Slashdot Mirror
Building a Better Bike Helmet Out of Paper
An anonymous reader writes "Inspired by nature, a London man believes the solution to safer bike helmets is to build them out of paper. '"The animal that stood out was the woodpecker. It pecks at about ten times per second and every time it pecks it sustains the same amount of force as us crashing at 50 miles per hour," says Surabhi. "It's the only bird in the world where the skull and the beak are completely disjointed, and there's a soft corrugated cartilage in the middle that absorbs all the impact and stops it from getting a headache." In order to mimic the woodpecker's crumple zone, Anirudha turned to a cheap and easily accessible source — paper. He engineered it into a double-layer of honeycomb that could then be cut and constructed into a functioning helmet. "What you end up with is with tiny little airbags throughout the helmet," he says.'"
I'd say it's the article at fault not the designer, but the reason polystyrene foam is already used in bike helmets is exactly the same - "tiny little airbags throughout the helmet".
I wonder how this compares? Does this absorb more energy?
And most of you survived to adulthood -- although, as your post illustrates, some did suffer lasting cognitive issues.
I'll tell that to my brother who is now permanently disabled due to brain damage, as a result of not wearing a bike helmet and hitting a rock going down a hill at high speed.
Thanks, jerk.
Paper had one characteristic that might make it less than suitable for use in rain. One foam helmet might be cheaper in the long run than a bunch of soggy paper helmets.
Sometimes it`s not your fault.
The name is Hövding and it's an "Airbag bicycle helmet". It's developed by some team in Skåne, Sweden. Looks really cool.
Because it's the law in civilised nations such as Australia and New Zealand.
This. Years ago now I was riding to school and was clipped by a car - in a bike lane (we aren't allowed to ride on the footpaths over here) - and the doctor said that if I hadn't been wearing the helmet I wouldn't be here now. You might be slightly uncomfortable wearing a helmet, and some people might joke about how it looks but it really can save a life.
Just like you teach your kids not to run with scissors, you should wear a helmet when riding a bike and you should teach your kids to do so as well.
Dafuq you need a helmet for on a bicycle? That's like putting a screen door on a cow. When I was a kid the only kids that wore helmets were retards. We didn't have warning labels on everything either, back then.
Had a shitload more Darwin award winners too, back then. Sorry to hear you didn't win. Please keep trying.
"It is well documented our enterprise patented and manufactured paper made from bicycle helmets."_tm.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
As has been posted to Slashdot before, the data on helmet protection is equivocal. In many large scale studies, increase in helmet use does not reduce severe brain injuries, and could possibly increase the rate.
Why? 1) Helmets might make bikers less cautious; 2) helmets might make car drivers less cautious; 3) a helmet can only absorb so much energy, and in many categories of severe crashes you're going to cross the threshold of severe brain injury regardless of a helmet (in other words the range of energies a helmet can protect you from might not overlap well with the kinds of crashes you need to worry about).
It's also freaking expensive.
So are car airbags, but you don't notice the expense because it's hidden in the $30,000 purchase price of the car.
One word says it all, "rain."
Also, 4) many severe head injuries from cycling crashes are caused by rotational forces, which helmets can exacerbate. 5) helmet requirements almost universally reduce the number of cyclists (or reduce the growth in cycling), leaving the cycling pool with more adventurous and risk-prone bikers; 6) corollary of #5, fewer cyclists means less road time experience between cyclists and car drivers.
See http://cyclehelmets.org/.
Same question is applied to traditional helmets. But I suppose you're talking about the time between helmet reacting and fully deployed airbag.
signature is pants
That looks pretty cool but what happens if you fall face first?
Looks like it still protects your forehead, even if your face ultimately hits the ground:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Oud3iGXWY
(The face down crash starts around 3:30 (there's a couple slow-motion replays after the full speed crash)
None of the reasons you post support your suggestion that helmet use does not reduce severe brain injuries or actually increase it. They are ludicrous at best.
In 30 years on a bike, I've never ever seen someone say, oh, I have this helmet, lets see if I can skid right under that semi and out the other side. People who take ridiculous risks will take them without helmets just as often as with.
The research only supports one assertion about increased injuries caused by helmets, and that is a marginal increase in neck injuries from the helmet catching on the roadway surface as you go sliding along. However, even this research recognizes this increase in neck injuries is a trade off compared to abraded to the bone head road-rash that would otherwise occur in the identical crash.
That being said, when broadsided by a semi, a helmet won't help you. And its probably pointless to require them by law.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I hate to say it, but my impression is that linking to http://cyclehelmets.org/ for issues of helmets is like linking to WUWT for issues on climate change. It has a particular position, and runs with it (whether that is intentional or not). They are by no means unique in this, and are also not the only position in the discussion to do it.
That said:
1. Dumb cyclists will be dumb, and if someone rides less cautiously because they think a helmet will protect them they are dumb
2. Dumb drivers will be dumb, and if a driver is really driving less cautiously around a cyclist on the basis that a helmet will protect the cyclist they are not only dumb but outright dangeous
3. Crossing the threshold with 100% of the force is still probably going to be more damaging than crossing it with 50% of the force (if 50% is absorbed by the helmet)
4. And many are caused by non-rotational impacts, which helmets reduce
5. Dumb cyclists are dumb, and if the pool of cyclists is largely made up of dumb cyclists then that doesn't mean helmets reduce safety, just that if a bunch of less dumb cyclists were added to the pool they would dilute the apparent stupidity of the group overall. Not saying cyclists are stupid, but rather that the number of stupid cyclists is the same irrespective of whether it is 100 stupid cyclists in 101 total cyclists, or 100 stupid cyclists in 1000 total cyclists.
6. If #5 is in fact true (and there is little agreement on it) then this is true, and indeed having more cyclists on the road very likely does make it safer for all cyclists.
There in another arguments for not requiring helmets, also based on the idea that requiring helmets reduces the number of cyclists: even if helmets do reduce the likelihood of death or brain injury in an accident, the advantage of improvement in overall community health as a result of more cyclists offsets the disadvantage of a subset of these being dead or brain injured.
The science is not a slam dunk for helmets. In many studies--including more recent studies, and meta-studies--helmets increase the injury rate. But even assuming that helmets provide a significant net benefit for cyclists, the reduction in cyclists caused by helmet laws definitely outweighs the benefits of helmets, because the injury rate is so low even without helmets that you're better off having a bunch of helmet-less cyclists losing weight and increasing their cardiovascular health.
