Bicycle Helmets ????
- Thread starter CATCH22
- Start date
Help Support Rat Rod Bikes Bicycle Forum:
You keep coming back to helmets not helping with car hits at 40 mph. But many, many of the car-related incidents are in urban areas that occur at low speeds, knock the rider to the ground, or situations where the car turns in front of the rider causing the rider to hit the car, or they get car doored. In these situations, the rider is thrown to ground according to their own momentum, not due to the speed of the car. So, you are overlooking a great many situations that the helmet will do exactly what it is designed to do - keep your head from bashing the ground. And believe it or not, they actually work in that role. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine, that's your choice. But to say or imply that a helmet is useless in most situations is incredibly short sighted. Just because the Dutch don't think they're cool doesn't mean they aren't useful.
expjawa said:
I think the Dutch have proven the case that with the right infrastructure helmets aren't a big factor in the equation. Little kids fall over at home, I don't think they should all wear protective toddler helmets for low speed impacts against a door wall. If you want to increase safety on bikes get better infrastructure that separates bikes from cars, and pedestrians from cars. A lot of kids are hurt on playground equipment, mandatory helmet use in these places too? Slipping and hitting your head at the pool, helmets for soccer maybe, rugby? I don't think so. We can't bubble wrap the world, but we can work towards safer infrastructure for bikers, like the Dutch have. And again, I'm interested in doing what will keep the entire body safer. Especially from car impacts. Pedestrians hit their heads tripping on curbs too, sad, happens quite often. Mandatory helmets for living would suck, Yeah, I think the Dutch got it right :wink:
http://youtu.be/Hb0QjASuuqI We need more of this, and the Dutch don't wear helmets just to look cool,, that's funny. They simply don't need them with the decisions they made for serious and safe bike infrastructure.
Why stop at bike helmets? Lets have helmets from cradle to grave : Children need to be protected from every danger this world has to offer, start them out with "Thudguard" for household evils, move them up to tricycle helmets later. It's a bubble wrap world, so lets get the little ones acclimatised early.
"Thudguard", when bubble wrapping your kids just isn't isn't enough :shock: http://youtu.be/s5LB7p9QZow
:lol:
"Thudguard", when bubble wrapping your kids just isn't isn't enough :shock: http://youtu.be/s5LB7p9QZow
:lol:
expjawa said:
I have to agree with Rick.
There are many situations where your head may hit something (not always the ground) that have nothing to do with cars or bike lanes.
I'm in the group that always wears one on the road bikes, but justifies not wearing one on the cruisers, and realizing that I really should always wear one.
I know this is about helmets, but one other piece of safety gear that should not be forgotten is eye protection.
Those cool looking wrap around sunglasses actually serve an important purpose.
There are lots of bugs out there!
jerrykr said:expjawa said:
I have to agree with Rick.
There are many situations where your head may hit something (not always the ground) that have nothing to do with cars or bike lanes.
I'm in the group that always wears one on the road bikes, but justifies not wearing one on the cruisers, and realizing that I really should always wear one.
I know this is about helmets, but one other piece of safety gear that should not be forgotten is eye protection.
Those cool looking wrap around sunglasses actually serve an important purpose.
There are lots of bugs out there!
Do you have separate and dedicated bicycle lanes in your city? Some do. When I see 14 million bike rides a day in Holland and virtually no helmets (like in that video) I think they may be on to something. Holland rejected mandatory bike helmets as an personal intrusion that they felt was unnecessary. If everyone wore helmets you would still see just as many critical injuries, and then what would we blame? Some say that helmets give a false sense of security causing users to take more chances. If big U.S. cities moved to having bike infrastruture like Holland you would see all kinds of bike injuries go way down. Helmets are not the be-all and end-all of safety. If you want to see a true decrease in all types of bike injuries get bike infrastructure like Holland has. I certainly would not like to bike in a bike hating city like New York, its not set up for it. NY needs to go Dutch :wink:
But! In the meantime, while we don't have separate lanes... Why not wear one? Believe me, brain damage is not something you or your family want to live with!
Go ahead and say whatever you will, but take it from someone who their family is affected by it...
Luke.
Go ahead and say whatever you will, but take it from someone who their family is affected by it...
Luke.
Look, I'm not saying that better bike infrastructure isn't worthwhile, it is. I'm with you on that point. But it also isn't easy or immediate. There's a lot that has to go into putting it in place, and the Dutch have decades of a head start on that, not to mention that their culture places the bicycle in a different esteem than here in the US. Consequently, it's a lot tougher to justify why communities should spend money and resources on the bike lanes. Until such time as that exists here, then I have to assume that we're sharing the road with the metal boxes. And as long that's happening, a helmet adds a bit piece of mind (bad pun).
