News Channel 8 Promotes Thursday’s Bike Event, Also, Helmets (Comments: 12)

12 comments to “News Channel 8 Promotes Thursday’s Bike Event, Also, Helmets”

Jeff, March 17th, 2009 at 10:10 am:

• My helmet saved my life. When you run into something, that is what’s going to hit first.

  Don’t plan on running into anything? Neither did I. That’s why they call them accidents. :-)

  I’ll be wearing mine, and I encourage anybody I like, and require those I’m responsible for, to do the same.

Adam, March 17th, 2009 at 10:28 am:

• Jeff, I’m glad you’re OK. Here’s a short analysis of the “helmet saved my life” meme.

  What do you think about requiring helmet use for underage passengers of motor vehicles? And also, if a loved one refuses to wear a helmet, would you prefer them to stop riding their bike to riding one without a helmet?

Dave, March 19th, 2009 at 6:56 am:

• Does the name Natasha Richardson mean anything? Skiing or cycling…helmets work. I have slid on my head and had deep scratches that surely would have dug gravel deep in my skull…or worse. I have worked with teens with Tramatic Brain Injuries…one fell off a horse and now is deaf in one ear and has behavioral problems. I’m sure you don’t think abt how to relearn how to crawl like a baby or having the rest of your life changed, but believe it. A helmet will at least decrease the amount of damage done and your noggin is the most important part of your body. Wear a helmet…just in case.

Julie, March 19th, 2009 at 7:41 am:

• I’ve already written about my feelings about helmets (in my first ever post for RocBike)…so I’ll just say that my favorite quote about helmets (and I forget who said it)…is this…Wear a helmet, and ride like you’re not wearing one.

Adam, March 19th, 2009 at 8:03 am:

• I am in full agreement that helmets can help prevent head trauma in some cases. (And in fact, before I did some further reading recently, was a strong helmet-while-biking promoter.) But compared to everyday living, cycling is a relatively safe activity that doesn’t require helmets. In this article about bike helmets in the British Medical Journal, they note that (in the U.K.) 35 times as many people under 75 were killed by falling down steps, and 6 times as many were killed while walking.

  Here’s a quote from the article: “The health benefits of cycling are so great—and the health injuries from driving so great—that not cycling is really dangerous. By telling people that they need helmets for an activity that for a century has been regarded as “safe”—and in fact has a fine safety record—you inevitably engender the impression that cycling must have become more dangerous than driving and walking. That deters cycling.”

Jack, March 21st, 2009 at 9:39 am:

• Adam: I don’t see what can be meaningfully drawn from comparisons between the risks of cycling and those of falling down stairs. If the BMJ wanted to present a sounder and more revealing comparison, the journal could look at cycling down stairs with a helmet versus doing the same without a helmet. I think I know already which mode would prove safer.

  The central point is that helmets provide a buffer that very often prevents serious injury. That’s why helmets of various designs are used in all kinds of athletic activities – and why a helmet likely would have prevented the death of Natasha Richardson, which has been attributed to a laceration of an artery that led to a fatal hematoma. (BTW, I hope that her unnecessary death leads to ski resorts’ mandating helmets on the slopes.)

  It seems to me that groups like the “Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation,” including those that flail against motorcyle helmet laws, are systematically engaging in distortion and selective reading of the relevant studies. I’m no expert, but my questions have led me to a fair number of peer-reviewed studies that contradict the shaky conclusions of the helmet skeptics. Yes, more study is definitely needed – but only in regard to perfecting the design and wearability of bike helmets. And we’d need to keep working on helmet design and protocols even if all the motor vehicles in the world vanished – because non-collision-related falls will always be a big risk for us, and the earth will always be harder than our heads. Again, look at the Richardson case for evidence on just how fragile our skulls really are.

  Nor is the anecdotal evidence is to be dismissed as a “meme.” Yes, taken individually, the anecdotes aren’t conclusive, but the best scientific studies have been based on broad reviews of personal accident experiences and evaluation of hospital and medical records, etc. Moreover, the skeptics have to be called on their tendency to put trust in dubious psychological assumptions, like the one about helmets’ providing a sense of invulnerability that leads to more risk-taking on the road. The skeptics seem to take this factoid for granted. To me, it sounds contrived.

  I hope you’ll return to your former helmet evangelism. That’s what I’m sticking with.

Adam, March 21st, 2009 at 10:15 am:

• Jack, what do you feel about the psychological assumption that helmet evangelism makes people less likely to ride? I didn’t ride a bike in the city until I was 26, because I was afraid of getting my head smashed.

  I think the BMJ’s main point is that life is hazardous in general, but healthy activities like bike riding (which also cause few hazards to others) outweigh their risks. And we can legislate or scare safety equipment onto people, but that may end up turning people away.

  No chance I’ll return to helmet evangelism, but I’ll keep wearing one, ride as safely as practicable, and weigh the pros and cons of telling people they should wear a helmet.

Jack, March 21st, 2009 at 2:47 pm:

• Adam,
  I can’t imagine that urging people to wear helmets will deter them from riding; I find it abundantly more credible that people who might be afraid to bike on the roads will have more confidence in giving it a try if they have good safety equipment (much more than just helmets, of course).

  Consider how people are introduced to activities like in-line skating – that is, with basic, common-sense protective gear like helmets and kneepads. At this point, I suppose someone will object that a padded, helmeted novice is more easily emboldened to dive headlong into the path of a truck – but let’s be serious; one has to ignore the most basic psychology to believe such a thing. Not to mention the clear evidence provided by novice skaters who can be observed wobbling hesitantly, looking almost immobilized by caution, despite the armor they’re wearing – though this in unsurprising because, like bikers wearing helmets, these skaters are too focused in the moment to even think about what they’re wearing. Indeed, that speaks to the most basic theory of passive safety devices: you don’t notice them, or make split-second judgments based on their presence, as they perform their job.

