Irresponsible Ad

So true. What a shame that the International Brotherhood of Handwringers feel the need to invoke the fear of this kind of crash in order to promote them! But then, I suppose it's understandable, given that most serious cyclist injuries are sustained in collision with motor vehicles.

Or from falling over backwards while drunk. Not many people do, though. Funny, isn't it, that cycling only became dangerous after Bell started producing the Biker?

Er, not as such, no. It's designed for the equivalent of your disconnected head hitting a flat surface at 12mph or less. Although it is theoretically possible for this to be fatal, a lot of people have survived a lot worse. There is also a school of thought which suggests that the helmet makes the impact more likely in the first place, for a number of reasons. One of the best-known pro-helmet studies found that helmeted cyclists were seven times more likely to hit their heads, and the biggest study of cyclist injuries ever conducted in the USA found a small but significant increase in risk of death.

Like the man says, risk management is not rocket science - it's *much* more complicated than that!

Guy

Brilliant!

Guy

Famous last words!

Marie Antoinette's disconnected head fell a lot less than two meters, and it was swiftly fatal to her. ;-)

Ah, but she was eating a cake at the time.

Guy

I wish that were the case but I have destroyed two helmets in the last year with the only head injury being a headache. The worst was at only ~10MPH and the other at 22. When I see a rider without a helmet I take them as fools. Nothing will help you if you get your head run over by a semi but that kind of accident is fortunately not common. You can die from falling over getting uncliped without headgear.

Bob

Is that to be considered evidence of the effectiveness of foam hats?

Hint: I'm not a strong man. I cannot hit you in the head with my fist hard enough to injure you, but I can punch the #&$^ out of a piece of styrofoam.

If I make a paper hat, wear it on my head and destroy it in a bicycle crash while not injuring myself, is that valid evidence that a paper hat saved me from injury?

And when I read a statement like that, I _know_ it's written by a fool. You're obviously someone who has never looked at the facts of the matter, yet feels his judgement is superior to others. Ignorance and hubris, together as always.

Tell me, does your distain extend to every cyclist in the world before, say, 1975 or so? Does it extend to the billions of cyclists worldwide who presently ride wearing other (or no) styles of hats? Or does your condemnation extend only to those directly under your disapproving gaze?

Oh, good grief - as if _that's_ common!

You can die from tripping down the steps. And from slipping on ice. And from riding in cars - the most common cause of head injury fatality. And from walking near traffic, a far bigger fatality source than cycling. And from...

... well, I'm sure you're bored with all that. Because, of course, you want to portray only _cycling_ as being dangerous, right? Despite all the data that says otherwise, right?

Again: Ignorance and hubris.

Try reading

Try learning a bit before condemning others' judgement about their personal safety.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

- Frank Krygowski

Please feel free to ride unhelmeted, so long as you have complete health coverage and long term care insurance so I and others won't be picking up your bill. Break a leg!

At Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:27:33 -0700, message was posted by Steve Caple , including some, all or none of the following:

Interesting comment at the end: according to the most widely cited pro-helmet study helmets do indeed prevent 72% of broken legs.

Guy

And this is your response to someone who pointed out that scientific research shows your statement to be idiocy. Now I know why foam hat fanatics are compared to religious zealots. Feel free to worship your foamed polystyrene god, but please go proselytize elsewhere.

Mitch.

PS: What is health insurance, if not a way to make others pay your medical bills?

And just what do you think falling over is?

A lot of people have survived lots of things, but that's totally irrelevant.

Oh, I see. People who wear helmets ride around thinking "OK, if I crash, I'll just slam my head down on the pavement deliberately."

LOL.

Sounds like statistical games for those in denial.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"

Well I don't know about you, but I always do my best to keep my head firmly attached to my body when falling...

Here is what one helmet tester has to say about helmet standards:

Not really. Helmets are designed to withstand a type of impact which was never likely to cause serious injury in the first place, and then people wonder why helmet use fails to reduce levels of serious injury. Some people do, anyway. Others have less trouble understanding why...

Sorry, if I had realised that you didn't have the faintest clue about risk compensation theory I'd have explained it more clearly. For a good basic grounding I suggest you read Target Risk by Wilde

Remember that crashes are caused, in the main, not by the taking of large risks, but by the taking of small risks very large numbers of times. Cycling crashes are rare, you see, and serious injuries rarer; you can get away with a given risk in some cases hundreds of thousands of times - millions, even - without a mishap.

Helmeted riders perceive themselves as being better protected, so those small risks will be slightly bigger, or taken slightly more often. This balancing behaviour has been documented in respect of cars and seatbelts, cars and ABS, cyclists and helmets and various other areas.

It's a bit like walking along near the edge of a cliff. The risk of falling over gets higher the closer you go to the edge, even though the change in risk for each successive inch closer to the edge is unmeasurably small.

There are a lot of reasons people have put forward to explain the observed fact that head injury rates have never reduced as a result of increased helmet wearing, and of these I think risk compensation is one of the more compelling.

Guy

If you think _you_ have any chance of picking up my medical bills, your knowledge of economics is as weak as your knowledge of bike safety!

But thank you, I will feel free to ride unhelmeted. I also feel free to jog unhelmeted. I ride in my car unhelmeted, despite the fact that car interiors cause far more brain injuries and deaths than bikes ever will. I also climb ladders unhelmeted. I've done rock climbing unhelmeted. I've ridden everything from kick scooters to ice skates unhelmeted.

And frankly, I think anyone who questions such personal choices needs a serious attitude adjustment... or a full-time job as an overprotective nanny!

- Frank Krygowski

Do you decapitate yourself as you fall?

I think you didn't understand the word "disconnected." The helmet certification tests use a magnesium model of a head, fitted with linear accelerometers. That "headform" has no body attached. The impact of the decapitated headform seems a poor model for the impact of a head with a body still attached - the latter being most cyclists' personal preference!

It always seems to be irrelevant when people want to exaggerate the miniscule dangers of cycling. Simultaneously, the larger dangers from walking near traffic and riding in cars always seem irrelevant to the styrofoam fans. IOW, we're told we COULD, POSSIBLY be terribly hurt while cycling; but we're told it's foolish to worry about the _bigger_ risks of motoring and walking.

It seems a concerted effort to disparage and discourage cycling. It's hard to interpret it any other way.

Hmmm. Sounds to me like someone who hasn't read, nor thought about, this issue at all!

Tell me, since you apparently ride with a helmet: Is there any place or any situation where you would absolutely _not_ ride if you had no helmet? Perhaps mountain biking, or perhaps heavy traffic? If so, please describe it.

- Frank Krygowski

Sorry - I didn't mean to cross-post to rec.bicycles.sociopath.

In other words, you didn't want the discussion to involve anyone who actually knows anything about the issue?

OK, your preference for ignorance is duly noted.

- Frank Krygowski

Well look at the bight side. With these guys going after you, they won't be able to claim it is "just me". :-)