Helmets cramp my style
01-23-09, 03:20 PM
#4326
Non-Custom Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,613
Bikes: 1975-1980 SR road bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
1) Comparing motorcycle statistics and bicycle statistics is very Apples & Oranges. Bicycle fatalities usually involve a motor vehicle. For motorcyclist fatalities, solo-crash fatalities are much more common (involving excessive speed, curve negotiation, collision with fixed objects, etc). Also, there are many more motorcyclists on the road than bicyclists. So even if helmet laws reduced motorcycle ridership, you would logically see less of a "safety in numbers" effect.
01-23-09, 08:53 PM
#4327
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Going back a bit to a comparison of how safe it is to ride a bicycle, be a pedestrian, or drive a car, I just found this website:
https://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html
John
https://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html
John
01-23-09, 09:24 PM
#4328
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
1) Comparing motorcycle statistics and bicycle statistics is very Apples & Oranges. Bicycle fatalities usually involve a motor vehicle. For motorcyclist fatalities, solo-crash fatalities are much more common (involving excessive speed, curve negotiation, collision with fixed objects, etc). Also, there are many more motorcyclists on the road than bicyclists. So even if helmet laws reduced motorcycle ridership, you would logically see less of a "safety in numbers" effect.
01-23-09, 11:31 PM
#4329
<user defined text>
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 417
Bikes: 80's peugeot. Somewhat knackered. Lovely new Salsa Casseroll singlespeed.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Going back a bit to a comparison of how safe it is to ride a bicycle, be a pedestrian, or drive a car, I just found this website:
https://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html
John
https://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html
John
Here's a thought. That site concludes that, excluding the most reckless cyclists, cycling is between 3x and about 10x more dangerous that driving per mile travelled.
I thought it might be interesting to look at this a different way.
Crds travel faster than bikes; I have tried to look up the average speed of cars, but not got very far. However, if we assume that highway driving achieves an average speed of 55mph (from here) and urban traffic around 25mph (my estimate), and that 60% of travel is urban (again my estimate) we get an average speed for cars of around 37mph.
Average bike speed is perhaps 12.5mph (my estimate again!), meaning that, per hour, cars travel 2.96 times as far as bikes.
If it takes three times as long to travel a mile on a bike, and it is three times as dangerous per mile, then we could conclude that per hour, the risk is about the same (as if I drive for an hour I travel three miles, but if I ride for an hour I only travel one).
Of course, this assumes the lowest risk estimate from that site, which the author admits is quite speculative. I have then built a whole load of further estimates on top of this, so it's almost certainly way off. The point, though, is that I'd be interested to compare different activities per hour undertaken, rather than per mile travelled. It seems a more useful measure to me.
01-24-09, 05:49 AM
#4330
Senior Member
I think there are many different ways to look at the issue.
The page linked by John is a reasonable look at the risks and it's part of Michael Bluejay's Bicycle Universe. There are links to other Michael Bluejay pages such as bicyclesafe.com which is an excellent page on how to not get hit by cars. He even writes on the helmet issue in the second sentence on the page and via a link on the side bar.
I do like that there is the disclaimer/gain of salt where he mentions police often don't even bother to write up a report if the cyclist or bicycle isn't seriously injured. Everyone has their own, personal feelings on injuries and to me, if an injury isn't serious, I'm not sure it matters much.
I've previously linked up another page on the risks of riding (https://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/helmets.html) where by using various sources the authors wrote:
"There are two important points to take away from all this talk of fatality and injury rates:
*On a per-mile basis, the odds of being killed or sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about the same as the odds of being killed or injured while out for a walk.
*On a per-capita basis, the odds of being killed while riding a bicycle are nearly the same as the odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning (this author has, in fact, been struck by lightning -- albeit indirectly -- so he is well aware that "extremely improbable" is not quite the same as "impossible"); the odds of sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about half the odds of sustaining a serious injury while out for a walk.
and a side point...
*Being drunk really screws up your ability to do anything right."
I think The Fatality Analysis Reporting System has legitimacy that can't be dismissed and they report that the fatality rate on a bicycle per hour of exposure is about half the rate of that of being in a car.
Most importantly it can't be stressed enough as to what the behavior was that led to an injury or death. For as much as we can crunch numbers showing relative risk, I'm sure we'll all agree that poor riding behavior leads to injuries and deaths. In fact, most serious injury and deaths were easily preventable but occurred because of things like riding on the wrong side of the road, riding at night with no lights and running stop signs. Sadly, children are over represented in injury and deaths on bicycles most likely because of their lack of ability to participate in the agreed upon order of riding with traffic. Responsible, aware, experienced adult cyclists have as little to fear from cycling as they have to fear from many other common activities they regularly participate in.
The page linked by John is a reasonable look at the risks and it's part of Michael Bluejay's Bicycle Universe. There are links to other Michael Bluejay pages such as bicyclesafe.com which is an excellent page on how to not get hit by cars. He even writes on the helmet issue in the second sentence on the page and via a link on the side bar.