Once again intuition and anecdote provide the wrong answer.
People eschewed seat belts for similar reasons--intuitively everybody thought that a seat belt would increase injury by preventing you from escaping from a wreckage, or by keeping you in a poor position.
People: stop using your intuition for this kind of stuff, and read up on real science. And also be critical of the science, because too often even scientists inadvertently seek to prove their intuition, rather than asking the hard questions. In the case of helmets, the emerging, qualitatively better science casts serious doubt on the overall benefits of helmets from an epidemiological perspective.
Helmets will help prevent cuts and mild concussions, but not serious head injuries with permanent damage, which they might even exacerbate. And helmet requirements disincentivize cycling to an extent that they often cause a negative net health outcome in the population.
Takeaway: helmet laws are definitely a bad idea. If you wear a helmet, good for you, but don't judge others who don't.
I think you have to read between the lines carefully to find the real value in the article. I think it can be equally valid to build a bicycle helmet from corrugated or expanded cardboard as is is with styrofoam + shell. (OK, styrofoam is a trademart for Expanded Polystyrene.) As others have commented, cardboard is suseptible to damage from moisture, so it has to be sealed against it. In addition, I'm not convinced that the cardboard design is cheaper to manufacture than the styrofoam designs.
To me, the relevant signal is the reduction in maximum G force. The article suggests that the design limit is 300G, and conventional helmets achieve 225G - while his design gets to 70G. Presumably, the mechanism for doing that is to absorb the impact energy over a significant period of time before transmitting the forces to the wearer. Given the velocity of the collision, this means that the helment has to be built with a greater distance between the outside and inside of the helment than existing designs. If people are willing to wear thicker helmets (appropriately designed), such helmets could be reasonably expected to perform better - I'd think comparable designs could be easily built from the styrofoam + shell technology that's commonly in use.
Finally, the inventor says he was inspired by observing that his helmet was broken in the collision. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE MEANT TO DO. In absorbing the forces of the collision, the helmet is permanently deformed. If your head is saved from destruction by a helment - buy a new helment to replace it.
That's the purpose of the extension of the helmet forward over the forehead.
Also, 4) many severe head injuries from cycling crashes are caused by rotational forces, which helmets can exacerbate. 5) helmet requirements almost universally reduce the number of cyclists (or reduce the growth in cycling), leaving the cycling pool with more adventurous and risk-prone bikers; 6) corollary of #5, fewer cyclists means less road time experience between cyclists and car drivers.
See http://cyclehelmets.org/.
You're just trying to rationalize your personal dislike for helmets.
Saying helmets don't protect your head is like saying water isn't wet. It's fucking risible. Trying to prove helmets don't protect by using statistics from different groups (cyclists who wear helmets are a different type of rider from cyclists who don't) smacks of desperation.
Tell you what. I get to smack you upside your granite skull with a car door. You can put on a helmet or not. Your choice.
But the brain damage has already been done.
Snowcrash as fuck. I want one.
Your post is based on the assumption that car-cyclist collisions are the only significant kind of accident.
I've gone down because of ice (x2), rain, and recklessness. If you'll look up the statistics, you'll see that borne out in the larger numbers as well.
And human-caused climate change is real. Watch insurance prices rather than listening to politicians that are owned by the oil and coal industries.
It's also freaking expensive.
So are car airbags, but you don't notice the expense because it's hidden in the $30,000 purchase price of the car.
So... we should increase the price of bicycles?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Why do these arguments sound so familiar? Probably because they're so similar to the arguments people used to make against seat belts.
"They'll increase accidents because they make it harder for drivers to stretch and look around!"
"They'll trap me in a burning or sinking car!"
And, my all-time personal favorite (yes, I've actually heard people say this):
"They'll prevent me from being thrown clear of the collision!"
People will persistently find the very stupidest reasons for not doing something that bugs them. Yes, each of these eventualities might have killed a few drivers who would've been spared if not for their safety belts. But those numbers are absolutely dwarfed by the number of lives saved and serious injuries prevented.
I've only been in one significant bike accident, and I was lucky enough in that one that my helmet didn't come into play. But looking back at the accident and the pattern of my injuries, I can't explain how the helmet was spared. I sure as hell am not tempted at this point to ride out without it.
Michael Schumacher is probably the best demonstration of why you want a helmet on your head when doing about 30mph ;)
After RTFA, it seems that the most obvious material to make the helmet from is woodpecker skulls. Didn't anyone else get that?
Helmets will help prevent cuts and mild concussions, but not serious head injuries with permanent damage, which they might even exacerbate.
The level of protection depends on the helmet.
Full face motorcycle helmets really work. Bicycle helmets range from subpar to a joke. Equestrian helmets are a ridiculous farce (worse or similar protection to bicycle helmets but you're higher up on an easily spooked animal).
Nobody wants to cycle/ride with full face helmets, but I believe there's still room somewhere in between for better helmets.
Okay, I didn't see this post before my mocking response about anti-seat-belt arguments.
I am very skeptical of meta-studies that claim helmets increase injury rates (in fact, I'm somewhat skeptical of meta-studies in general -- they smack of running the results repeatedly through the blender until you get the consistency you want). But I haven't done extensive homework, so I can't actually dismiss what you say.
I do take issue with one detail, though: the assumption that helmet laws will disincentivize cycling. You're assuming that uneducated and unreasonable attitudes about helmets can't be changed. They were changed for safety belts, and (to a large degree) for cigarettes; why not for helmets?
I'm not sure I communicated my position. I don't trust cyclehelmets.org, which I think is anti-mandatory-helmet-wearing, to present balanced information, in the same way I don't trust WUWT, which variously seems to deny either climate change or the anthropogenic aspect of climate change, depending on the line de jour.
I absolutely acknowledge that car-cyclist collisions are only one of many types of serious accidents. I personally do wear a bicycle helmet, and have smashed up several helmets through: being hit by a car (x1), sliding on oil on the road (x2), catching on tram tracks (x2).
Mainly, what I was saying is that many of the arguments levelled against having mandatory helmet wearing (or indeed helmet-wearing at all) are not actually about the effectiveness of helmets per se, but about the supposed broader effects of wearing helmets. I also think they're mostly, though not universally, bullshit arguments.