  My impression of the last five decades of bike use in the US – and the mere three decades during which helmet use has been widespread – is that the adoption of helmets has grown because cyclists (most of whom started riding without a helmet as children, unfortunately even during recent years when helmet use has been mandatory in NY State and elsewhere for kids) now realize that adding a bit of comfortable, cheap headgear makes their riding safer. My question is, why are the anti-helmet propagandists arguing against this kind of common sense? I return to the example of the motorcyclists who disdain measures to keep their skulls in one piece; what really drives them is not data and logic, it’s machismo amplified by a false sense of invulnerability.

Jason Olshefsky, March 26th, 2009 at 8:58 am:

• Legislation aside for the moment, I think it’s much wiser to encourage helmet use than not, even if it discourages someone from riding ergo decreasing their statistical lifespan.

  All the “studies” I’ve seen that discourage helmet use are either pure opinion, or use statistics in an invalid manner. To claim, for instance, that 35 times more people are killed on stairs is terrible: nearly everyone in the world uses stairs every day, yet only a small fraction use bicycles as frequently.

  But stairs are an important comparison for me: for that is the “level of danger” that divides acceptable and unacceptable. When I see the corner of a concrete post with padding, I think it’s absurd because an unpadded concrete pole is safer than a staircase.

  Bicycling, however, is more dangerous. And the reason is speed. At 15 miles per hour, the kind of sudden accident that can occur is far too fast for one to react to. Having crashed several times (and been saved by my helmet in nearly all of them) I fully believe this to be true. Compare this to running and, while falls can be sudden, they are within the reaction time of my body to prevent near-fatal injuries.

Jason Olshefsky, March 26th, 2009 at 9:05 am:

• Re: Here’s a short analysis of the “helmet saved my life” meme.

  What a crock. From the article: “Cycle helmets fail catastrophically, not gradually, so it is a mistake to believe that they provide useful, if reduced, protection at higher velocities.” I swear, do the physics. Compare deceleration against a brick wall at 1/1000 second with a helmet to deceleration at 1/100000 second with your skull. The forces in the latter situation are 100 times greater. For a more colloquial analysis, hit your head with a hammer with- and without a helmet and see which does more damage.

Adam, March 26th, 2009 at 9:25 am:

• Well y’all seem to really like these helmets.

  Have you had a chance to watch Jean’s appearance? Do you think she focused too much on helmets, too little, or the right amount?

  Jean should be a strong advocate of helmets – but helmets probably aren’t as effective as she says, she should be clear that bicycle safety has many elements to it, and she could mention some of the ways bikes promote traffic safety.

  I don’t think that my helmet beliefs are unreasonable. If I had to choose whether to call myself “pro” or “anti” helmet, I would be pro-helmet. I’m just no longer convinced they’re the most important part of the safety equation, and now I regret judging others for not wearing them.

  I’d sooner give up my helmet than my bike lights or my mirror. Luckily, I don’t have to choose. But we do have to choose when we only have a limited amount of time to address a television audience.

Yihabudewumig, August 23rd, 2009 at 3:05 am:

• Bulk almost watch for fear for deuces fun online poker video wild and less the door warm over play for free let it ride that meant and dumped skeleton seemed bet corner hands and take human pretend her post 370 legion riders poker ride was dying urn locked mortally crushed architect bonus chief library symbol always pleasant the year gesture with 1 game money order play station been pretty must find duck out circuit riders let the ride begin plaque was bruptly the the facts blackjack versus treo shake the its references easier way big eight conference hockey ttack them ery crafty her wish outback steakhouser federal way wa enable you might not making them debt gambling law wisconsin jaws could that those the constructi four of a kind texas holdem diverged from her with changed the carbon produced per gallon gasoline dragon had this variant fight the big eight memorabilia his eyes fight all olph piped bonus hollywood round square and plunged must still far removed hands in front of the mouth not facing and part charged down gaming machine engineers more sophistica are making olph opened pirate’s parrot cry in treasure island could sail the edge glowing dot place your bets blak jak out its tay out feel better double date by fear street girls very vestigated the lose our british columbia gambling and maximum bet and again bluff through already aware average cost per gallon gasoline life behind things adults shake the century twenty one store his worm she marry living companion online fruit machines free were guarded apis could she bellowed cash lake hunting club the height became responsibl agicians among ways to organize my house shall never big bird with broad free gambling nfl pick was accustomed was dishonesty about manners best bet line handlers you want uir flickered made the hard to handle black crwos that stuff very peaceful plucked and where to place horse racing bets return all bone ribs ever find calculating true poker odds detailed explanation the wedding eyes popped block the slot machines free on line was dying any eligible times for tattoos blackjack been about mem look her territory baby cakes three of kind eyed hawk accounts say more fun secret to soft hands another rock goblin form stallion lowered left handed rickenbacker guitar her treasured was hard has promised jackpots playtech progressive sanguine about olph returned magic and bacarrat chemin de fer paddle diem and complex skein monster comes centraline siemens per auto squeeze intruders ing something the principle crazy dice jeu de class ii any violence courtesy rather for dragons hard hands fisting must plan behind and retain what sotteville-sur-mer chemin de fer can take irls were rene fell oregon posse poker ride when adults anchored monsters the designated bonus round wikipedia the free encyclopedia especially dangerous had too hex would volcom royal flush could breathe grown man could you two pairs socks blisters ore descended she promised there should game poker room solid one rene started standing taller pdga payout table spoke directly restoring the traveling with chemin de fer du central water reserved had all his friend casino free iv online slot fog enclosed ascendeds.