Saving Hawaii

He just knows that studies show that if you have a small child sitting on your shoulders, cars give you an extra 4 inches of passing room. DUH!

Dan The Man

I think it is perfectly responsible to protect your head. The child legs effectively restrict neck movement, preventing whiplash, while her arms and torso protect the very vulnerable back of the skull.

joejack951

First, I want to apologize for my snarky comment. It was uncalled for. I wasn't having the best of days.

Second, I pay attention to what matters to me while I'm cycling. The car someone drives means nothing to me. It's wasted mental effort to even think about it. I can honestly say that I don't remember a single make/model of car being driven by someone during my commute today aside from the BMW driven by my company's VP of sales (I see him often on the way in). The idiot who suggested I move all the way over to the white line is a blur aside from his comment. I saw him coming and saw him pass me but his car type didn't register. He gave me plenty of space which is all that mattered to me at the time.

So, while I don't pay attention to what type of car someone is driving, I will pay attention to things like:

-how quickly they are slowing for a stop sign (watching for a rolling stop)
-if they are slowing as they approach an intersection where our paths could cross
-if they are completely stopped or inching forward at a cross street
-how much they have moved over as they approach me from behind

Finally, maybe I just need some explanation to go along with the bolded comment in your second paragraph but here's my take. I don't see how perception has anything to do with on road safety. If it has anything to do with it at all, I would think that people would be more likely to be more cautious in a situation where they thought someone's safety was compromised than in a situation where they felt everything was just fine. That many people feel helmets make a safe cyclist, coupled with people's tendency to relax and not pay as much attention during ordinary encounters on the road, should be a good reason NOT to wear a helmet.

uke

With regard to the perception point, I remember a thread in the FG forum about a recent survey that showed, among other things, that drivers gave less room to cyclists with helmets than to cyclists without.

adriel

But if we took the money being spent on helmet promotion/requirements, and launched some sort of public awareness campaign about cyclists and how much room/respect they require on the road, that should have an impact on car/bike collisions.

Zeuser

It won't! Most car drivers are perfectly aware of bikes but they just don't care.

Example: when seatbelt awareness was launched in the '70s people still didn't wear them. It wasn't until many states/provinces tabled laws that would fine drivers, and then passengers, for not wearing seatbelts that they started doing so.

Don't overestimate the average car driver. People are a lot less civil when they get behind the wheel.

uke

^ True. Drivers, as a rule, only obey laws when the risks of breaking them outweigh the rewards of defying them. Cycling awareness programs wouldn't do nearly as much to increase safety as mandatory 5 year prison terms for every fatal vehicle-cyclist collision would. Just imagine if the news were reporting people sentenced to half a decade of prison time each time a cyclist died. Things would change quickly.

I-Like-To-Bike

Yes they would; the public would demand, in a heartbeat, that cyclists be prohibited from cycling on every road in the country.

closetbiker

but if the laws are never enforced, the sentences mean nothing.

The problem lies in poor road behavior and by allowing it, nothing is going to change.

pueblonative

Maybe if the fact that most bicycle safety courses consist of one and only one line--"wear a helmet"--that gets so many cyclists honked off. I don't mind wearing a helmet. Now in the winter it gets a bit annoying, but I don't mind it and I do wear one. In fact it makes for a great place to put the blink light. But shouldn't the goal be not to get into the crash in the first place?
Imagine this: imagine if every driving course consisted of one line "wear a seat belt". That was it. No courses on defensive driving, no how to watch traffic so as not to crash? A seat belt is not some sort of magical +50 shield against driver ignorance or stupidity, even though many drivers ride exactly like that.

John C. Ratliff

You mistake a slogan--"wear a helmet," with a course:

https://www.bikeleague.org/programs/e...on/courses.php

https://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetyS...hingscouts.htm

https://www.sfbike.org/?edu

There's a big difference.

John

tatfiend 

I m not sure that many drivers are aware of cyclists. They are looking for something their own size and a bicyclist or motorcyclist does not register on their pea sized brains. I have been both a motorcyclist and bicyclist. Once I was hit from behind by a car driver while stopped at a red light on my motorcycle. He got out and claimed he never saw me. He was apparently looking at the light, not at the road. Another time I had a motorcycle totaled by a gal who pulled a left turn in front of me at an intersection on a lightly traveled suburban road. Same BS, "I never saw him officer", and my headlight was on, with a blinking modulator to make it more noticeable.

Even worse now with car driving mobile phone users, people fiddling with car GPS sets etc. They are NOT paying attention to their driving or the road ahead. I have watched people on the freeway shaving, reading a paper, applying makeup etc., all in heavy rush hour traffic. Tell me that they are aware of their surroundings!