I should point out: I'm in Victoria, Australia, which has both mandatory helmet wearing and mandatory seatbelt wearing. There is a bit of a movement in Victoria to eliminate the requirement to wear helmets, but it isn't one I care about either way.
In such high speed crashes, you would die wearing a styrofoam helmet anyway, so it's rather a non-issue.
Corrugated cardboard has been used for decades under high-altitude scientific balloon payloads to absorb the impact of landing from a parachute descent. You don't have to put too many of them under several thousand pounds of experiment and gondola. Here is a (not so good) picture of one example. The cardboard provides a very nice low-gee impact.
That looks pretty cool but what happens if you fall face first?
http://www.hovding.com/content/images/startpage/03_what_is_hovding/girl-helmet.jpg
Looking at the videos, I don't see why they don't airbag the whole head. What do you need to see when you're crashing? And even if you do need to see, why not extend nose and cheek pieces all the way around? Or just make a section of the airbag with clear plastic instead of white.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
There are actually helmets designed to reduce the rotational forces though. For example, I remember my own university trumpeting one helmet design in which a kind of inner helmet was allowed to slide inside an outer helmet on a low-friction liner. Simulations demonstrated a reduction maximum strain forces on the brain. There's a presentation on it here by the company which now manufactures them: http://mipshelmet.com/how-it-works/the_invention and since it's a simple design I suspect that it will be a component of the helmet of the future.
However, honeycombs make excellent single-use shock absorbers, so those surely have a place in helmets as well.
Even if the site you link to were reasonable there is every reason to believe that helmets can be made truly excellent and made to give incredible protection both against shocks and rotational forces.
And the helmet laws make the idjits more identifiable on the road. The ones without helmets are the pinheads who think "if I don't wear my seatbelt, I can be thrown clear of the car when it catches fire", or the idjits who can't keep track of a helmet. I *appreciate* the bike laws for making it clear which bike riders are likely to take stupid risks when I'm driving or when I'm even on the pavement as a pedestrian.
It's also freaking expensive.
So are car airbags, but you don't notice the expense because it's hidden in the $30,000 purchase price of the car.
So... we should increase the price of bicycles?
Either that, or those that want an airbag for their heads can use the money they saved by buying a $1,000 bike instead of a $30,000 car and use it to buy a $700 biking airbag.
I am a regular biker — At least three days a week, I cycle to work. Not a great distance, but I end up making ~1hr on the bike every day I use it.
Several years ago, a car hit laterally my rear tire. Quite slowly, fortunately, although it managed to bend the rim ~30 degrees. Of course, cycling at ~20Km/h (~12mph), I fell down to my left.
I stood up right away, scared but not hit. My pants were slightly torn over the pocket where I store my keys. Nothing happened to me, just a scare, right?
When I took my helmet off, it was split in two. Yes, helmets are (and are designed to be) quite more fragile than skulls. Still, I'm very happy I didn't have to land with the side of my head on the road. Were I to be lucky, I'd have an ugly scar on my front left side.
Wear a helmet. Always.
I'm all for a better designed bicycle helmet, and I'd use it in some circumstances. But I'm vehemently against the government mandating that I must wear one.
Responding to oneself is generally bad form, but:
http://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2013-12-13-17.12.05.png
In summary (and partially concordant with the person I initially criticised): On a community-wide level, requiring people wear helmets may not reduce head injuries, but on an individual level if you are cycling and can add a helmet to your cycling without changing your behaviour, you are probably safer with the helmet.
(This requires a bit of reading into the paper, and a couple of assumptions: Assumptions are: drivers don't suddenly start being dickheads around you because you're wearing a helmet, and you don't start being a dickhead because you put on a helmet. If those two hold, then the case-control rather than community-wide studies are more applicable to the individual choosing whether or not to wear a helmet).
Many urban planners are discussing the opposite - ban inefficient, private use vehicles from cities and provide better cycling infrastructure. Wins all round. Except for lazy people.
Yeah, the only two countries with federally mandated helmet laws, and they've both seen a dramatic decrease in cycling participation since the laws were introduced.
Yeah, we can all die fat and slow instead.
Looks like it has a fatal flaw or two.
It's no great trick to make a helmet which will absorb impact. The trick is to do it without too much weight and, unless you only ride in cold weather, without overheating your head. In general, the more you pay for a helmet, the less helmet and more hole you get. That thing is covered with a solid shell. No venting. It's a portable oven. It's also 535g -- about 1.2 pounds. It's a brick (and probably will contribute to neck injuries as a result).
Giro's cheapest MTB helmet has some vents and is 410g. Move up to a helmet you might actually wear in the heat, you've got almost as much vent as helmet and you're down to 316g. Go to one which costs as much as this one -- 80 pounds sterling -- and you're under 300g and have more holes than helmet.
If it was just unventilated it might still have its niche, but it's just too heavy.
Just like how banking laws would make bankers less cautious, causing the 2007 financial disaster. We should make banking safer by removing all banking laws...
Oh wait. NO! You are a FUCKING IDIOT if you claim helmets make bikers less cautious. Just like those idiots who claim seat belts causes more deaths.
They argued against it in the beginning. I remember reading about those idiots, and even now, there are people who'd use those arguments. They need to be loudly and derisively laughed at.
"Many urban planners are discussing the opposite - ban inefficient, private use vehicles from cities and provide better cycling infrastructure."
What about during winter, or don't they have that there? 2 wheeled vehicles don't go so good on ice and snow, or when its too cold for ice and snow (like -30)
"Wins all round. Except for lazy people."
I walk to work,
Because it's the law in civilised nations such as Australia and New Zealand.
In the United Kingdom. HEAT suggests that a law making helmets compulsory for cyclists may result in an overall increase in 253 premature deaths – 265 extra deaths from reduced cycling less 12 deaths saved among the reduced pool of cyclists receiving fatal head injuries.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1231.html
I for one am glad that I live in a rational nation, rather than one of the civilised ones which you mention!
Your mistake is in using common sense to respond to AC.
Remember, common sense is not that common...
Why not extend the cheek guards as well (think Kenny from South Park)? Or why bother with an open face area at all?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Hitting something going downhill at high speed is going to cause brain damage or worse whether you have a helmet or not. Crashing on descents is very, very bad news.
Styrofoam will only protect you in low speed collisions. Somebody was killed in the Giro d'Italia last year descending from hitting his head on a siderail. He was wearing a helmet, of course.
