Garfield Cat

I saw this web site Pedego Bikes and all the staged actors on the bikes aren't wearing any kind of protective gear.

Electric Bikes | Electric Bicycles | E-BIkes | ebikes

prathmann

I've seen lots of car ads like that too. That industry seems to realize that it's not good business to emphasize that your product is responsible for many thousands of deaths and therefore the consumers should equip themselves with all the optional safety equipment they can find.

howsteepisit

Maybe the "protective gear" you refer to is not needed? Would you prefer body armor?

steve0257

And your point is?

atbman

We must all support the "WEAR A HELMET OR YOU ... WILL ... DIE!" campaign to encourage the safe and healthy activity of cycling.

Rollfast

You might, and then again you may as easily die from internal torso damage.

Happens to poor dogs in the street often. They are bumped, run off yelping, seeming to be embarrassed but unharmed and they die later from broken ribs and organ damage.

Honestly, this is just that sexy wind in your hair on a fun bike advertising thing.

You know better, somebody else probably knows better and they were told it's the law for minors. I don't think it will matter when they go to buy a bike if the advertisement is 100% kosher or not.

And, at least on my '95 Schwinn there is that sticker about safe riding the government had them put on the top bar on my beautiful Cruiser SS with the ! in the safety yellow triangle that also urges me to take a course.

Parents pay attention because the fine and blow to their reputation is large. We had a lot more incidents of young children going behind cars as they backed out in the last two years...and even if they were on a bike with a helmet little kids don't gave a chance when that happens

PS My LBS shows those crazy extreme races all the time, and the things you see on those shows are definite REINFORCEMENT.

CrankyOne

+1 for Pedego!

GP

My wife bought a purple Pedego and it came with a helmet.

Garfield Cat

Now look at Specialized ad for the Sirrus

Specialized Bicycle Components

jputnam

That *is* good news! The idea that you sell more people on bicycling by constantly suggesting it's a dangerous activity is, frankly, bizarre.

Why the industry let itself get sucked into fear-based accessory sales to the extent that it depresses core demand for bicycles is worthy of academic research.

Bicycling without a helmet is better for you than driving. Maybe not as good for you as bicycling with a helmet, but decades of peer-reviewed public health research show bicycle commuters have, overall, much lower premature death rates than drivers. (Not surprising, since we have a worldwide epidemic of sedentary lifestyles, and biking just 25 miles/week can cut your risk of heart disease in half, as well as lowering your risk of diabetes, cancer, arthritis, and depression....)

Honestly, more bicycle companies in the U.S. should learn from their overseas peers and sell cycling as the safe, enjoyable activity that it really is, not as a tough, gritty, dangerous activity for hyper-athletic outliers.

howsteepisit

And so we can see that one manufacturer chooses to have models clad in helmets, with no other PPE that I can see, and one not. Whats your point OP? That is bad to not use helmets in advertizing a product?

spivonious

Since helmet use is not compulsory in most (all?) states, I don't see a problem with this. If non-riders see ads without helmets, they may start changing their opinion on how dangerous bicycling is.

prathmann

I take it you're decrying the lack of safety equipment there as well.
No gloves or elbow/knee pads on the rider nor proper wrap-around glasses or face shield. And the bike is lacking any lights or reflectors in case he's stuck late at the office (and many promote daytime lights as well).

Garfield Cat

The Netherlands according to Wikipedia:

No compulsory bicycle helmet laws.[11] In the Netherlands, bicycle helmets are not commonly worn; they are mostly used by young children and sports cyclists who ride racing bikes or mountain bikes. In fact, the Dutch Fietsersbond (Cyclists' Union) summarized existing evidence and concluded that, for normal, everyday cycling (i.e. not sports cycling), a compulsory helmet law would have a negative impact on population health.[12]

"Fietsersbond onderzoekt: helpt de helm? (The Dutch Cyclists' Union asks: does the helmet help?)" (in Dutch). Dutch Fietsersbond (Cyclists' Union). Retrieved 5 April 2013.

howsteepisit

Is there any chance you will actually state your point?

Garfield Cat

Has anyone seen this study? Social Science Research Network. This paper by Piet de Jong. Its downloadable.

The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws by Piet De Jong :: SSRN

Here's the conclusion to that paper:

7. CONCLUSIONS
Using elementary mathematical modeling and parameter estimates from previous studies, leads to
reasonable bounds for the net health impact of a mandatory bicycle helmet law. The model highlights
the importance of four parameters in any evaluation: helmet efficiency, the behavioural response of riders
to the law, the benefit–cost ratio of cycling, and the proportion of injuries in cycling due to head injuries.
These key parameters offer critical testable points for assessing the net impact.

A (positive) net health benefit emerges only in dangerous bicycling environments under optimistic
assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets and a minor behavioral response. Resolution of the issue for any
particular jurisdiction requires detailed information on the four key parameters.