I do like that there is the disclaimer/gain of salt where he mentions police often don't even bother to write up a report if the cyclist or bicycle isn't seriously injured. Everyone has their own, personal feelings on injuries and to me, if an injury isn't serious, I'm not sure it matters much.
I've previously linked up another page on the risks of riding (https://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/helmets.html) where by using various sources the authors wrote:
"There are two important points to take away from all this talk of fatality and injury rates:
*On a per-mile basis, the odds of being killed or sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about the same as the odds of being killed or injured while out for a walk.
*On a per-capita basis, the odds of being killed while riding a bicycle are nearly the same as the odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning (this author has, in fact, been struck by lightning -- albeit indirectly -- so he is well aware that "extremely improbable" is not quite the same as "impossible"); the odds of sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about half the odds of sustaining a serious injury while out for a walk.
and a side point...
*Being drunk really screws up your ability to do anything right."
I think The Fatality Analysis Reporting System has legitimacy that can't be dismissed and they report that the fatality rate on a bicycle per hour of exposure is about half the rate of that of being in a car.
Most importantly it can't be stressed enough as to what the behavior was that led to an injury or death. For as much as we can crunch numbers showing relative risk, I'm sure we'll all agree that poor riding behavior leads to injuries and deaths. In fact, most serious injury and deaths were easily preventable but occurred because of things like riding on the wrong side of the road, riding at night with no lights and running stop signs. Sadly, children are over represented in injury and deaths on bicycles most likely because of their lack of ability to participate in the agreed upon order of riding with traffic. Responsible, aware, experienced adult cyclists have as little to fear from cycling as they have to fear from many other common activities they regularly participate in.
Last edited by closetbiker; 01-24-09 at 07:36 AM.
01-26-09, 08:42 AM
#4331
Gearhead
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chatsworth, Ga.
Posts: 236
Bikes: 1982 Schwinn Sidewinder, Sun EZ-1 Recumbent, Cannondale R-400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
8 Posts
The study was done in England, and has absolutely no bearing on the US. We have different attitudes, different roads, different helmet standards, and just about different everything.
Many studies have been done by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Association, the US Consumer Product Safety Commision, The US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the US National Safety Council, and many State Organizations. Their results match each other very closely, and the figure of an 80% reduction of deaths and injury severity is most likely correct. They have nothing to gain, either way. And our helmets are tested and certified by ANSI, Snell, and ASTM, so there are no exaggerated claims. These organizations have nothing to do with the bicycling industry, and are Government Certified to test all industrial saftey concerns in the US. We know what our helmets can, and can't do do.
And the premise that the paper is written on is flawed. In the US, there is absolutely no way anyone could have an over-perception of the dangers of cycling in, say.....Atlanta, Ga., Houston, Tx., New York City, NY, Los Angeles, Ca., etc.... And the US does not have a policy of Cycling Safety. In fact, the opposite is true. Cyclists are regarded as 2nd-Class-Citizens as far as transportation goes. And bicycles are regarded as little more than toys by most of the population, and the government.
The idea that wearing a helmet deters people from riding is ludicris. We have mandatory Motorcycle Helmet Laws, and they certainly do not deter anyone from riding a motorcycle, nor do Seat Belt Laws deter anyone from driving.
If you want to ride without a helmet, it's your head. As for me, I never ride on the streets without a helmet. Brain-Buckets are cheap, and heads are only one to a customer.
Many studies have been done by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Association, the US Consumer Product Safety Commision, The US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the US National Safety Council, and many State Organizations. Their results match each other very closely, and the figure of an 80% reduction of deaths and injury severity is most likely correct. They have nothing to gain, either way. And our helmets are tested and certified by ANSI, Snell, and ASTM, so there are no exaggerated claims. These organizations have nothing to do with the bicycling industry, and are Government Certified to test all industrial saftey concerns in the US. We know what our helmets can, and can't do do.
And the premise that the paper is written on is flawed. In the US, there is absolutely no way anyone could have an over-perception of the dangers of cycling in, say.....Atlanta, Ga., Houston, Tx., New York City, NY, Los Angeles, Ca., etc.... And the US does not have a policy of Cycling Safety. In fact, the opposite is true. Cyclists are regarded as 2nd-Class-Citizens as far as transportation goes. And bicycles are regarded as little more than toys by most of the population, and the government.
The idea that wearing a helmet deters people from riding is ludicris. We have mandatory Motorcycle Helmet Laws, and they certainly do not deter anyone from riding a motorcycle, nor do Seat Belt Laws deter anyone from driving.
If you want to ride without a helmet, it's your head. As for me, I never ride on the streets without a helmet. Brain-Buckets are cheap, and heads are only one to a customer.
Last edited by Schwinnhund; 01-26-09 at 08:45 AM.