This is the problem with these kind of anecdotes: If somebody crashes wearing a helmet, and is OK, it's just assumed that the helmet saved him. If somebody is hurt and was not wearing a helmet, it's assumed that he would have been ok if he was. In reality, this is a completely fallacious assumption, and is not borne out by the data.
Helmets probably have a positive impact on low speed crashes, but it is small. Motorists would have significantly reduced fatalities if they wore motorcycle helmets (which are much more effective but impractical for bicycles), like race car drivers do, but they don't. Pedestrians have higher fatalities per kilometer than cyclists (and pedestrian fatalities are often due to brain damage), but they don't wear helmets. Why is this one activity singled out to wear a bulky safety yarmulke?
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
As an Australian who was there when they introduced it. This is a load of shit. It's not "civilized" it's a bunch of
worthless wankers who demanded that everybody else
join their cult of the silly hat. Cycling was getting more popular and normal people started to do it, and promptly noticed that Sydney is a really dangerous place to ride a bike. So the politicians did the most cynically expedient thing they could, make helmets mandatory. Originally there was no penalty, but the cops whinged. Hey presto 36% of cyclist gone with only a 30% reduction in head injuries.
As they discovered in Australia, if you reduce the cycling population to those who are prepared to wear a silly hat, you can ignore cycling for decades.
Heart disease killed 24,000 people last year in Australia,suicides were 1,914 motor vehicles accidents were 1,684
Cyclist deaths were, wait for it, 27.
Helmet laws are a SHIT solution to the problem of injured cyclists
Cycling in Australia dropped 1/3 overnight when the helmet law was passed. This makes it more risky for existing cyclists, as there is safety in numbers.
The overriding public health effect is that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks in expected life by something like 30x. Thus, the 1/3 drop in cyclists results in many more premature deaths from lack of exercists.
Helmets may provide a small benefit in some crashes, but helmet laws are absolutely indefensible from a rational public health standpoint.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
I should expand on this: Helmets are styrofoam (with holes in it!), and a thin plastic cover. Next time you buy a thing packed in a big box, try breaking the styrofoam. Turns out it's not very strong.
The only way the deceleration (which causes the brain damage) is reduced is if the helmet crushes in. And this will only help in a low speed crash, otherwises your head will still be decelerating after the foam crushes.
I think people tend to assign more of a protective benefit to helmets because of the psychological benefit of something over your head. In reality, brain injuries are caused by de(acceleration) which induces your brain to slosh in your skill, which styrofoam is not so awesome at preventing. It's even worse if it's torsion, which may be exacerbated by helmets.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
responding to yourself is poor form.
using bad English is just bad.
You're assuming that uneducated and unreasonable attitudes about helmets can't be changed. They were changed for safety belts, and (to a large degree) for cigarettes; why not for helmets?
I can think of a few reasons why bike helmets are different from safety belts:
- Wearing a bike helmets has been legally required in several areas for long enough to draw conclusions about their effectiveness, and yet we are still discussing if they work or not. Thus, it doesn't seem all that uneducated or unreasonable to decide not to wear one, for now.
- Mandatory bike helmets are incompatible with public bicycle sharing systems. There was an attempt to run such a system in Melbourne, Australia, and the requirement to wear a helmet was considered one of the reasons for why it failed completely to take hold. Since you're borrowing a bike, you have to lug an helmet around, so you can't leave it with the bike, and you can't borrow an helmet for hygiene reasons.
- On a personal note, I find bike helmets very uncomfortable. This is a very personal argument, but the same thing cannot be said of seat belts.
With that said, there are some ingenious bike helmets designs that are being worked on, which do not cover the head. They may prove popular, regardless of whether they are useful or not.
Don't confuse the questions of "should I wear a helmet" with "should helmets be compulsory".
Same with drugs - laws can make things worse, despite good intentions.
"G" is not a measure of force OR energy but instead translated into units of acceleration. It helps to answer a question with something related before criticising the person asking it.
The important thing in this case is the energy absorbed - which can be derived from the relationship between force and displacement and not just one of those. So it's related to the area under the force versus displacement curve (or directly found from the area under the stress strain curve). Or you could just hit it with a big hammer and see how far it bounces back then convert that to joules. Both work.
No it isn't. If somebody crashes wearing a helmet and the side of the helmet is smashed in but the rider is OK then it's assumed that the helmet saved them. That happens enough for it to be worth it.
I remember hearing this same stupid argument about motorcycle helmets, seatbelts and lawnmowers with naked blades. An easily complied with safety feature does not have to stop 100% of injuries to be worth it.
In today's world, saying that something is a good idea is tantamount to saying it should be compulsory. And if you object and tell them it's none of your business, they'll point to healthcare costs and say it is.
I do take issue with one detail, though: the assumption that helmet laws will disincentivize cycling.
It's no assumption -- it's a statistically demonstrated fact. In places where helmet laws are passed, cycling does decrease, whether or not there's a good reason that should necessarily happen.
But if you want to know why its different from seatbelt laws, note that seatbelt laws came about in two stages -- first, manufacturers were required to provide seatbelts in every vehicle sold. Then, after almost every vehicle on the road had seatbelts, drivers and passengers were required to use them. The first step, while slightly increasing the price of a new vehicle, didn't cause anyone any practical inconvenience -- anyone who didn't believe in them might grumble a bit about being forced to pay for them (it's not like one would actually refuse to buy a $xxxx car over a $x addition), but he didn't have to use them. And because of the first step, the second step had no up-front cost or inconvenience -- you did have to buckle up every time, but the seatbelt was right there, no need to run down to the garage and get one installed. (AIUI, there are/were exemptions from seatbelt wearing laws in any cars old enough to have legally been sold without seatbelts, and at any rate they were a tiny fraction of the fleet by then.) So neither step caused motorists to quit motoring, especially since most of them had no practical alternative for traveling the same distance.
In contrast, many cyclists who presently ride helmetless have no helmet, and if a mandatory helmet law were passed, they'd have to make time to get to the bike shop and buy one or quit riding -- and if, like many cyclists, you've already got a car that satisfies all your functional transportation requirements, quitting is by far the easier option.
The opposite is most definitely the case. The dramatic increase of course should not be taken as having anything at all to do with helmet laws, unlike your silly strawman lie that people are expected to believe if they are far away.