I think that you're going a little overboard with the suggestion of bubblewrapping every aspect of our world. Just there is a note worthy difference between being hit by a car at 40 mph and being knocked over by a slow car, there's also a difference between falling down while walking and crashing your bike at 15-20 mph. As long as you fail to take this into account, you're limiting your own view on the basic physics of the situation. A fall from a bike at speed do much more damage to your skull & brain than slipping and falling in your hallway. You ask where to draw the line, but I think that a little common sense and practicality answer that pretty readily. A watermelon is pretty reasonable representation of your skull. Drop one off of the kitchen counter and observe its condition. Next, pitch one to the ground while riding your bike at 15 mph. What do you think happens to it? Frankly, a lot of the arguments against helmet use (and this applies to motorcycle helmets too) are justifications for not doing so, rather than legitimate arguments. Many of them are founded on shaky data from limited studies, if any data at all.
So, would I like to have better bike infrastructure to minimize my contact with traffic? Absolutely. I'm willing to do what I can to help with that. But at no point will I choose not to use the helmet as long as I'm riding in an unpredictable environment. Sure, there are no cars on the bike paths around here. There are, however, dogs, deer, and pedestrians. Crashes still can happen. I'm not riding at little kid speeds, or cruising low and slow (for the most part). As long as my head is still at risk of hitting the ground at 20 mph, I'll elect to add some protection to it. If you choose not to, again, that's your prerogative. I guess it comes down to, in its simplest form, how much you value your head... :wink:
I think that you're going a little overboard with the suggestion of bubblewrapping every aspect of our world. Just there is a note worthy difference between being hit by a car at 40 mph and being knocked over by a slow car, there's also a difference between falling down while walking and crashing your bike at 15-20 mph. As long as you fail to take this into account, you're limiting your own view on the basic physics of the situation. A fall from a bike at speed do much more damage to your skull & brain than slipping and falling in your hallway. You ask where to draw the line, but I think that a little common sense and practicality answer that pretty readily. A watermelon is pretty reasonable representation of your skull. Drop one off of the kitchen counter and observe its condition. Next, pitch one to the ground while riding your bike at 15 mph. What do you think happens to it? Frankly, a lot of the arguments against helmet use (and this applies to motorcycle helmets too) are justifications for not doing so, rather than legitimate arguments. Many of them are founded on shaky data from limited studies, if any data at all.
So, would I like to have better bike infrastructure to minimize my contact with traffic? Absolutely. I'm willing to do what I can to help with that. But at no point will I choose not to use the helmet as long as I'm riding in an unpredictable environment. Sure, there are no cars on the bike paths around here. There are, however, dogs, deer, and pedestrians. Crashes still can happen. I'm not riding at little kid speeds, or cruising low and slow (for the most part). As long as my head is still at risk of hitting the ground at 20 mph, I'll elect to add some protection to it. If you choose not to, again, that's your prerogative. I guess it comes down to, in its simplest form, how much you value your head... :wink:
I live in a pretty bike friendly part of the country, the San Francisco Bay Area. There are many cities here that have bike infrastructure-- I would dare say most cities here have bike lanes. The problem here is that the bike lanes were a retrofit. They were added in decades after the original road system was conceived. The result is that there are breaks in the system. This means there are moments where you must cross intersections or sneak across overpasses where they simply could not add a bike lane. Adding the bike lanes was nice but it seems like they were added only in places where there was room, or they could do it without a major re-work of road ways. This is also a very busy metropolitan area. The roads and streets are crowded and as the economy picks up here it seems as though they are becoming more crowded. Out here you must share the road at all times it seems. Fortunately there is also an excellent system of dedicated trails. The one I use when I commute to work is the Bay Trail. However, due to the density of population out here there are always joggers, kids, elderly people, dogs, etc. populating the trails. Most of these factors I have found to be somewhat unpredictable.
What is my point? I have had TWO close calls in my bike riding history. One time I was nearly plowed into by a soccer mom who was rushing to work after dropping her kids off at school. I was crossing an intersection under protection of a traffic light. She ran the red light. The second time was my fault for sure, I got distracted, I was on a dedicated bike trail far away from any streets or cars but that moment of distraction is what took me down to the ground hard. I was mostly embarrassed. Injuries were minor but that was the moment when I realized that I wanted a helmet. You contrarians out there can preach all you want that infrastructure will save your life but I will take my chances with a helmet any day. There are just too many factors on you average ride that are outside my control. Maybe there is "debate" over how effective helmets really are but I don't think anybody can dispute that there are at least some situations where they will help. It's a numbers game and I want to give myself the best chances. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince all the non helmet wearers to change their minds. I wouldn't try to impose my beliefs on anyone else and frankly all of the anti-helmet arguments here have done nothing to convince me not to wear one either. I just thought I would elaborate, and share a bit on why, for me, personally, it became the right choice to wear one.
