Re: Are Helmets Completely Worthless as a Safety Device for a Bike Commuter?

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:35:42 -0800 (PST), frkrygow@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Feb 24, 9:54 am, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
In respose to Frank's ( and a few others') constant derision of
those who believe in a "faith", "religion" or "GOD",, whatever
theypercieve it to be.

I'm sorry, but you're extremely confused. I am a religious person.
I do not deride those who believe in faith, religion or God because
of those beliefs.

However, I think if a person is going to give advice to others on
cures for disease, protective devices, etc. that advice should be
based on science, not on religion.

My only real problem regarding others' religions, is when their
beliefs lead them to obnoxious proselytizing.

- Frank Krygowski

And who has been guilty of that on this thread?
Have YOU read the artical on the cyclehelmet site on how helmets work?
How good is your reading comprehension in English?
Throw away ALL your pre-concieved ideas and read it again. The welmey
tester who wrote the article is convinced helmets can and do reduce
injury under certain not-uncommon conditions. The fact he could not
convince some idiotic judge and several doctors it was true has not
changed his mind, and does not change the facts of the subject at
hand.

Will helmets prevent or reduce ALL head injuries that may be suffered
while cycling (or more accuratey, when cycling comes to an unplanned
end)?
Certainly not.
Is cycling, in and of itself necessarily more dangerous than other
passtimes? When compared to rollerblading, skateboarding,
waterskiing, skiing, and many other currently popular passtimes? No.

Is it foolish to take steps towards reducing the risk of what,
regardless of current statistics, CAN be serious injury?
NO.
The FACT that more pedestrians recieve head injuries than cyclists is
due to many things. More pedestrians are hit by moving vehicles while
crossing the road than cyclists. More pedestrians are hit either from
front or berhind by vehicles than are cyclists.
The speed differential betreen "hitter" and "hittee" is higher when a
pedestrian is hit from behind (or in front) than when a cyclist is hit
from behind..
When a cyclist is hit from behind HE is the primary point of impact.
When a cyclist is hit, the bike, fully 2 feet behind (and below) the
cyclist's head, is hit first and the bike takes a portion of the
impact and damage.
The pedestrian is usually killed or severely injured by hitting the
structure of the car, and then being flung in an aleady injured state
to the ground, with no chance of taking action to protect
himself/herself.
When a cyclist is hit there is a very finite timespan in which he/she
can take action to reduce the severity of their impending injuries.

The probability of being SERIOUSLY INJURED or killed IF hit by a car
is much higher for the pedestrian.

Also, the common bicycle helmet is NOT designed to absorb/prevent
injury from colission with an automobile. It is designed to reduce
injuries due, primarily, to low speed impact with a relatively "single
plain" hard surface.

When you limit the discussion to this type of possible injury, and
this type of occurrence (hitting one's head on pavement, curb, or
stationary object) you WILL find the numbers to be skewed somewhat
towards cyclists.
Pedestrians falling and banging their heads is more or less restricted
to slips and trips and drunken escapades, while cyclists can add
upsets from potholes, railroad tracks, and storm grates to the "loss
of traction" dumps, which add up to 20MPH to the fall.The falls at
less than 15kph, where the helmets are designed to do most of their
protection, would see the most advantage. In MANY of these, due to
position etc, it is easier to keep from banging the head on the ground
than in a slip-and-fall pedestrian fall, but WHEN the head does meet
the ground, wall, curb, or other inanimate object, a helmet will
almost always reduce the extent of the injury if properly worn - TO
THE EXTENT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE OCCURRENCES ARE NON
REPORTED/REPRTABLE, and therefore not in the statistics.
The VAST majority of minor head bumps from bicycle incidents are also
not reported. I know lots of guys who have knocked themselves out, or
knocked themselves off a bike, and just gotten back on and continued
on their way with no medical attention.Machismo,testosterone, or
whatever.(even on motorcycle accidents)
The benefit is, according to most sources, more noticeable for younger
or less experienced riders (who also tend to be riding at
significantly lower speeds)
In cases like my daughter's fall, there would be no record of the
incident at all in the statistics.

So, the question, "are helmets completely worthless as a safety device
for a Bike Commuter" could likely be most truthfully answered as
follows:

In the case of an accident not involving a third party, and occurring
at lower speeds, where the rider's head could hit the ground or other
immobile object (for which bicycle helmets were designed) a reduction
in the severity of, or total prevention of head injuries can be
anticipated.
In the case of higher speed incidents, or those involving collision
with a third party (most notably a motor vehicle) any ensuing head
impact is quite likely to be in excess of the protection specified and
provided by a standard (particularly non-snell) bicycle helmet so
little or limited reduction in injury severity should be expected.

SINCE most severe and/or reported cycling incidents involving bicycle
commuters are more likely to fall into the second category, the value
of a cycle helmet as a safety device for bike commuters has in all
likelihood been overstated by manufacturers and safety advocates. This
is NOT to say that a quality (preferably snell approved) bike helmet,
properly worn would not have the potential to reduce head injury in
the somewhat unlikely event of a bike incident involving head impact
with a relatively flat surface.
For "consenting adults" the wearing of an approved cycling helmet
(although perhaps adviseable) should be left to the discretion of the
rider.
The requirement for younger, more inexperienced and lesser-skilled
riders to wear an approved helmet would still be defensible.

This is NOT to say that cycling, in and by itself, is a significantly
dangerous activity. (more people are killed while riding cars than
while cycling) or to scare people away from a healthy social form of
exercise.

Clare, Clare, Clare... You're wasting your netbreath. Frank, Flailor and
the other usual suspects are pure ideologues (read: fanatics) and thus
closed to any and all argument. In fact, the more sense you make, the less
they'll listen with comprehension (opting instead for derision).

HTH, BS (no, really)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are Helmets Completely Worthless as a Safety Device for a Bike Commuter?
    ... Will helmets prevent or reduce ALL head injuries that may be suffered ... The FACT that more pedestrians recieve head injuries than cyclists is ... More pedestrians are hit by moving vehicles while ... the common bicycle helmet is NOT designed to absorb/prevent ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Helmet saved my...
    ... This, for me, is what a helmet is for, to save your head ... I've hit my head seemingly harder while mountain biking more than ... and the helmetshowed no damage whatsoever. ...
    (rec.bicycles.misc)
  • Re: Pedestrian killed in England
    ... She died of head injuries when her ... that she was not wearing a helmet when she was hit by the cyclist. ... head injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists. ...
    (rec.bicycles.misc)
  • Re: Pedestrian killed in England
    ... She died of head injuries when her ... that she was not wearing a helmet when she was hit by the cyclist. ... head injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists. ...
    (rec.bicycles.misc)
  • Re: Wife & Whether to Helmet or not to Helmet
    ... showed increases in neck injuries due to helmets. ... had falls where my head did not even hit the ground, ... One problem is that the helmet enlarges the target. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)