Subterranean railway like they have in bike friendly cities like Montreal?
It did not.
You are just recycling the gun lobby trick, only this time there is no doubt that it is a lie.
You quote a known kook site like cyclehelmets and you give thanks for being rational?
Wow.
No sure where you get that from. What's wrong with encouraging people to do more biking? You think that running a public bike transit system is expensive? If it makes, say, a hundred fewer cars off the road, you end up paying less for road maintenance, the people that use it spend less time at the hospital because they're healthier, it helps with air pollution in the city, the traffic flow will go a little bit faster and drivers get to be back home sooner after work, etc, etc, etc. I am sick and tired of hearing arguments that go along the lines of "If I don't use a service, I don't benefit from it, and I shouldn't have to pay for it.". It's hard to calculate the benefits of a public bicycle sharing system, but what I think is clear is that you can't say straight up that it is a clear negative from a driver's point of view, and you certainly haven't brought any data to draw that conclusion from. I think your opinion is narrow-minded at best.
You quote a known kook site like cyclehelmets and you give thanks for being rational?
Ad hominem, much?
Many urban planners are discussing the opposite - ban inefficient, private use vehicles from cities and provide better cycling infrastructure. Wins all round. Except for lazy people.
I think you are missing quite a few categories of people who would lose.
1: People who want/need to take more stuff with them when they travel than a bike can reasonablly carry. Plumbers, electricians, builders, many types of service technicians. People going shopping for large items or bulk groceries.
2: People who need to leave the metropolis and travel to rural areas where public transport sucks and will always suck. Maybe some kind of car club could work for this but the ones i've seen are hellishly expensive.
3: People who need to travel further than it's practical to bike at hours when public transport is poor or nonexistant.
4: People trying to travel distances further than it's practical to bike in directions other than the ones fast public transport runs in.
5: People in a hurry, while there are a handful of cities that are so congested that cars are slower than bikes or public transport they are by far the exception.
You could try and run a general car ban with exceptions for people who really needed a vehicle but I think you would find it very hard to do satisfactorily
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Apparently a similar problem exists for motorcycle helmets, which led to things like the ATR-1 helmets being built. They basically have two different ways of absorbing force, one for low-energy impact and one for high-energy impact.
Those with it only show up statistically because those without it get removed from the population faster than those with it.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
As I said in my post, I think that were I not to have my helmet on, I'd have a nasty scar, the product of using my forehead as a brake. It was a fairly low speed hit, but my head did hit the pavement *in* the helmet. So, the helmet absorbed some of the impact — but it also put a good 2cm between my skin and the street.
Also, a helmet is coated in plastic to make it smooth, almost derrapant. It would not be impossible for my head, with a far higher friction, to get stuck while reducing the speed of my body - and could end up in spinal damage, maybe fatal.
Of course, I have no way to know if that would happen were I not wearing a helmet. But I won't take chances.
Try going to war, now or 2000 years ago, without a helmet. It's better to have one, even if it's made of paper or similar. Same goes for protecting other body parts such as the torso or legs. Even cloth or leather armor will help you. The difference between wearing cotton jeans, leather pants, or no pants at all will become readily apparent as you slide across asphalt. Fuck the studies, just think about the physics for a moment. Failing that, use your imagination.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
One time I was taking a jump on my bike at 25 km/h, but was off balance and landed on my side, including the side of my head, at the same speed in rocks and packed dirt. I still have my left ear because I was wearing a helmet.
Be relentless!
You know what, pay me 80 pounds and I'll give you no helmet at all: apparently it's scientifically proven to produce less head injuries than your 'more hole than helmet' ones and it provides great ventilation.
Jeebus! You've got to be some special kind of lazy to think that it's oh so much trouble to get to a cycling shop or a big box sporting goods store to pick up a helmut. It's not like you're going to be doing this more than once a year (if that) unless you're the type who crashes every other time you get on the bike. My advise to such people might just be that they really should give up cycling. If you so effin' lazy that it's too much trouble to buy a helmut, you probably won't be bothered to learn and employ safe cycling practices and just get yourself killed, helmut or not.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I was in primary school when this law was introduced in NZ. I remember the day before it was introduced, the bike rack was full to overflowing. The day after there where maybe three bikes total. I never cycled to school again after that day. Many of my peers started being dropped of by car, which compounded, more cars means more hazards, means more parents drive their child to school, means even more hazards... etc, to the point where it's the norm. Now New Zealand has an almost incalculably low cycling rate and we are one of the top five most obese countries in the world. I'm sure the head injury rate dropped, but at what cost...
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Agreed.
Helmets are destroyed in accidents in order to absorb the energy of impact. It's similar to cars - very few educated people complain that a vehicle in a serious accident is destroyed, since we know vehicles are designed with crumple zones in order to absorb the energy of a crash.
So why should we trust an inventor who doesn't understand bike helmets are designed to be destroyed in a crash in order to absorb energy?
This is already for sale as the Abus Kranium It is a rather expensive helmet, as it costs about E100 while a normal EPS helmet costs E50. However it is also a lot better, so when you bike a bit faster than 24 km/h (15 mph) it is still useful.
Over time the helmets will get cheaper if everyone buys them (economies of scale) and they are proven better.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Well, given we know the forces and situations involved: Helmets are clearly only addressing the symptom of the bigger problem.
The solution is to correct the design flaw and build structures where the chest houses the brain instead of a ridiculous appendage.
If input lag was a problem then why put the visual cortex in the back of the skull, and motor cortex so far from the feet?
Let's upgrade to impact resistant brains and bodies that can survive in the vacuum of space while we're at it.
Intelligently Designed... Pah!
Motorcycle helmets work, sure, but when you are the power plant, you will overheat in no time at all.
increase in helmet use does not reduce severe brain injuries
4) You're more likely to die than be brain damaged if you don't wear a helmet.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
And this is why I always wear a donkey piñata over my head when I ride my bicycle.
I suspect they had a financial interest, which is sadly what most of this debate is about.
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
My favourite of these arguments is the argument against speed-limiters on car:
"I may at some point need to go really fast to avoid an accident".
Often used by people who don't like the idea of limiting a car to 150 km/h despite the fact that their country doesn't allow travel faster than 120 km/h anywhere. Because of this, they come up with all sorts of extremely unlikely scenarios where travelling really fast may save them. They also try very hard to ignore other solutions than driving really fast.