01-26-09, 09:28 AM
#4332
Senior Member
The study was done in England, and has absolutely no bearing on the US...
the figure of an 80% reduction of deaths and injury severity is most likely correct...
And the premise that the paper is written on is flawed...
The idea that wearing a helmet deters people from riding is ludicris...
the figure of an 80% reduction of deaths and injury severity is most likely correct...
And the premise that the paper is written on is flawed...
The idea that wearing a helmet deters people from riding is ludicris...
And just which study are you referring to, what's the flawed premise?
The claim is mandatory helmet laws reduce ridership, not wearing helmets.
Last edited by closetbiker; 01-26-09 at 09:46 AM.
02-02-09, 11:27 AM
#4333
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
---
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"
---
I think it has been presented several times in this thread with a decent amount of actual evidence that there is a positive correlation coefficient between mandatory helmet laws and decreased ridership. Don't take my word for it, read the previous posts.
02-13-09, 07:26 PM
#4334
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 658
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The statistics are interesting from a societal perspective, as mandatory helmet laws DO decrease ridership, but from a personal perspective, your head will be protected better in the event of a wreck while wearing a helmet.
Helmet laws - Counterproductive.
Helmets - Productive.
Helmet laws - Counterproductive.
Helmets - Productive.
02-13-09, 07:29 PM
#4335
Older "newbie"
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Hudson Valley of NY
Posts: 157
Bikes: Fuji Newest 4.0 just bought 7/26/08!
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The statistics are interesting from a societal perspective, as mandatory helmet laws DO decrease ridership, but from a personal perspective, your head will be protected better in the event of a wreck while wearing a helmet.
Helmet laws - Counterproductive.
Helmets - Productive.
Helmet laws - Counterproductive.
Helmets - Productive.
Anyone who doesn't ride because of a helmet law is a MORON. Pure and simple.
IMHO. Your mileage may vary. If so, TOUGH.
02-13-09, 08:41 PM
#4336
Senior Member
but from a personal perspective, who says someone is likely to have an injury or not? Isn't it likely that there will be those who are inclined to receive an injury more than another and isn't it also true that one may receive a head injury in an activity that isn't cycling? Why should one wear a helmet cycling if he/she is more likely to get a head injury from falling down the stairs? Shouldn't someone who is more inclined that way wear a helmet on the stairs and not bother wearing it on the bike?
02-14-09, 06:17 PM
#4337
Single-Malt Rider
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 99
Bikes: GT Avalanche 3.0 2009 MTB, Diamondback D10 MTB, Stormer Tangent MTB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I see more ladies than men, the guys tend to look often like work commuters, boots= like they might not even OWN a helmet.
The ladies however are often young, on cruisers or classics, doing the 'hair show'.
Less cyclists than voyeur -gers.
I find it has the reverse effect, I think of 'unprotected' riding as uncool, not sexy.
"When cycling...or in bed =put some protection over your head."
The babe in town that rides a Ritchey..she had a helmet....stone fox.
Maybe on the MUP or 'country lane'...city riding minus a lid is not so smart.
I've rarely seen a mtb'er offroad without.
Most KIDS are smarter than some adult cyclists.
It was nice to see so many riders today though. ....even the dumb ones.
My little bike+rant for today.
The ladies however are often young, on cruisers or classics, doing the 'hair show'.
Less cyclists than voyeur -gers.
I find it has the reverse effect, I think of 'unprotected' riding as uncool, not sexy.
"When cycling...or in bed =put some protection over your head."
The babe in town that rides a Ritchey..she had a helmet....stone fox.
Maybe on the MUP or 'country lane'...city riding minus a lid is not so smart.
I've rarely seen a mtb'er offroad without.
Most KIDS are smarter than some adult cyclists.
It was nice to see so many riders today though. ....even the dumb ones.
My little bike+rant for today.
02-17-09, 07:42 PM
#4338
meandering nomad
I think a helmet is an essential part of cycling either on the road, off-road, and trials. It looks professional, skilful and sensible to wear a helmet. I feel odd riding a bike without head protection and my Oakley shades. All my mates have never worn a helmet in their life and I know they’ll be the only ones who crack their heads open on an inverted landing if they do. I’ll just have a bad headache for the rest of the day…
02-17-09, 10:14 PM
#4339
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
All my mates have never worn a helmet in their life and I know they’ll be the only ones who crack their heads open on an inverted landing if they do. I’ll just have a bad headache for the rest of the day…
02-20-09, 10:36 AM
#4340
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
posts from : "Bke helmet hysteria" from Copenhagenize.com, bike riding capital of the world
02-20-09, 10:41 AM
#4341
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
02-21-09, 04:10 PM
#4342
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
but from a personal perspective, who says someone is likely to have an injury or not? Isn't it likely that there will be those who are inclined to receive an injury more than another and isn't it also true that one may receive a head injury in an activity that isn't cycling? Why should one wear a helmet cycling if he/she is more likely to get a head injury from falling down the stairs? Shouldn't someone who is more inclined that way wear a helmet on the stairs and not bother wearing it on the bike?