What is my point? I have had TWO close calls in my bike riding history. One time I was nearly plowed into by a soccer mom who was rushing to work after dropping her kids off at school. I was crossing an intersection under protection of a traffic light. She ran the red light. The second time was my fault for sure, I got distracted, I was on a dedicated bike trail far away from any streets or cars but that moment of distraction is what took me down to the ground hard. I was mostly embarrassed. Injuries were minor but that was the moment when I realized that I wanted a helmet. You contrarians out there can preach all you want that infrastructure will save your life but I will take my chances with a helmet any day. There are just too many factors on you average ride that are outside my control. Maybe there is "debate" over how effective helmets really are but I don't think anybody can dispute that there are at least some situations where they will help. It's a numbers game and I want to give myself the best chances. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince all the non helmet wearers to change their minds. I wouldn't try to impose my beliefs on anyone else and frankly all of the anti-helmet arguments here have done nothing to convince me not to wear one either. I just thought I would elaborate, and share a bit on why, for me, personally, it became the right choice to wear one.
Who the "contrarians" are is really a point of view. I'm not saying no one should wear a helmet. I'm saying that the risk of injury is less for me on my cruiser than on the mountain or road bike (only because I don't ride the cruisers for commuting or even on busy roads very often)
If you commute on a bicycle you are safer with the helmet (and probably gloves, and maybe even long pants, and possibly steel toed shoes)
Rg
If you commute on a bicycle you are safer with the helmet (and probably gloves, and maybe even long pants, and possibly steel toed shoes)
Rg
Two Spot, thanks for illustrating my point. Love the steam engine, BTW. You never know what might happen. I've seen cycle/pedestrian collisions. I know a guy that hit a deer on his bike. Dogs are everywhere. And that doesn't even touch upon the issue with cars. FWIW, I've ridden a little bit in your area. I have family out there. Last fall, my nephew balled up the very nice '79 Schwinn World Traveler III that I gave him as a graduation present when a car turned left in front of him while he was riding to work in Fremont. He did get a nice Felt Z85 out of the deal though.
Jim, I'd agree that riding slow around the neighborhood is a lot less likely to have a risk of crashing. And I'll admit to not wearing a helmet when cruising around a campground loop or some such. But a lot of other uses and ride conditions warrant the extra protection, IMHO.
But to the heart of the matter, saying that you won't wear a helmet because the infrastructure is poor - which is exactly how that argument seems to be shaping up, is asinine. It's like saying you won't wear a seat belt because the car hasn't been made crash-proof. It's taking one of the reasons for the need and calling it an argument against. Makes no sense.
Jim, I'd agree that riding slow around the neighborhood is a lot less likely to have a risk of crashing. And I'll admit to not wearing a helmet when cruising around a campground loop or some such. But a lot of other uses and ride conditions warrant the extra protection, IMHO.
But to the heart of the matter, saying that you won't wear a helmet because the infrastructure is poor - which is exactly how that argument seems to be shaping up, is asinine. It's like saying you won't wear a seat belt because the car hasn't been made crash-proof. It's taking one of the reasons for the need and calling it an argument against. Makes no sense.
I would say that if you commute in Amsterdam you are far safer than if you bike commute on a street in New York, because Amsterdam has true bicycle infrastructure. If you feel safer with a helmet because your city hates spending money on proper bicycle infrastructure then by all means. But if you want to feel safe on your streets like the Dutch do (who don't use helmets) then fight for proper dedicated bike lanes. Riding a bike is safer per mile travelled than for car or for pedestrian traffic
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles ... cling-risk
From Britain: " “An individual who cycles one hour a day for 40 years would cover about 180,000km, whilst accumulating only a one in 150 chance of fatal injury. This is lower than for pedestrians who face a higher fatality rate per kilometre travelled,” she added. “The health benefits of cycling are much greater than the fatality risk.” "Active travel - defined as walking or cycling - is estimated to save £17bn in healthcare costs alone, according to a recent Lancet paper".Given the same argument for bike helmets, why don't we insist on pedestrian helmets, pedestrians are more likely to be in an injurious situation than cyclists?