I got stuck with the rear wheel in a rail track once and had a short and ugly flight over the handlebar. Thanks to the helmet, I was just dizzy for a couple of days. Without it it would have been a concussion.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I am working for the past ten years as a medical doctor in an Intensive Care Unit. We treat lots of trauma patients, especially due to motor vehicle accidents. I don't have any statistics in hand, but I am *absolutely* sure that there is a *vast* difference regarding the prevalence and the severity of brain injury amongst trauma patients after motorcycle accidents (patients having not used helmet have dramatically more often and more severe brain injury). According to my experience, I would never ride a motorbike.. :-) If I had to, I would definitely and absolutely use a helmet.
He was talking about helmet-vs-no-helmet, not trad-helmet-vs-paper-helmet.
If you're cycling at 30MPH, come off cornering on ice, and hit your head on a kerb, a helmet may well save your life.
I do have quite a lot of sympathy for the view that there are circumstances where a fall is so unlikely that a helmet is a waste of time -- cycling in light traffic, with warm dry weather and no recklessness.
I finally bought a comfortable helmet, and since it's comfortable I always wear it. It's easier to do that than to evaluate the conditions every morning.
So if all drivers are like you, I should not wear a helmet, knowing that you'll take extra care when you see me?
Assumptions are: drivers don't suddenly start being dickheads around you because you're wearing a helmet
Unfortunately, this assumption seems to be false. See the second graph on the first page of this report. Drivers consistently leave less space around cyclists when they're wearing a helmet, by 5-10 cm.
I'm a motorcyclist, not a bicyclist (currently). For years non-motorcyclists enforced a law on us requiring the use of a helmet. This is not simply a safety issue and shouldn't even get to an argument of 'for' or 'against', it's a freedom of choice issue. As an adult you have the right to choose, or you should have. As a caveat, I'm not totally against helmet use or the safety they bring and I wear a helmet on my motorcycle probably at least 60-80% of them time depending. I have friends whose lives were saved wearing a helmet and I have friends that died from the use of one through rotational torque to his neck and spine. The issue at hand is not about the relative safety or danger of helmet use; it should be about CHOICE.
Choice is a freedom, and once lost I can attest to how difficult it is to regain. Allow people to make their own INFORMED choices, do not legislate it. Regardless on which side of this issue you come down on we should all be able to agree that forcing 'good behavior' on a full grown adult is wrong.
If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
If wearing a helmet makes any sense, why don't they wear them in Holland or Denmark?
I have a Request for Enhancement: please put my balls on the inside ;-)
You must have a terrible bike helmet, then.
See also the discussion section of that report:
Research suggests drivers tend to believe helmeted cyclists are more serious and less likely to make unexpected moves [2,3]; the helmet effect seen here is likely a behavioural manifestation of this belief.
Drivers expect helmeted cyclists to behave more predictably. What are the obvious conclusions?
1. As helmet use becomes more prevalent, drivers may be less likely to interpret it as a sign of competence.
2. If you want drivers to give you space, do your best to look and act like an incompetent idiot. Note: this works for motor vehicle operators as well.
As my dad always said, if you don't wear a helmet while biking, you've got nothing worth protecting anyway. Parent post does a pretty good job of demonstrating this.
Also, a lot of bike lanes are very poorly designed for cyclists. Lots of them here in the UK are dual purpose pedestrian/cyclist tracks which means that they're not suitable for a cyclist going 15mph or quicker. A lot of bike lanes have badly thought out exit points, so you can actually put yourself in more danger by using the lane and then being dumped into fast moving traffic at an inopportune point.
Cycle lanes (at least in the UK) are purely optional and as a UK tax payer, I pay more than my fair share towards roads and definitely have the right to use them. Demanding that cyclist use a cycle lane whenever possible is like demanding that motorists have to use motorways (interstates) whenever possible.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
So what? If the argument is invalid then point out the flaws in the argument/numbers, not the flaws in the presenter of the argument.
If wearing a helmet didn't make any sense, why do all professional cyclists wear them?
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
Helmets do indeed work for low impact low energy type events.
"Helmets don't reduce injuries" may be a more complicated issue.
People who are now injured by a particular impact, used to die, sometimes dead right there. And people who used to have brain injury and a life of drooling in a home somewhere, are now "not injured" or just scraped and bruised and get back up, continue, and buy another helmet. The "degree of injury" brackets shifted over one slot on a whole bunch of types of impact severity.
Similar effects can be seen with safety features on cars where drivers act more recklessly when they perceive their cars as more 'iron clad'. We've all seen that, the invincible Suzi McSoccermom barreling down the highway on her phone because she drives a Tahoe with lifted suspension and a brush guard on it to the grocery store and tanning place.
The fact the bicycle crash brain injury numbers didn't go down doesn't conclusively demonstrate helmets aren't helping.
I remember an Aussie telling me that because the kids don't want to have to wear a helmet, they just do it so badly that it's all but useless. For example, perched on the back of their head, not buckled up, buckled up so loosely that they can take it off without undoing it, etc. I can't say all of them do it, but I definitely saw it going on when I was there.
Personally, I'd be all for some (rational) TV or poster ads that said something like "cycling without a helmet? You're X times more likely to get a head injury" (or something more compelling). The point being to make it "frowned upon" that you're cycling without one, rather than illegal. We've got enough laws already.
If wearing a helmet makes any sense, why don't they wear them in Holland or Denmark?
I googled "countries that make the most sense", and neither Holland nor Denmark came up. Wiki was of no help.
I'm wondering where your premise that the Dutch and Danes make sense comes from?
I know this Danish lady, Ethla, and she makes pretty good sense, but she's agoraphobic, so she wouldn't ride a bicycle lest she cross paths with another human. She is very much the type to wear a helmet in a car, though. Perhaps with a full, tinted face shield, as well.
Another Dane I know owes me 25 bucks, and he drinks too much, and he rarely makes sense regardless.
I know a couple hundred Dutch folk, and very few of them make sense. Flying Dutchman is apt for 90% of them. And if you get a Frisian amongst them, and he starts yammering in his native tongue, well you'll quickly be rethinking the helmet thing.
cheers,
Like all things well engineered or not, they are likely to go off when you don't need them too. Like riding over rails in traffic. A malfunction shouldn't blind you.
Okay, I didn't see this post before my mocking response about anti-seat-belt arguments.