So the obvious question is, where is the hand rail, or fall mitigation, on a bicycle? It is not there. We give up "training wheels" at a very young age, and depend instead on our skill at bike handling to keep us upright. That skill can easily be undone by road conditions (rain on a railroad rail, which the bicyclist goes over at a 45 degree angle, for instance), traffic (Lance Armstrong just fell in the Tour of California when he tangled with a motorcycle), lighting conditions (sun in the eyes, and a bump ahead), and other factors.
John
02-21-09, 04:54 PM
#4343
<user defined text>
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 417
Bikes: 80's peugeot. Somewhat knackered. Lovely new Salsa Casseroll singlespeed.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The stairs in my house do not have a handrail. Should I wear a helmet when using them?
02-21-09, 05:43 PM
#4344
Senior Member
That's what I was going to say. That most people do not use a hand rail because they can manage the stars quite well without them just as they can manage riding a bicycle without the extra protection of a helmet.
The comparison is not groundless. Unless someone can show you the level of risk associated with a given activity, they have no business telling you it is risky.
I'd like someone show that riding a bicycle results in more head injuries than in other, more common activities. Then, I would like them to show me that that each individual runs the same risk as another.
It can't be done of course, just as it can't be said riding a bike necessitates the wearing of a helmet when it's not necessary to wear a helmet during many common, daily activities.
The comparison is not groundless. Unless someone can show you the level of risk associated with a given activity, they have no business telling you it is risky.
I'd like someone show that riding a bicycle results in more head injuries than in other, more common activities. Then, I would like them to show me that that each individual runs the same risk as another.
It can't be done of course, just as it can't be said riding a bike necessitates the wearing of a helmet when it's not necessary to wear a helmet during many common, daily activities.
02-22-09, 01:31 AM
#4345
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you have fallen off your stairs, then consider using a helmet. This is a very individual situation, whether on a stairs or on a bicycle. For someone with balance problems, then helmets may be a consideration. Dr. Robert Atkins would probably still be around if he had been wearing a bike helmet when walking on that icy sidewalk on April 17, 2003:
https://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...ins-dies_x.htm
In my case, for the bicycle I have fallen in significant falls 6 times during my life. I have not fallen on stairs at all; I walk on slippery river rocks, and sometimes wear a modified diving helmet for that. Three of those bike falls involved car/SUV accidents. Tangling with a motor vehicle can hurt; even Lance Armstrong on the Tour of California is not immune to a fall when he recently tangled with a motorcycle.
Closetbiker,
Yes, the comparison makes sense. And yes, there are studies out comparing cycling and other activities. This one compares ATV accidents with bike accidents. Note that while the ATV accidents were more severe, there were more bicycle accidents.
1: J Pediatr Surg. 2002 Mar;37(3):375-80.Click here to read Links
All-terrain vehicle and bicycle crashes in children: epidemiology and comparison of injury severity.
Brown RL, Koepplinger ME, Mehlman CT, Gittelman M, Garcia VF.
Department of Pediatric Surgery, Pediatric Orthopedic Surgery, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Despite statements by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) against the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) by children under the age of 16 years, nearly half of ATV-related injuries and over 35% of all ATV-related deaths continue to occur in this age group. Because ATV and bicycle crashes have been associated with serious injury in children, the authors compared the demographics, mechanism of injury, injury severity, and outcome of children with ATV- and bicycle-related injuries. Further, the authors sought to identify whether ATV-related injuries elicited changes in risk-taking behavior. METHODS: A retrospective, comparative analysis of 109 children admitted for ATV-related injuries and 994 children admitted for bicycle-related injuries to a level 1 pediatric trauma center between January 1991 and June 2000 was performed. A phone survey was conducted to determine self-reported changes in safety behaviors or use patterns after ATV injury. RESULTS: Mean age was 11.1 plus minus 3.5 years (range, 2 to 18 years) for ATV crashes versus 9.4 plus minus 3.3 years (range, 1 to 17 years) for bicycle crashes (P <.05). Ninety-three percent of ATV crashes occurred in children less than 16 years of age; 31% in children less-than-or-equal10 years of age; and 7% in children less-than-or-equal5 years of age. Male-to-female ratio was about 3:1 for both groups. White race accounted for 97% of ATV injuries compared with 79% of bicycle injuries (P <.05). Falls from ATVs or bicycles were the most common mechanism of injury (41% v 59%, respectively). Collisions with motor vehicles were more common for bicyclists (32% v 10%), whereas collisions with stationary objects were more common among ATV riders (27% v 9%). Sixteen percent of ATV crashes were caused by a roll-over mechanism. Mean injury severity score (ISS) were significantly higher for victims of ATV crashes (8.3 ATV v 6.7 bicycle; P <.05). ATV-related trauma was associated with multiple injuries, more operative interventions, and longer hospital stays. Location and distribution of injuries were similar for both groups. Helmet use was low in both groups but higher for ATV