helmet beliefs >>> behavior

gds said:

I'm reposting this question here as the Solstice thread is just too
long>>

My take is that there is little convincing going on, those who believe

I agree no matter how long party "a" argues his point, party "b" in not
likely to change opinions,based on party "a"s opinion.

Quoted message said:

that research shows helmets are great, those that believe that helmets
are not so great, and those who believe that the data is compromised
and they just don't know all appear to hold their positions -certainly
within the time frame of this forum

My thoughts exactly, if you love helmets for the protection they offer
fine, if you think it's better to wear one than not then do so. If you
think they are worthless and wouldn't buy one unless it became illegal
to ride without one, fine.

Quoted message said:

So, l'd like to understand a bit more how holding one position or
another actually effects helmet use and under what circumstances.

I'll start. I'm pretty well convinced that the myriad studies show
differing results. So, my current position is that I just don't know.

That said I wear a helmet all the time. However, I do not do a great
variety of riding types. I ride high mileage (5,000+ miles /year) all
on the road. I ride solo and in groups but purely for recreation and
enjoy speed and (while I am terrible at it) long climbs. I ride only on

a racing style road bike.

For the first 30 years of my riding I never wore a helmet. When the
early Bell helmets came out I was a slow adopter, I bought one but
found it so heavy and uncomfotable that I seldom used it. My transfer
to helmet use came with the introduction of the early soft shell
helmets. They were light enough to be pretty comfortable, they were
pretty inexpensive and I saw no downside. With the introduction of the
light weight hard shells I switched over as I found them to be lighter,

more comfortable and cooler.

While not convinced that helmets provide a statistically high degree of

added safety my logic is that they are now very inexpensive (on a per
year or per mile basis) very comfortable- I really don't find them
annoying at all, and given my agnostic view of their efficacy I simply
figure--"Why not?!?!" For me I see no downside.

I don't wear one at anytime right now, however at some point in the
future I may. I ride on the road, last year I rode over 3,000 miles,
some for my commute, some for exercise, some just for fun. I haven't
seen any numbers that scare me enough to buy one now, perhaps if I see
an accident involving a cyclist with a head injury maybe that will
change my mind.

Ken
--
You never have the wind with you - either it is against you or you're
having a good day. ~Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/

gds said:

My take is that there is little convincing going on, those who believe
that research shows helmets are great, those that believe that helmets
are not so great, and those who believe that the data is compromised
and they just don't know all appear to hold their positions -certainly
within the time frame of this forum

While I doubt any of the active participants will suddenly have a
revelation and switch sides, some readers who previously hadn't given
the subject as much thought may be persuaded one way or the other.
That's certainly what happened in my case. I was once of the opinion
that essentially all the studies agreed on the effectiveness of helmets
since those are the studies that tend to get publicized. The
discussions here showed that not to be the case and led me to read some
of the studies in detail to understand how the discrepancies could come
about.

Quoted message said:

So, l'd like to understand a bit more how holding one position or
another actually effects helmet use and under what circumstances.

I'll start. I'm pretty well convinced that the myriad studies show
differing results. So, my current position is that I just don't know.

Pretty much agreed although my feeling is that the effectiveness, if
any, of helmets must be much less than claimed by the widely cited case
control studies.

I've also become convinced that the emphasis placed on helmet use has
been detrimental to casual cycling. Telling people they *must* wear a
helmet every time they ride tends to portray the activity as one that's
especially dangerous - far more than the actual injury and fatality
data indicates when compared to other common activities. So parents
who may have been undecided on whether or not to have their kids ride
bikes to school may decide to drive them there instead (and in the
process make the area around the school even more dangerous for
others). Adults deciding on exercise activities may decide to go to a
fitness center instead of cycling if they view the latter as too
hazardous, etc.

Quoted message said:

For the first 30 years of my riding I never wore a helmet. When the
early Bell helmets came out I was a slow adopter, I bought one but
found it so heavy and uncomfotable that I seldom used it. My transfer
to helmet use came with the introduction of the early soft shell
helmets. They were light enough to be pretty comfortable, they were
pretty inexpensive and I saw no downside. With the introduction of the
light weight hard shells I switched over as I found them to be lighter,
more comfortable and cooler.