I am very skeptical of meta-studies that claim helmets increase injury rates (in fact, I'm somewhat skeptical of meta-studies in general -- they smack of running the results repeatedly through the blender until you get the consistency you want). But I haven't done extensive homework, so I can't actually dismiss what you say.
I do take issue with one detail, though: the assumption that helmet laws will disincentivize cycling. You're assuming that uneducated and unreasonable attitudes about helmets can't be changed. They were changed for safety belts, and (to a large degree) for cigarettes; why not for helmets?
They may increase the injury rate by pulling people from the "dead" rate.
Motorists would have significantly reduced fatalities if they wore motorcycle helmets (which are much more effective but impractical for bicycles), like race car drivers do, but they don't.
Not quite. In addition to a crash helmet, you would also need a HANS (head and neck support) system, six-point seat belt, a net along the window like you see in NASCAR, and a roll cage. And since it would take you longer to exit the car, you would also need an automatic fire suppression system. At that point it's quite a lot more impractical and expensive compared to a normal car than the difference of bike helmet vs. no bike helmet.
Also, you can get full helmets for bicycling. It's standard issue for downhill cycling, see e.g. here. That manufacturer (POC) have been making state-of-the-art crash helmets for skiing (used by many athletes in the Alpine World Cup) and biking for about 10 years now, so I suspect they've got a much better idea of how to do it than some random guy who tried to improve over $10 styrofoam helmets.
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
I have ridden mine several times this winter through the snow on the roads going uphill. Worked just fine with minimal wheel spin (which happens to be in the same places a car would have problems). They make studded tires for ice which do a great job as well.
The one day I had to drive my car for errands is the only day this winter I froze my butt off all the way home in it.
Planners are not going for full bans. They are just trying to improve the transportation options in the city for all users while making people feel like they belong in the city. While some DIY types will transport all they need by bikes (including whole house moves, fridge and all), but nobody is calling for a complete ban of service trucks.
Just like debates we have about commuter cars and public transportation. If you need a private vehicle, or something bigger, many times it is cheaper to rent as needed than to own one full time. I'm sure taxi's will still be around as well. Congestion is the result of too many vehicles taking up space that they don't need too.
motorcycle helmets (which are much more effective but impractical for bicycles
Actually downhill mountain bike helmets are similar to motorcycle helmets. But they are indeed impractical for pedaling up because they are too warm.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
So with your single data point point you are going to proselytize your ideology??
You seem to be ignoring the data:
http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
Helmets are treating the symptom of being unaware instead of focusing on the cause for why you even had an accident in the first place.
/sarcasm I have a great idea! Let's call everyone who doesn't proselytize The Church of Bike Helmets ideology "idjits" to get them to convert to our religion!
Let us also ignore the data:
http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
Let us also stick our head in the sand and propagate myths
TEDx Copenhagen - Mikael Colville-Andersen - Why We Shouldn't Bike with a Helmet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY
Let us also ignore the context for when seatbelts are NOT required such as when a person has been certified with a phobia of seat belts, non-front seat passengers of a motor home, etc.
How can I not possibly win!? /sarcasm
--
FecesBook, noun: Website where everyone posts dumb shit that no ones gives a crap about; aka FazeBook, FagBook, FartBook, etc.
The natural consequence of what you are describing then would be that the injury statistics do not change, but the death statistics should. Afterall, if the injury severity is just "shifted down one" then the final category of injury: death, should see a decrease since it has no more severe category to shift from.
So do the number of deaths go down?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
"Assumptions are: drivers don't suddenly start being dickheads around you because you're wearing a helmet,"
Your assumption is incorrect, study has shown that drivers drive worse around cyclists that wear helmets, so much so that it could well be safer not to wear one. The theory is that the safer you look, the more risk drivers take around you.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
7) Helmet can interfere with turning to look for vehicles thus making it easier to miss something. More modern helmet designs have helped, but if people are going with the cheapest helmet available, it probably isn't the most usable thing around.
AJ Henderson
> 2. If you want drivers to give you space, do your best to look and act like an incompetent idiot.
> Note: this works for motor vehicle operators as well.
This. I don't think people really often appreciate what information they use when driving. Just this morning I was thinking about this on my commute as someone pulled over without signalling. There was an awkward moment where it wasn't clear whether she was avoiding something in the road, or she was distracted/drunk.
It also is the opposite of the first thing my father taught me about riding in the street which was, you shouldn't ride in the street unless you can ride in a straight line, because swerving around distracts drivers.
I notice it all the time, I slow down and give a lot more space to someone riding slowly swerving back and forth a little than I do to a cyclist who is booking down the road in a straight line. Likewise, I grew up on a main road (longest road in one of the most denesly populated cities in the country) I remember the first few times a city bus blew by me at 3 feet; its a little harrowing the first few times...but you get used to it.
In any case, it is a lot more than just whether a person wears a helmet, watch the line their wheels follow, some people really do just swerve back and forth like a shit-faced driver.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Thanks for the not needed course on logic fallacies. I know why I had the accident: Because I was a newbie (as I said, this happened several years ago), and I didn't account for the sight block that a street sign imposed on a car driver. She didn't expect me. Thankfully, she was just starting to move, and the accident was a very minor one.
I know the helmet saved my face — Not with 100% certainty, but quite probably. I also know my then-girlfriend had a much, much smaller accident while not wearing a helmet (she fell by herself at roughly half the speed I was going, because of irregular pavement), and did scratch her head. No, no permanent scars, but a nasty bruise and some scratches that took some weeks to properly heal.
I am active in many local cyclist groups. I know many people who don't wear a helmet out of choice, but I don't know anybody who says an accident's outcome was better because they weren't wearing one.
...And yes, after reading the link you sent: More than a cycling proselytizer (which I am), I am a safe cycling proselytizer. Using the road as regular traffic, not running over red lights, not riding on sidewalks, not riding to close to parked cars, not riding against the lane's direction, and a very large etcetera. Wearing a helmet by itself, I agree with bicyclesafe, will not help much if I am a daredevil. But being cautious and wearing a helmet is much better.
The whole helmet debate is a big red herring., the real problemb in most countries is poor driving and poor cycling infrastructure, most cyclists are woefully unaware of good cycling practices re door zone, shoulder checking, when to take the Lane etc.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
So what we really need is some kind of transparent helmet, or helmet that just looks like a hair-do, so drivers think you're an idiot who isn't wearing a helmet when in fact you are.