riders (23% v 8%; P <.5). Mortality rate was similar for both groups (0.9% for ATV riders v 0.7% for bicyclists). There was a 39% response for the phone survey post-ATV injury. Twenty-three of 43 (53%) respondents owned the ATV, and 70% of these received safety information at the time of purchase. However, only 14% of injured riders received any formal training before riding ATVs. Postinjury, 60% of children continued to ride, although 42% reported decreased riding time. Fifty-four percent of children reportedly wore helmets preinjury, and there were no changes in helmet usage postinjury. There were no differences in pre- and postinjury parental supervision (61% v 65%). CONCLUSIONS: Both ATV and bicycle-related injuries occur predominantly in boys, but ATV victims are older and almost all are white. Almost all ATV injuries occurred in children under the age of 16 years. Although both ATV and bicycle crashes cause severe injuries in children, injury severity is higher for ATV crashes in terms of multiple injuries, need for operative intervention, and longer length of stay. Despite severe injuries, the majority of children injured by ATVs continue to ride, albeit fewer hours per day, and safety behaviors are unaltered. These data reinforce the current AAP stance that legislation prohibiting the use of ATVs in children under the age of 16 years without a valid driver's license should be pursued and enforced aggressively. Copyright 2002 by W.B. Saunders Company.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11877651?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.P ubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
All-terrain vehicle and bicycle crashes in children: epidemiology and comparison of injury severity.
Brown RL, Koepplinger ME, Mehlman CT, Gittelman M, Garcia VF.
Department of Pediatric Surgery, Pediatric Orthopedic Surgery, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Despite statements by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) against the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) by children under the age of 16 years, nearly half of ATV-related injuries and over 35% of all ATV-related deaths continue to occur in this age group. Because ATV and bicycle crashes have been associated with serious injury in children, the authors compared the demographics, mechanism of injury, injury severity, and outcome of children with ATV- and bicycle-related injuries. Further, the authors sought to identify whether ATV-related injuries elicited changes in risk-taking behavior. METHODS: A retrospective, comparative analysis of 109 children admitted for ATV-related injuries and 994 children admitted for bicycle-related injuries to a level 1 pediatric trauma center between January 1991 and June 2000 was performed. A phone survey was conducted to determine self-reported changes in safety behaviors or use patterns after ATV injury. RESULTS: Mean age was 11.1 plus minus 3.5 years (range, 2 to 18 years) for ATV crashes versus 9.4 plus minus 3.3 years (range, 1 to 17 years) for bicycle crashes (P <.05). Ninety-three percent of ATV crashes occurred in children less than 16 years of age; 31% in children less-than-or-equal10 years of age; and 7% in children less-than-or-equal5 years of age. Male-to-female ratio was about 3:1 for both groups. White race accounted for 97% of ATV injuries compared with 79% of bicycle injuries (P <.05). Falls from ATVs or bicycles were the most common mechanism of injury (41% v 59%, respectively). Collisions with motor vehicles were more common for bicyclists (32% v 10%), whereas collisions with stationary objects were more common among ATV riders (27% v 9%). Sixteen percent of ATV crashes were caused by a roll-over mechanism. Mean injury severity score (ISS) were significantly higher for victims of ATV crashes (8.3 ATV v 6.7 bicycle; P <.05). ATV-related trauma was associated with multiple injuries, more operative interventions, and longer hospital stays. Location and distribution of injuries were similar for both groups. Helmet use was low in both groups but higher for ATV riders (23% v 8%; P <.5). Mortality rate was similar for both groups (0.9% for ATV riders v 0.7% for bicyclists). There was a 39% response for the phone survey post-ATV injury. Twenty-three of 43 (53%) respondents owned the ATV, and 70% of these received safety information at the time of purchase. However, only 14% of injured riders received any formal training before riding ATVs. Postinjury, 60% of children continued to ride, although 42% reported decreased riding time. Fifty-four percent of children reportedly wore helmets preinjury, and there were no changes in helmet usage postinjury. There were no differences in pre- and postinjury parental supervision (61% v 65%). CONCLUSIONS: Both ATV and bicycle-related injuries occur predominantly in boys, but ATV victims are older and almost all are white. Almost all ATV injuries occurred in children under the age of 16 years. Although both ATV and bicycle crashes cause severe injuries in children, injury severity is higher for ATV crashes in terms of multiple injuries, need for operative intervention, and longer length of stay. Despite severe injuries, the majority of children injured by ATVs continue to ride, albeit fewer hours per day, and safety behaviors are unaltered. These data reinforce the current AAP stance that legislation prohibiting the use of ATVs in children under the age of 16 years without a valid driver's license should be pursued and enforced aggressively. Copyright 2002 by W.B. Saunders Company.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11877651?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.P ubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
1: Injury. 2009 Feb 3. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links
Bicycle related injuries presenting to a trauma centre in Hong Kong.