I got a Bell Biker within a year of their introduction and wore a
helmet on all rides for the following 25 years. More recently, as I've
become more skeptical of helmet effectiveness, I've used a helmet less
often. Most of my riding is with bike clubs and there I wear a helmet
to comply with their rules, but I no longer wear one when riding to the
store or on solo rides. I do very little off-road cycling, but would
wear a helmet for that kind of riding where the chance of falling is
much greater.

gds said:

So, l'd like to understand a bit more how holding one position or
another actually effects helmet use and under what circumstances.

I'll start. I'm pretty well convinced that the myriad studies show
differing results. So, my current position is that I just don't know.

I concurr, and while I believe bicycling is very safe regardless of
helment use, I do believe the helmet could help in certain situations,
and is very unlikely to do harm (despite those who argue otherwise.
I've heard the arguments, I don't believe them).

I rode and crashed often as a kid without a helmet and never got
seriously hurt. But now I wear one all the time. I started wearing one
when I started mountain biking about 15 years ago and have worn it on
every ride, mountain or road, since. (I got my helmet free from someone
that won it in some contest. It didn't fit them, it does fit me)

I've crashed a fair number of times while off-road, but the helmet has
no cracks or crushed areas so I've not bothered to replace it. It has,
however, helped when hitting low-hang branches when riding on the local
MPUs.

I see no downside.

Rich

I don't think reading yet another helmet thread is going to change
anyone's mind. I wear one 100% of the time that I ride, though I ride
solo almost all the time and could do whatever I want. I do think that
cycling is relatively safe, if the rider uses simple common sense, and
feel more confident of that the more I ride. At present, I ride about
2000 miles a year and ride some almost every day in an urban setting.

gds said:

Quoted message said:

So, l'd like to understand a bit more how holding one position or
another actually effects helmet use and under what circumstances.

I'll start. I'm pretty well convinced that the myriad studies show
differing results. So, my current position is that I just don't know.

My position has changed somewhat in that I no longer refuse to ride with
helmetless riders, and I make sure the anti MHL position is presented
when the subject comes up. But I almost never go helmetless myself.
Never saved my life but prevented a nasty head injury. Most folks I
know have similar stories.

gds said:

So, l'd like to understand a bit more how holding one position or
another actually effects helmet use and under what circumstances.

Okay, I'll bite.

I never wore a helmet through college, and somehow managed to survive. :-)

At my first job after college, a bicycling coworker strongly encouraged me
always to wear a helmet, so I did. IIRC, he argued that "you could die from
a bicycle accident at 5mph without one", or something similar. It seems
rather unconvincing, now.

Since then, I've read discussions and studies. I still wear a helmet
whenever I'm cycling, but I think I have more reasonable expectations for
the level of protection it provides. I always wear cycling gloves, too, but
I don't expect either the helmet or the gloves to save my life in an
accident. But they have reduced the "pain and suffering" resulting from a
couple minor accidents, and that's worth something.

Plus, the helmet is a handy place to attach a rear-view mirror, and an
extra blinkie light at night. And it's a convenient place to store the
gloves between rides.
--
Darin McGrew, [email hidden], http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, [email hidden], http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"If at first you don't succeed, then plug it in and try again."

Darin McGrew said:

Plus, the helmet is a handy place to attach a rear-view mirror, and an
extra blinkie light at night.

I almost never ride at night. Way too dangerous....

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
: I'm reposting this question here as the Solstice thread is just too
: long>>
:

I wear a helmet when I ride. I wear it because my wife feels better when I
do.

Sure, I could win an argument over whether a helmet provides any incremental
safety. It really doesn't. But am I better off by winning an argument over
a trivial issue like helmet wearing? Probably not. So I wear a helmet and
smile knowing my wife feels better.

The helmet came in handy last summer though. I went down a road I had never
rode. There were branches hanging over the road. They caught me by
surprise and instead of turning out of the way, I ducked down. The branches
hit the helmet and I safely rode on. Praise FSM, the helmet saved me from
the minor inconvenience of getting smacked by a branch.

gds said:

So, l'd like to understand a bit more how holding one position or
another actually effects helmet use and under what circumstances.