The calculations are based on a “representative” bicyclist model. It may be the case that those giving
up cycling are not representative: they may be more accident prone, less susceptible to the health stimulus
or more inclined to substitute cycling with other exercise activities. A disaggregated model can be
used to address such issues which in turn requires a detailed appraisal of the four key parameters at a
disaggregated group level.

Garfield Cat

Not here to state my point but to make an inquiry here. I am interested in hearing some responses to research such as the De Jong paper. Seems like De Jong is passing the torch for further study.

KD5NRH

Obviously the manufacturer is part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to Kill Cyclists.

I-Like-To-Bike

Seems to me the paper's conclusions were quite clear:
"A (positive) net health benefit emerges only in dangerous bicycling environments under optimistic
assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets and a minor behavioral response. Resolution of the issue for any
particular jurisdiction requires detailed information on the four key parameters. "

Those who have a deep belief in some other conclusion being validated will have to look elsewhere, or settle for anecdotes, blog rants and urban legends as evidence.

BTW didn't see any reference to this study or any inquiry about it in your oblique OP. Perhaps if you wish to see responses to an inquiry,you should state the inquiry upfront.

dynaryder

SHOCKING! Where is his hi-viz yellow and reflective material? Where are the lights? Bell?

Grey.

And a dedicated, stickied thread wasen't enough?

Garfield Cat

Perhaps, but that's the way it sometimes goes.

Garfield Cat

I found one source that attempts to refute the De Jong paper and its from the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute:

Health Effects of Bicycle Helmet Laws

Dr. de Jong is a Professor of Actuarial Studies, and the Head of Department for Macquarie's Department of Actuarial Studies, so his work can be taken seriously. It is scholarly and scientific in tone. But the premises he bases his analysis on are the familiar anti-helmet law refrains we have heard and disagreed with for many years.

Our response point by point:

From our observation, from local reports and from talking to many cyclists about local riding numbers we have seen no evidence in the US that a helmet law has ever caused a drop in bicycling. Here as in most countries, bicycling rises and falls with weather, seasons, fashion, extreme gas prices and our heroes performing well in the Tour de France, but in the years since our first helmet law as adopted in 1990 there has never been an abrupt change in cycling when a helmet law was passed.
If there were a reduction in cycling, there is no evidence in the US or anywhere else that a drop in cycling automatically means a drop in exercising. De Jong's analysis assumes that cycling is the only form of exercise available, so riders who stop riding automatically degenerate into couch potatoes. In fact, any cyclist who wants to exercise but hates helmets enough to quit cycling if a law is passed can turn to a multitude of other activities to stay active.
Helmetless crashes do produce higher medical costs, and higher costs to society caring for the uninsured.
Environmental effects again are not changed here by a helmet law. Helmet laws here do not motivate people to drive their cars. Most cyclists in our society have a car and use it for at least some activities. Helmet laws do not change that.
The author says that he used "empirical estimates using US data" to determine the cost of a US national helmet law. Although he introduces and manipulates data, that is not actually possible, since the word empirical means "derived from experiment and observation rather than theory." Empirical data do not exist here to determine even the most basic elements of bicycle usage. We just do not gather that data in our diverse society, and estimates of the number of cyclists or annual cycling per person in the US are wild guesses based at best on telephone sampling. So are the estimates of helmet usage, with a few local exceptions based on actual field observation. We have good numbers on fatalities, but not on total crashes or injuries. The paper's estimates for the US are therefore baseless, even if you agree with the methodology.
After presenting his equations, Dr. de Jong says that even if his formula suggests a net benefit from helmet laws, there are other factors not found in the formula that would decrease it. He then lists five of the standard legacy anti-helmet law arguments. We have a longstanding page on helmet law opposition that covers all of those points.

The paper notes that "even if an analysis suggests that there is no net societal benefit of a helmet law, it may still make eminent sense for individuals to wear a helmet."

Dr. De Jong's model dresses up traditional anti-helmet law arguments in a more sophisticated presentation. But formulae do not yield valid results if the basic assumptions are not correct. We found the abstract of this paper misleading. If you are interested it may be worthwhile for you to read the full paper and judge for yourself.

howsteepisit

Also note that Dr de Jong's paper is peer reviewed, the bicycle helmet safety institute's comments are not. Personally, I'd take a peer reviewed academic publication over a special interest group position paper,but thats me, others will feel differently.

Edit, Actuarial work is based on populations, not individuals, so what makes financial sense for a population may not reflect what makes sense for an individual. You have to judge your own risk tolerance, and wear or not based on your own analysis. But at any rate, now that we have determined the OP's real purpose which is to discuss helmet wearing, not safety equipment, this thread really belongs in the helmet hell thread.

I-Like-To-Bike

Interesting point with relevance to bicycling advocacy irrespective of helmet issues.
Some of the BF posts from strident advocates of bicycling make it seem that they believe that the public and its representatives have only two choices: Promote more bicycle riding through any means possible to include anti motorist ranting/legislation, or,
Become a nation of obese, sickly couch potatoes.