Yeung JH, Leung CS, Poon WS, Cheung NK, Graham CA, Rainer TH.
Trauma & Emergency Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China.
BACKGROUND: Bicycle riding is a popular leisure activity and an important means of transportation in Hong Kong. Young cyclists' riding behaviour causes injury patterns which may differ from older riders. The aim of this study is firstly to describe bicycle related injuries presenting to a regional trauma centre in Hong Kong, and secondly to compare patients aged >15 years with those patients aged </=15 years. METHODS: This retrospective observational study examined all bicycle related injury patients presenting to the ED of the Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH) in 2006. RESULTS: Results showed that bicycle helmet use was low in Hong Kong suggesting that the wearing of helmets when cycling should be promoted. Bicycle related injuries were common in children but the injuries in adults were more serious. Head and limb injuries were common and limbs on the left side were 2.5 times more likely to be injured than those on the right. The older group were more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle collision and sustained more severe injuries than the younger group. They had more serious head and neck, face, thorax and abdominal injuries compared to the younger group. CONCLUSION: Prevention strategies should include more widespread helmet use and increasing bicycle lane provision to enable traffic separation in Hong Kong. The three 'E' approaches (education, enforcement and environment) should be implemented to prevent bicycle injuries in Hong Kong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Bicycle related injuries presenting to a trauma centre in Hong Kong.
Yeung JH, Leung CS, Poon WS, Cheung NK, Graham CA, Rainer TH.
Trauma & Emergency Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China.
BACKGROUND: Bicycle riding is a popular leisure activity and an important means of transportation in Hong Kong. Young cyclists' riding behaviour causes injury patterns which may differ from older riders. The aim of this study is firstly to describe bicycle related injuries presenting to a regional trauma centre in Hong Kong, and secondly to compare patients aged >15 years with those patients aged </=15 years. METHODS: This retrospective observational study examined all bicycle related injury patients presenting to the ED of the Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH) in 2006. RESULTS: Results showed that bicycle helmet use was low in Hong Kong suggesting that the wearing of helmets when cycling should be promoted. Bicycle related injuries were common in children but the injuries in adults were more serious. Head and limb injuries were common and limbs on the left side were 2.5 times more likely to be injured than those on the right. The older group were more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle collision and sustained more severe injuries than the younger group. They had more serious head and neck, face, thorax and abdominal injuries compared to the younger group. CONCLUSION: Prevention strategies should include more widespread helmet use and increasing bicycle lane provision to enable traffic separation in Hong Kong. The three 'E' approaches (education, enforcement and environment) should be implemented to prevent bicycle injuries in Hong Kong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 02-22-09 at 01:33 AM. Reason: add links to the studies.
02-22-09, 02:20 AM
#4346
I HEART Specialized Bikes
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My Tri Aero Helmet rocks! Total Space man style... Especially cool when hanging at Starbucks!
02-22-09, 10:21 AM
#4347
Senior Member
Trombone,
If you have fallen off your stairs, then consider using a helmet. This is a very individual situation, whether on a stairs or on a bicycle...
Closetbiker,
Yes, the comparison makes sense. And yes, there are studies out comparing cycling and other activities. This one compares ATV accidents with bike accidents. Note that while the ATV accidents were more severe, there were more bicycle accidents.
Your favorite tactic is to compare other countries with ours, and ask why no one there is pushing helmets (Sweden, China, etc.). Here's a brand new study from Hong Kong which should interest you:
John
If you have fallen off your stairs, then consider using a helmet. This is a very individual situation, whether on a stairs or on a bicycle...
Closetbiker,
Yes, the comparison makes sense. And yes, there are studies out comparing cycling and other activities. This one compares ATV accidents with bike accidents. Note that while the ATV accidents were more severe, there were more bicycle accidents.
Your favorite tactic is to compare other countries with ours, and ask why no one there is pushing helmets (Sweden, China, etc.). Here's a brand new study from Hong Kong which should interest you:
John
That said, I'll agree with John's most recent version of opinion. It's up to an individual to make his risk assessments and safety choices. Some might feel a helmet is a good thing, others may feel it's either not needed or not effective enough for what it may be needed to do. An individual should also be from from judgement for what are his/her personal choices that harm no one other than him/herself.
I'll agree there are situations where accidents or collisions have varying degrees of severity. By far the majority of falls or collisions with a bicycle are less severe than those that can happen when involved with motorized vehicle such as ATV's, car and trucks. As the warning labels which come with helmets say, these more severe collisions are beyond the capability of a bicycle helmet.
from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract
Originally Posted by University College London
The large majority of pedal cyclist deaths are due to head injuries after collision with a motor vehicle. It is therefore commonly proposed that cyclists should wear crash helmets for their own 'safety'. Helmets may protect against fall injuries, but current models are not designed to withstand the impact of collisions with motor vehicles. Evidence for the benefit of pedal cyclists wearing helmets is limited... A public health policy towards reducing pedal cyclist deaths should seek prevention of accidents, rather than protection from their consequences.