I'd like to enter proxy votes for all the world's cycists before the
year 1975 - several billion of them, I suppose - and nearly all the
world's cyclists today.

In their opinion, cycling wasn't/isn't dangerous, so there's no need
for a helmet.

Of course, I'm in general agreement.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

I'd like to enter proxy votes for all the world's cycists before the
year 1975

I think you need some kind of signed paper to enter a proxy vote for
someone.

Quoted message said:

In their opinion, cycling wasn't/isn't dangerous, so there's no need
for a helmet.

You spoke to them all? Or are you just making stuff up?

Rich

Rich said:

Quoted message said:

I'd like to enter proxy votes for all the world's cycists before the
year 1975

Quoted message said:

In their opinion, cycling wasn't/isn't dangerous, so there's no need
for a helmet.

You spoke to them all? Or are you just making stuff up?

Neither. It's self-evident. They rode. They didn't ask for helmets.
They saw no need. And the overwhelming majority of the world's
cyclists still feel the same.

Seriously, it seems like the link between bicycling and serious head
injury was forged by Bell when they began developing and marketing the
Bell Biker. Before then, there was no common perception that bicycling
caused head injuries, no handwringing worries. Even President
Eisenhower, the leader of the free world, was considered at zero risk
as he rode for exercise.

Look at pre-1975 photos of cycling. In fact, look at the photos of
BikeCentennial's thousands of cross-country tourists in 1976. Very,
very few helmets, although Bell's propaganda machine was already well
in gear.

The current popularity of helmets is a wonderful example of marketing
dishonesty.

- Frank Krygowski

I doubt a helmet makes someone safe. but if you have every hit your
head on something hard you sure wish you had something between your
head and the hard thing. I cracked my head open twice while I was a
kid. got a big knot on my forehead and about 25 stitches or so total.
got hit by a car a couple hears back both of us were going slow when
she ran into the side of me. so slow that when I hit the ground I did
not even get scraped up. but my helmet bounced my head off the
pavement. well I watched the ground rushing up to my face then my face
was away from the ground. a very weird feeling. Just the tip of my
chin got a bit red and my glasses got scratched. I know form
experience what would have happened without it since it had happened
twice before.
I don't want my head hitting something hard no matter what it is not
fun at all. you never know when or if it will happen.
Knight-Toolworks
http://www.knight-toolworks.com
affordable handmade wooden planes

Quoted message said:

Darin McGrew said:

Plus, the helmet is a handy place to attach a rear-view mirror, and an
extra blinkie light at night.

Riding at night is fun. Where I live, it gets pretty darn hot during
the summer when the sun's up. At night I don't have to worry so much
about the heat, but did learn to wear glasses and keep my mouth closed
because of the flying critters. The helmet and a do rag keep the bugs
out of my hair. =]

Quoted message said:

Rich said:

Quoted message said:

I'd like to enter proxy votes for all the world's cycists before the
year 1975

Quoted message said:

In their opinion, cycling wasn't/isn't dangerous, so there's no need
for a helmet.

You spoke to them all? Or are you just making stuff up?

Neither. It's self-evident. They rode. They didn't ask for helmets.
They saw no need.

The same can be said about cars and seatbelts. Before the 70's people
just drove. They saw no need for seat belts. Does that mean seat belts
don't offer any protection? No. There's oftentimes a disconnect
between peoples actions and what's good for them, either because of
ignorance or stupidity.

You need to stick with the good arguments and not try to make every
argument under the sun. When you make bad ones, it makes people
suspicious about the good ones.

Quoted message said:

Seriously, it seems like the link between bicycling and serious head
injury was forged by Bell when they began developing and marketing the
Bell Biker.

Wow. I missed that the first 100 times you posted it.

Rich

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So, l'd like to understand a bit more how holding one position or
another actually effects helmet use and under what circumstances.