IMO too many drivers switch to automatic mode when behind the wheel, particularly when commuting or driving on familiar streets. They are not looking out for anything smaller than they are, sometimes not even for that size object as witness the number of people who hit the vehicle ahead of them when anything unexpected slows or stops traffic.

closetbiker

At the risk of whipping up some silly responses, I came across a page this morning while reading up on some points. A particular page from a site that had been recommended for searching by John C. Ratliff.

The page speaks to what I believe is a common worry for cyclists, and a prime reason for wearing a helmet.

About 3 + 1/2 years ago, John makes a website recommendation for research,

Now I have no doubt in John's faith in the protective qualities of the bicycle helmet, based partly on the information from PubMed

he's posted,

to which I've noted,

to which came the reply,

John's also posted,

I've worn a helmet for 20 years believing it would help in simple falls but for the first 10 years I thought it would help in collisions with motor vehicles too. The last 10 years, I've learned that it's unlikely that they will provide protection in collisions/falls with motor vehicles

This prelude leads to the page I came upon this morning. A page from PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract) that says,

I know John and I agree on, Helmets may protect against fall injuries, and, reducing pedal cyclist deaths should seek prevention of accidents, but disagree on, reducing pedal cyclist deaths based on protection from accident consequences and, Evidence for the benefit of pedal cyclists wearing helmets is limited.

It's good to see PubMed has published information that shows bicycle helmets are not designed to withstand the impact of collisions with motor vehicles. Something I've posted on for some time.

DogsBody

-My idea would be more expansive than simply Cycle-Awareness (see below).
Not if the Public is educated in a more pro-active way.

An education system MUST go beyond just Cycling...(see below)
Exactly.
It is a disease that has festered and grown; and I have been watching it spread for the last 3.5 decades:
The biggest problem has been a degradation of Driver awareness, and education combined with a lack of any evolution of Driver education as time has gone on.
The entire road-system, law-enforcement, AND driver education should be based on a "You are responsible for not only your safety; but the safety of everyone sharing the road with you" Mantra.
There is a terrible attitude that is pervasive when people get in their cars: The perception that once you are in a car you are Free/on your own/The ruler of your steel-enclosed universe.
This HAS to change. Public roads are just that: PUBLIC.
Public roads are a SHARED resource. Paid for by ALL who pay taxes (whether we want our taxes going to that infrastructure or NOT).
I'd love to see a campaign of MANDATED Driver's education which begins at High School (An extra-credit course); and includes not only safe-driving technique; but a strong road awareness component.
Laws should be refined to reflect a stronger level of responsibility toward others on the road (how these are tweaked is out of my purvey to discuss; but I remain firmly committed to the concept in any case).
And obviously the Road system has to be modified to accommodate more alternative transport. With new construction having the modifications built-in as "part and parcel" (not just for us cyclists; but Transit as well).
*I speak from a North America-wide perspective here.

Riis

Long story (somewhat) short - I was precisely one of those guys who hated helmets and I would've agreed with the statement that they "cramp my style", 100%. I made all the routine excuses, like helmet hair being unprofessional in my line of work, helmets are ugly, heavy and make your head too warm, they're just an additional piece of gear to lug around, etc etc ad infinitum.

However, I can credit bike forums with changing my stubborn attitude because about a month ago I was browsing a thread that discussed which helmets people used and I found that some - like the Catlike Kompact - were rather alright and didn't look that bad.

As a result, I decided to try on a few helmets in some LBSs around here and found that I could live with the Giro Atmos. About a week and a half ago, I was shipped one via ebay (to save a few dollars) and started a new routine where I religiously wore my helmet on my bike ride to work every day.

Today, on a day where I was honestly considering whether I should leave home without it (I've yet to grow accustomed to it), I was rewarded for keeping up my new routine. As I exited the bike path onto a driveway where I usually dismount, my front wheel must've hit a slippery patch where the driveway meets the road. Before I knew it, my bike slid away from underneath me and I hit the pavement head/cheek first. I staggered to my feet and realized that my rear brake was jamming the wheel so I carried my bike into the lobby and checked my face in the mirror. Some road rash on my right cheek but nothing too bad.

It's then that this terrible headache and dizziness hits me and I catch one of my co-workers coming inside. He suggests that I head home (on foot!) to drop off my bike and head for an ER or a doctor's office. I take his advice and a few hours later, I've been told that I have a mild concussion.

I know that doesn't sound remarkable, because here I am, with a concussion, even after having worn a helmet. However, the doctor made it perfectly clear - the helmet was the difference between a mild concussion and a severe head injury. The crack in my helmet attests to the amount of energy that was dissipated by the foam that kept my bare head from making contact with the ground. And to be honest, it doesn't take a genius to realize that cracking your head on the pavement without an intermediary between the two is going to lead to bad things.