Came across copenhagenize, a Danish based web page that is addressing the issue.
https://www.copenhagenize.com/search/...%20hysteria%22
Lots of info including a video about the lobbying for helmet use
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY_O_2rkRzw
and some background on the lobbying efforts
Originally Posted by openhagenize
The Danish situation is rather easy to track. Here's the chronological path:
Early 1990's - Denmark experiences a spate of helmet promotion. The number of cyclists drop. In cities like Copenhagen and Odense the numbers rise, but on the national level cycling has dropped by 30% since the early 1990's. A Danish report from 2002 placed focus on how safety campaigns, including those for bike helmets, caused more parents to limit their childrens' cycling habits, choosing instead to drive them to school. Over the past 30 years the number of children driven to school has risen by 200%.
Late 2007/early 2008: The Accident Investigation Board - Havarikommissionen for Vejtrafikulykker publish a report about their investigation of intersection accidents between cyclists and motor vehicles, 30 in all. Their scientific methods are kosher, but they do not mention at any point where they got their scientific background for their assessment of bike helmets. A layman with just a bit of knowledge about the capabilities of bike helmets can see that they have grossly overestimated the bike helmet's ability in collisions. They conclude - without really knowing why - that promotion of bike helmets should commence and leglislation should be considered. The AIB are heavy hitters so people listen.
Early 2008: As a result of this report, The Danish Road Safety Council and the Danish Cyclists' Federation start an expensive national campaign promoting bike helmets. One that yanks hard at the emotional heartstrings but that is very vague on the science. They only quote a couple of Norwegian studies as the scientific foundation for their campaign, completing ignoring the science that many other cyclist federations in the EU use in their own assessment of helmet promotion.
2008: The promotion continues throughout the year. It is quite easy for them to gain a foothold when you consider The Culture of Fear. It's easier to say "Boo!" and scare people than to present the public with a wealth of options and ask them to make up their own mind. This is, after all, a Headline Society. When these public orgs speak, people in Denmark take it for granted. They read the headlines but not the article.
(The funny thing is that all the public service campaigns for eating healthy are largely ignored. It's just not as intutitive as the bike helmet issue.)
Late 2008: The Road Safety Council will be publishing the current figures for percentage of cyclists with bike helmets in the next couple of months. They will undoutably claim victory. But the numbers that are most important are the ones that show percentage of trips by bike. Sadly, by all accounts and based on experiences in other regions of the world, this will fall.
Which is why our website like www.cykelhjelm.org is an important factor in the fight against this Culture of Fear and for increased cycling in Denmark.
Early 1990's - Denmark experiences a spate of helmet promotion. The number of cyclists drop. In cities like Copenhagen and Odense the numbers rise, but on the national level cycling has dropped by 30% since the early 1990's. A Danish report from 2002 placed focus on how safety campaigns, including those for bike helmets, caused more parents to limit their childrens' cycling habits, choosing instead to drive them to school. Over the past 30 years the number of children driven to school has risen by 200%.
Late 2007/early 2008: The Accident Investigation Board - Havarikommissionen for Vejtrafikulykker publish a report about their investigation of intersection accidents between cyclists and motor vehicles, 30 in all. Their scientific methods are kosher, but they do not mention at any point where they got their scientific background for their assessment of bike helmets. A layman with just a bit of knowledge about the capabilities of bike helmets can see that they have grossly overestimated the bike helmet's ability in collisions. They conclude - without really knowing why - that promotion of bike helmets should commence and leglislation should be considered. The AIB are heavy hitters so people listen.
Early 2008: As a result of this report, The Danish Road Safety Council and the Danish Cyclists' Federation start an expensive national campaign promoting bike helmets. One that yanks hard at the emotional heartstrings but that is very vague on the science. They only quote a couple of Norwegian studies as the scientific foundation for their campaign, completing ignoring the science that many other cyclist federations in the EU use in their own assessment of helmet promotion.
2008: The promotion continues throughout the year. It is quite easy for them to gain a foothold when you consider The Culture of Fear. It's easier to say "Boo!" and scare people than to present the public with a wealth of options and ask them to make up their own mind. This is, after all, a Headline Society. When these public orgs speak, people in Denmark take it for granted. They read the headlines but not the article.
(The funny thing is that all the public service campaigns for eating healthy are largely ignored. It's just not as intutitive as the bike helmet issue.)
Late 2008: The Road Safety Council will be publishing the current figures for percentage of cyclists with bike helmets in the next couple of months. They will undoutably claim victory. But the numbers that are most important are the ones that show percentage of trips by bike. Sadly, by all accounts and based on experiences in other regions of the world, this will fall.