Position: Helmets probably help in some accidents, but not enough so that
usage should be mandatory. In particular, mandatory laws seem to lower the
amount of cycling, which makes cycling more dangerous for cyclists since one
of the big contributors to safe cycling is having a lot of cyclists (so
motorists expect them). It's also more dangerous for those who stop cycling,
unless they replace cycling with some other form of healthful exercise.

I think that if you can't definitively determine that regulation helps
substantially, you shouldn't regulate.

Behavior: I wear a helmet all the time, unless I forget to wear it. If I
forget it, I just keep riding.

In a similar vein, I don't favor airbags. To oversimplify the research:
seatbelt usage greatly improves safety in an accident. Front airbags offer
no incremental protection. In fact, front airbags are a known hazard for
people of low body weight. Airbags are also expensive and add to vehicle
costs. So, mandatory airbag laws should be repealed. Mandatory seatbelt
usage can be justified on the grounds that it improves public safety
substantially, seatbelts are cheap, and seatbelts aren't a known hazard.

peter said:

I got a Bell Biker within a year of their introduction and wore a
helmet on all rides for the following 25 years. More recently, as I've
become more skeptical of helmet effectiveness, I've used a helmet less
often. Most of my riding is with bike clubs and there I wear a helmet
to comply with their rules, but I no longer wear one when riding to the
store or on solo rides. I do very little off-road cycling, but would
wear a helmet for that kind of riding where the chance of falling is
much greater.

This mirrors my experience/sentiment almost exactly.

In article <[email hidden]>,

gds said:

So, l'd like to understand a bit more how holding one position or
another actually effects helmet use and under what circumstances.

1) I wouldn't rely on my own bicycle helmet (which, as a British
Columbian, I'm legally compelled to wear.) Y'know that stupid
ol' baseball bat "experiment" so many proponents suggest?
I wouldn't subject myself to that, with the helmet /on/.

2) I think the prime impetus of helmet proponentry is the comfort
levels of drivers. A lot of them get skittish & nervous when
they encounnter cyclists on the streets. They think we're
performing some sort of daredevilry. They insist on us wearing
helmets so they don't hurt us so much when they hit us.

IMO it always boils down to dumbing-down driving. Maybe the
sight of helmeted cyclists causes drivers to risk compensate --
only with the cycists' necks at stake? If that truly were the
case, helmets could actually make things worse for us.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Peter Cole said:

peter said:

I got a Bell Biker within a year of their introduction and wore a
helmet on all rides for the following 25 years. More recently, as I've
become more skeptical of helmet effectiveness, I've used a helmet less
often. Most of my riding is with bike clubs and there I wear a helmet
to comply with their rules, but I no longer wear one when riding to the
store or on solo rides. I do very little off-road cycling, but would
wear a helmet for that kind of riding where the chance of falling is
much greater.

This mirrors my experience/sentiment almost exactly.

That's pretty much what I do as well. Of course my kids always note when
I am riding with no helmet!

It's refreshing to see that even some of the most rabid anti-helmet
posters will admit that they will, under certain circumstances (racing,
mountain biking, etc), which at least says that they do understand that
if you're involved in a bicycle accident, involving impact to the head,
you'll fare better with a helmet than without one.

The whole helmet debate boils down to the following:

1. Compulsory helmet laws are bad.

2. If you're involved in a bicycle accident, involving impact to the
head, you'll fare better with a helmet than without one.

3. Emergency room and accident studies show, for the limited sample they
looked at, that helmeted cyclists fared much better than non-helmeted
cyclists in terms of head injury and brain injury (even though the
precise numbers vary from study to study).

4. There are no valid population studies that show that helmet use
either increased injury rates or decreased injury rates, on a per
cyclist basis. Even though injury rates fell when the percentage of
cyclists wearing helmets went up, this may not prove anything because it
is not known how many, if any, cyclists gave up cycling rather than wear
a helmet.

Mike Kruger said:

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So, l'd like to understand a bit more how holding one position or
another actually effects helmet use and under what circumstances.

Position: Helmets probably help in some accidents, but not enough so that
usage should be mandatory. In particular, mandatory laws seem to lower the
amount of cycling

There is absolutely no proof of this. Someone said it, and it's been
repeated as often as the 85% number that they hate so much!