The Dutch made cycling safety a priority, and it took the shape of bike infrastructure - not helmets. http://youtu.be/XuBdf9jYj7o And it works, and we can do it too. On our American city streets most people feel unsafe with or without a helmet, because they don't have what the Dutch have. We are told our streets are too dangerous for bicycles and helmet makers have a product they say will make you feel safer. In Holland where it is so much safer to ride a bike, nobody sees the need to wear a helmet, and the Dutch government could not find evidence to support the standard use of them, so they don't bother to promote them. We need what they have. Till then wear a helmet if it makes you feel safer - while you ride your ballooner to the party store :wink: .
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles ... cling-risk
From Britain: " “An individual who cycles one hour a day for 40 years would cover about 180,000km, whilst accumulating only a one in 150 chance of fatal injury. This is lower than for pedestrians who face a higher fatality rate per kilometre travelled,” she added. “The health benefits of cycling are much greater than the fatality risk.” "Active travel - defined as walking or cycling - is estimated to save £17bn in healthcare costs alone, according to a recent Lancet paper".Given the same argument for bike helmets, why don't we insist on pedestrian helmets, pedestrians are more likely to be in an injurious situation than cyclists?
The Dutch made cycling safety a priority, and it took the shape of bike infrastructure - not helmets. http://youtu.be/XuBdf9jYj7o And it works, and we can do it too. On our American city streets most people feel unsafe with or without a helmet, because they don't have what the Dutch have. We are told our streets are too dangerous for bicycles and helmet makers have a product they say will make you feel safer. In Holland where it is so much safer to ride a bike, nobody sees the need to wear a helmet, and the Dutch government could not find evidence to support the standard use of them, so they don't bother to promote them. We need what they have. Till then wear a helmet if it makes you feel safer - while you ride your ballooner to the party store :wink: .
We've had that discussion here in the Jacksonville area, maybe the most bike unfriendly city in the country. The painted in lanes are outright dangerous, they are the parking lanes, just repainted to say we have bike lanes. I ride on the sidewalks to work and back, and while it's illegal, the cops like it that way. They see too many crashes. The problem is the ride the sidewalks provide, a roadbike will get beat up riding sidewalks. So the fix would be to keep them separated by a barrier, either a concrete wall or plenty of space. As roadways are repaved, the additions could be made to make it cost effective. Not here though, there aren't enough people on bikes to make enough difference to make it happen. There are a few bike paths, but they are for recreation, you have to drive to get to them, and they don't provide a commuter route. The cost of having proper lanes installed is the problem.
My previous city was Grand Forks, ND. That is a model city for bike lanes, and it's in the United States. One leg follows a steam through town, completely away from streets. It helps that it's a college town. It was designed that way, not an afterthought. They even have underpasses for the paths at the major roads.
Helmets are your choice, wear them if you like. Don't if you don't.
My previous city was Grand Forks, ND. That is a model city for bike lanes, and it's in the United States. One leg follows a steam through town, completely away from streets. It helps that it's a college town. It was designed that way, not an afterthought. They even have underpasses for the paths at the major roads.
Helmets are your choice, wear them if you like. Don't if you don't.
Dorian, I can see that you're not hearing what I'm saying or you're choosing to disregard it. That's fine, I won't repeat it again. All I will say is that this isn't Holland, and the Dutch infrastructure isn't going to be here anytime soon, even with substantial advocacy. So what does one do in the mean time? Not ride? Not an option for me.
Jim you are right, "contrarians" was probably not the best choice of words. I admit that I am being just as contrary to the no-helmet group. I apologize if that sounded hostile. Ultimately I don't believe it watered down my points too much. It is clear that there are at least two distinct camps here. and the main thing I wanted to share was my personal reasons for wearing one.
Best regards,
Best regards,
I hate helmets and the fear promoted to sell them, and fear is promoted by those interests trying to make a buck off it. The same fear that is promoting toddler helmets now, everything is commercialized and fear exploited far beyond the reality of the situation.
Even if everyone wore helmets, critical injuries would still happen because we don't keep bikes and cars (and cars and pedestrians) away from each other. Helmets are a convienent (wink wink) excuse for governments not to spend money on proper bike infrastructure. "What do they need bike lanes for? they have bike helmets" Lol.
http://www.slideshare.net/Amsterdamize/ ... f-cyclists
Without moving to dedicated bike lanes, we are doomed to an increasinly dangerous biking future. For a vision of the future I look to Holland in this regard, yes . But, suit yourself.