I want to make clear that the tired stories people tell of needing to bike more carefully or being able to ward off an impact on one's head through catlike reflexes or sticking out one's arm are complete hogwash. There are simply too many variables for a person to have under their control especially when you're biking in an urban environment and my experience today really speaks to that. It takes but a millisecond for something to happen and human reflexes simply aren't enough protection from severe injury.

Anyways, consider me a convert. The naysayers can pick out the precise moment at which THEY would've been able to prevent an accident leading to a better outcome, but they're just fooling themselves. Learning the hard way however, would really be a shame and a waste.

InfiniteRegress

People, WEAR HELMETS! I was in a cycling accident a few years back (got doored when some stupid lady opened a cap door street side without looking). I flew off my bike, over the door, and landed head-first in the gutter. My helmet was damaged with a long crack straight down the middle of it, but my head remained intact. No feeding tubes or comas here. I walked away with just some nasty road rash.

Tommyr

Good for you! Glad it wasn't much worse. The helmet-less will learn the hard way. Unfortunately....

closetbiker

Anecdotes are nice, but put it perspective and show how it is that cyclists hurt their heads more than other people.

I-Like-To-Bike

Exactly what do you propose is the the pro-active way to educate the motoring public to accept automatic 5 year jail terms for motorists involved in fatal bicyling accidents, regardless of who is responsible, as advocated by our friend uke and endorsed by yourself?

joejack951

I don't know why it just dawned on me but given John C. Ratliff's comment on his willingness to forego a helmet without cars around, I can only think of two possible explanations of his thought process:

1. Bicycle helmets are MORE effective in collisions with motor vehicles than in a single cyclist or cyclist/cyclist crash

2. Cyclists are extremely more likely to crash in the presence of (but not into) motor vehicles than when not in the presence of motor vehicles

For #1, I would hope that most here can see how ridiculous that statement is. Any comment, John?

For #2, I'd be very curious to hear John's justification.

Also, what exactly does "without cars around" mean? Does a Copenhagen-style sidepath equal cycle "without cars around"? If so, what about at intersections?

SweetLou

So, you had a brain injury that the helmet did not protect you from. But for some reason you believe a stranger that saying without the helmet, you brain injury would have been worse? How did this doctor come to the conclusion? Because your helmet failed and split?

How about this anecdote, I was riding to work two days ago and slipped on a piece of ice. I went down. I did not hit my head, but if I was wearing a helmet, I would have hit the pavement and have had a brain injury. Someone told, me I was lucky for not wearing a helmet. Since my head was about an inch away from the street surface. I would have surely hit the ground with my head, causing brain damage. I am glad my helmetless head was there to protect me from the ground.

Riis

Well first of all, that 'stranger' is the same person who managed to save my father's life and has had years of medical training which (I'll go out on a limb) neither you, nor I, have. I'm sure you've also experienced these strangers and have at various times entrusted your health to them. Or perhaps you've never seen a doctor, in which case you're very fortunate.

What is he basing his conclusion on? On the bicyclists that he's seen in the ER who have come to him with severe trauma resulting from a helmet-less fall vs. those who've come in and who've been wearing a helmet. Sure, it's anecdotal on my part and his, but if a doctor's so-called anecdotal experience won't convince you, then obviously nothing will.

As to your facetious example, if you take it literally, then yes, in the rare occasion where someone has miraculously broad shoulders and the gap between their head and the ground exactly coincides with the less than one inch of helmet surrounding their head, they've just made contact with the ground where they otherwise wouldn't have. However, if you weren't going to hit your head anyways, then your inch-thick helmet would barely touch the pavement so the forces wouldn't be nearly enough to crack your helmet or give you a mild concussion, would it?

In reality, chances are that most normally-sized human beings who possess vertebrae and thus a flexible neck will find their heads slapping off the pavement when they fall shoulder first in the manner that I did. You don't have to be convinced though, it's not my job to do so.

DogsBody

Regardless of who is responsible confuses me: Are you saying if the Cyclist is killed and it is HIS own fault the Carnosaur should get a five year sentence? -Please clarify your statement.
And "Pro-Active" means that by a combination of Education (from an early high school level), Infrastructure change, and Law Enforcement which reflects an attitude that Public Roads are a SHARED resource.
What can be more pro-active for a large population than that?

closetbiker

anecdotal evidence is quite possibly the worst sort of evidence on which to base a decision.

I mean really, isn't taking a doctor's advice, whos job it is to treat head injuries, similar to taking the advice of a lottery winner if you should buy lottery tickets? How is it possible the doctor has any perspective on the problem when he only sees one small part of the problem? And how is this doctor being honest, perspective-wise, when the vast majority of head injuries happen to people other than cyclists?

People use anecdotal evidence all the time (as is their right) but it's telling when people use anecdotes in place of more reliable evidence.

DogsBody

Did I tell you about the time I shared an elevator with the Loch Ness Monster?
Damn clumsy Pleiosaur stepped on my toe.