Which is why our website like www.cykelhjelm.org is an important factor in the fight against this Culture of Fear and for increased cycling in Denmark.
Last edited by closetbiker; 02-24-09 at 02:16 PM.
02-22-09, 12:18 PM
#4348
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I was in church this morning, talking with one of the choir members about my bike. I'm riding my Schwinn LeTour now, as my recumbant is in the garage being rebuilt after almost 10,000 miles of riding. I told her of having this Schwinn for about 30 years, and she said that the tires are much narrower than her Schwinn in the 1070s. She went on to say that she was convinced by her boyfriend to buy a men's bike, and it was a big mistake. She had earlier been crossing a road, off the bike, when a car ran the stoplight and hit the rear wheel of that bike. That really scared her, and then she bought the men's bike, but it did not fit her well and she was not used to throwing her leg over the bike. She fell, severely, with that bike. And that was the end of her cycling.
I see the website that Closetbiker had above, and the comparison of helmets with a nuclear weapon (which is a bit over-the-top too). This "Culture of Fear" isn't coming from those people conducting the studies, but from the bicyclists and ex-bicyclists who have given up this means of transportation because of falls. My younger son gave up on bicycles when he fell and dislocated his shoulder. So to those who feel that it is a "Culture of Fear" caused by helmet promotion, I say that the fear comes from actual accidents and incidents which occur on a daily basis throughout the world.
John
I see the website that Closetbiker had above, and the comparison of helmets with a nuclear weapon (which is a bit over-the-top too). This "Culture of Fear" isn't coming from those people conducting the studies, but from the bicyclists and ex-bicyclists who have given up this means of transportation because of falls. My younger son gave up on bicycles when he fell and dislocated his shoulder. So to those who feel that it is a "Culture of Fear" caused by helmet promotion, I say that the fear comes from actual accidents and incidents which occur on a daily basis throughout the world.
John
02-22-09, 12:22 PM
#4349
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 1,051
Bikes: Specialized Allez (2007)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
From a personal perspective, well, that's your call. In terms of quality scientific evidence, that statement is unsupported. For all the mockery and emotive arguments, ranting and raving, of the pro helmet crew, I've yet to see hard data to show that helmets save lives. The best that can be said is that they prevent cuts, bruises, and concussion, but at the same time it's been shown that they make it more likely to sustain a blow to the head. Seems a risk benefit analysis that won't be solved any time soon by anyone interested in evidence based measure.
02-22-09, 12:54 PM
#4350
Senior Member
I was in church this morning, talking with one of the choir members about my bike... She had earlier been crossing a road, off the bike, when a car ran the stoplight and hit the rear wheel of that bike... a car ran the stoplight and hit the rear wheel of that bike. That really scared her...
This "Culture of Fear" isn't coming from those people conducting the studies, but from the bicyclists and ex-bicyclists who have given up this means of transportation because of falls... I say that the fear comes from actual accidents and incidents which occur on a daily basis throughout the world.
This "Culture of Fear" isn't coming from those people conducting the studies, but from the bicyclists and ex-bicyclists who have given up this means of transportation because of falls... I say that the fear comes from actual accidents and incidents which occur on a daily basis throughout the world.
I fail to see how this example of a car running a red light has anything to do with the relative risks of riding a bike. Your friend was a pedestrian at the time. Compare pedestrian deaths to red light runners to cyclist deaths to red light runners. The issue here is one of poor driving and perhaps poor observation of that poor driving. The rational thing to do would be to try to stop red light running. Not stop walking or cycling. You yourself have acknowledged that even without a helmet choosing not to cycle can result in worse outcomes to health than if someone who chooses to ride.
Fear has lead her to an irrational decision.
Why couldn't she simply learn what it was that led to her fall, to avoid another in the future?
Fear is a base emotion and emotion is the enemy of reason. Eliminate reason and you end up with someone being unreasonable.
Sure John. That website compares helmets with nuclear weapons.
I know you're smarter than that. I'd hate to think you're misleading on purpose here, but knowing that you're a bright man, maybe you are. Or maybe you're not as bright as I think. Or maybe you'll say anything to further your agenda. I'd hate to think that, but I have to consider it's so. After all, one post you say a comparison is groundless, the next one you say the comparison makes sense. You've said that I ridicule people for wearing helmets and I've advised you to not wear one. You've posted I'd rather people do not read about helmet testing and that there are no studies that show any advantage of helmets. If you are posting these claims, when one can check on their validity to see how well founded they are, how can we take you seriously?If you take the blinders off you can see, it's fear mongering that the promoters of helmet laws engage in. Not rational and reasonable debate. Emotion and fear. Even in the safest part of the world, they use fear to further their agenda.
Last edited by closetbiker; 02-22-09 at 04:27 PM.