it doesn't hurt anyone else then who cares. If someone wants to willingly or unwillingly off themselves or hurt themselves. More power to you brother.
If it's legislation. We shouldn't legislate laws that step on personal liberty. If it doesn't hurt anyone else then who cares. If someone wants to willingly or unwillingly off themselves or hurt themselves. More power to you brother.
Never assume the human race is intelligent when all the evidence says otherwise.
#2818
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,893
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times
in
421 Posts
I don't know a precise answer to that question. I have my own hunch, and anecdotes. As I mentioned above, cars have safety measures designed into them, to prevent brain injuries. Bikes don't. But how many accidents in either mode lead to brain injuries? Beats me. I've had a few minor crashes on my bike, no brain injuries, though I broke a rib. I think a broken rib hurts bad enough that nobody would think helmets are a complete substitute for other safety measures.
#2819
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 154
Bikes: 1996 Cannondale R900, 2016 Trek Boone, 2005 Giant Yukon
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 584 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
54 Posts
We should also ban unhealthy food. That way people can't kill themselves eating. I mean where do we stop. Mandating people to wear helmets is a terrible idea.
#2820
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: France
Posts: 1,030
Bikes: Brompton, Time, Bianchi, Jan Janssen, Peugeot
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
86az135i, I hope you are joking. If you are not, then the human race is deservedly doomed.
Have a good day.
Have a good day.
#2821
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,550
Bikes: Wilier Izoard XP (Record);Cinelli Xperience (Force);Specialized Allez (Rival);Bianchi Via Nirone 7 (Centaur); Colnago AC-R Disc;Colnago V1r Limited Edition;De Rosa King 3 Limited(Force 22);DeRosa Merak(Red):Pinarello Dogma 65.1 Hydro(Di2)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 551 Post(s)
Liked 278 Times
in
146 Posts
#2822
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 154
Bikes: 1996 Cannondale R900, 2016 Trek Boone, 2005 Giant Yukon
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 584 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
54 Posts
No. I'm definitely not. The freedom to decide your personal fate should not be decided by someone other then yourself. I personally like my liberty with a side of freedom.
#2823
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
I don't know a precise answer to that question. I have my own hunch, and anecdotes. As I mentioned above, cars have safety measures designed into them, to prevent brain injuries. Bikes don't. But how many accidents in either mode lead to brain injuries? Beats me. I've had a few minor crashes on my bike, no brain injuries, though I broke a rib. I think a broken rib hurts bad enough that nobody would think helmets are a complete substitute for other safety measures.
My own hunch is that I'm more likely to get hit by a car when I'm driving than when I'm riding. To my knowledge the risk of a serious head injury is approximately the same. So common sense tells me that I'd rather wear a helmet driving than riding.
#2825
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,027
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,590 Times
in
1,073 Posts
Using similar emotion based "logic", safety nannys should proselytize at the public to not ride in motor vehicles or ride bicycles in order to reduce all types of injuries, not just head injuries, from riding and driving.