:wink:
Even if everyone wore helmets, critical injuries would still happen because we don't keep bikes and cars (and cars and pedestrians) away from each other. Helmets are a convienent (wink wink) excuse for governments not to spend money on proper bike infrastructure. "What do they need bike lanes for? they have bike helmets" Lol.
http://www.slideshare.net/Amsterdamize/ ... f-cyclists
Without moving to dedicated bike lanes, we are doomed to an increasinly dangerous biking future. For a vision of the future I look to Holland in this regard, yes
. But, suit yourself.:wink:
Dedicated bike lanes in my experience here are far from safe. Toddlers wandering on their tricycles, Mothers with their babies in carriages, old people with walkers, you name it and you will find them hogging the lanes. Add the fact that most cyclists let their guard down because they think they are safe and accidents happen. I wear a Bern all the time. I've crashed twice on my bike in the last 20 years and both times I landed on my head hard. The helmet saved me from injury on both occasions. 3 years ago I was hit by a car while crossing the street on foot at a green light. I flew 20 feet in the air, landed on my shoulders because I was conscious of my situation ( Yeah I know, wicked Ninja move.) and tucked my head in but I still managed to whack my head on the ground. If I would have worn it, not that I do when walking, I would not have this 2 inch gap scar on my head.
All I'm saying is this, if you don't want to wear one, it's your choice and that's fine but nobody can deny the fact that helmets do prevent injuries.
Seen on a helmet: "I wear a helmet because of the way you drive."
Peace
All I'm saying is this, if you don't want to wear one, it's your choice and that's fine but nobody can deny the fact that helmets do prevent injuries.
Seen on a helmet: "I wear a helmet because of the way you drive."
Peace
xddorox said:
Dedicated bike lanes seem to work pretty good in Amsterdam, where people do 14 million bike rides a day, I don't understand what the problem is in Montreal? Although the dedicated bike lanes may be far from safe where you are, I would venture to say that they are still far far safer to bike on, than say riding right on the "Main" inches away from moving cars?
Toddler helmets prevent some injuries too, and certain types of helmets would prevent some serious injuries in cars as well. We don't really want to wear pedestrian helmets, even though they would prevent some injuries, like in your instance possibly? Maybe helmets for plane trips, where their use might prevent those rare occurances of turbulance injury, which I have seen first hand,lol. No denying that a helmet would prevent some injury in all these cases, especially cars! We will probably see the sale of toddler crash helmets for car rides soon, to be bought by fearful parents who see imminent danger everywhere. It's the same kind of fear that keeps children from playing outside anymore, because parents believe danger lurks around every corner, and behind every bush. They believe it because they heard it on the news,lol.
Better separation of cars and bodies by dedicated bike lanes simply makes good sense, compared to the alternative. I can understand why some parents would not want their children riding in a city without dedicated bike lanes, kids being killed in traffic was the catalyst that got Amsterdam on track to make them, with the result being a much lower death rate. Helmets may prevent some injuries, but more bike riding instead of car driving will prevent even more, and keep you healthier. Removing playgounds will prevent head injuries, closing pools will keep people from drowning - maybe floatation helmets are the answer? You would think that with the lack of helmets in Holland people would be having their heads smashed open all the time? But for some reason??? this isnt the case. Personally I just don't like helmets, or the fear mongering that companies use to sell them.
The stats can't be all wrong? :arrow: http://www.slideshare.net/Amsterdamize/ ... f-cyclists
Another fun article about those helmets :arrow: http://nozziwalkablestreets.com/2010/12 ... e-helmets/
..
I have a silver hardshell, embellished with a brass eagle holding a monkey wrench. I have to say, I wear it about 90% of the time...100% in Philly. The trolley rails are unforgiving...this I know from experience! Being in the bicycle business I've known plenty of people who were saved by a helmet, and heard of quite a few that didn't wear one and paid the cost.I always tell people "nobody ever came into the shop saying "Thank God I wasn't wearing my helmet"
If you have young kids it's a no brainer, if you'll pardon the phrase. If you wear a helmet, they will.
Having said that, I am also glad that the decision is left to me, not the law.The problem I have with "helmet laws" is they do nothing to remedy the cause and instead take a band-aid approach to the problem. Education has proved to be far more effective at accident reduction.
If you have young kids it's a no brainer, if you'll pardon the phrase. If you wear a helmet, they will.
Having said that, I am also glad that the decision is left to me, not the law.The problem I have with "helmet laws" is they do nothing to remedy the cause and instead take a band-aid approach to the problem. Education has proved to be far more effective at accident reduction.