I do have quite a lot of sympathy for the view that there are circumstances where a fall is so unlikely that a helmet is a waste of time -- cycling in light traffic, with warm dry weather and no recklessness.
I disagree strongly, partly because my own accident didn't involve traffic, bad weather or recklessness. (There will always be people who disagree about "recklessness", I suppose -- one definition of "reckless riding" is "failing to ride in a way that avoids accidents". I find that annoyingly tautological.)
I finally bought a comfortable helmet, and since it's comfortable I always wear it. It's easier to do that than to evaluate the conditions every morning.
That's what I did, too. I also don't have a high-maintenance hairstyle.
Looking at the videos, I don't see why they don't airbag the whole head.
Because certain death from suffocation is worse than potential death from head trauma.
The point isn't about safety* (motorcycle helmets make bicycle helmets look like toys) but about getting to the root of the problem which many ignore or just outright conflate.
1. To argue for an ideology without having the honesty to list all of that's strengths and weaknesses AND also list the polar opposite point of view's strengths and weaknesses AS WELL is just trading one form of ignorance for another. Proselytizing one point of view without also listing ALL the pro's and con's is cargo-cult thinking.
An intelligent person is able to analyze all the reasons they think they "need" a helmet (even if they don't agree with them) and understand the tradeoffs they are making. i.e. For every argument about why X is needed/good, there are at least 2 other ideals that are also compromised along the way. There is a cliche for a reason: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
2. It is about having and building proactive awareness (aka mediation) vs reactive symptoms; the latter tends to encourages sloppy thinking, a false sense of security, fear-based thinking, undermine personal choice, and (counterintuitively!?!?) tends to have higher risks. (Glad to see it wasn't in your case. Experience can be a tough teacher.)
That is what I am arguing for; not some delusional ideology taken to an extreme that ignores all the issues. I am neither for nor against bike laws; every person should decide for themselves what level of truth they wish to live. The greatest fallacy that exists is: "Thinking One Man's Truth Applies To Everyone ."
* For every person arguing that we need "laws" to "protect" us I would argue that is a myopic view. The safety argument is partially bullshit else pedestrians and drivers would be required to wear helmets too. Oh wait ...
TEDxCopenhagen - Mikael Colville-Andersen - Why We Shouldn't Bike with a Helmet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY
That incredibly naive calculation only adds up if cycling was for some reason the only physical activity a human could undertake.
Which as you might know, is not the case and anyone giving up cycling because of the helmets can just switch to any other physical activity.
It comes as part of the protection package which includes the penis being shrunk and also retracted inside, and a pair of ribcage protectors.
You had to order it at the factory, and they keep installing them with some kind of recurrent leakage defect.
But in case you're hesitating, don't forget it also allows you to turn most people without the package into babbling morons under your control.
My take on it:
Don't wear a helmet, you're automatically considered an organ donor.
Because if you're going to potentially turn minor injuries into major ones by not protecting your brain, thus adding to the burden of society to try to save your sorry ass, it should be fair that we use your remains to save others when you exceed the survivability threshold.
Been smacked in the head with a car door, been backed into, crashed into a concrete block, flipped over many times, superman'd a couple times, nearly run off the road by a sherrif's van, and quite a few other incidents. Okay, full disclosure: I used to race (bicycles) competitively. But you know what's funny is that all the major accidents I've been in happened on the street--not at a race--where helmets aren't mandatory for adults here. The key factor in my not winding up more seriously injured (okay, I've snapped my collarbone, DURING a race) in most of these was paying attention. Luck plays a role, but not as large a role as being aware of your surroundings at all times. I was taught to always assume the people around you will do the stupidest possible thing and it's YOUR responsibility to avoid getting hit. I don't wear a helmet (used to during races, a requirement), not saying that should apply to everyone, but a helmet is not a necessary instrument to survive. It makes it easier for people who disregard their obligation to pay attention to survive. The people I've seen get seriously injured during cycling? Lack of attention or recklessness is the #1 cause. Going too fast on ice? Bad idea. Assuming you'll win vs a car, even if the law is on your side? Bad idea. Knowing what your skill level is and acting accordingly, while always maintaining 360 degree awareness? Good idea.
Cue the flames about how I'm clearly a moron.
I (a former competitive cyclist) have been in many bicycle accidents. Never muffed up a helmet. My instinct when crashing forward is to duck and roll (harder to do when clipped in, that's how I snapped my collarbone during a race. Hit a mud patch, front wheel stuck, bike rotated around it, and slammed my head into the ground. But, I also wouldn't dive into a mud patch like that outside of a race...). The head is protected, at the cost of anything else being damaged. Arms up around the head. I've skinned everything else, but I've only smacked my head once (outside a race), and that was from slamming into a concrete barrier at night, going 20 MPH. It had been placed across a trail I frequented, and there was no warning about the new presence of this object. That one did injure my face (lots of stitches and some dental work), but a helmet wouldn't have done a damn thing--nothing covered by a helmet was so much as nicked. The bike was junk though...
Amendment, I've been smacked in the head TWICE outside of a race. Had a guy open a car door right into my handlebars on the way home from work one night. Bike tipped up, edge of the car door banged me right down the middle of the face. Helmet wouldn't have helped much, if any. It'd be better to have protection for the things you actually injure during a crash (I've skinned my hands and arms I don't even know how many times...).
I HAVE gone down at 25+ MPH, being a former competitive cyclist. I've also smacked my head and face off stuff, and I've got the ugly mug (stitches and dental work and scars) to prove it. And you know what? The primary cause of crashing is: lack of attention/recklessness. There have been virtually no situations in my lifetime where being more observant/less reckless would not have prevented the crash. I've yet to mangle a helmet, but I've sure crashed a lot. The real point of impact in most crashes, at reasonable speeds, on a bicycle, is your hands and elbows, not your head. I've also seen a guy wearing a helmet go off the side of a course; I've seen a guy slide under a guardrail. Both wore helmets. I think the guy who slid under the guard rail (40+ MPH downhill, in the rain, at Green Mountain Stage Race) died. I was too busy trying to keep up with the rest of the pack. The other guy, last I recall, he was being backboarded and medevac'd.
Moral of the story: a helmet does not eliminate your obligation to maintain situational awareness. A helmet will not magically save your life. Prudence and awareness will save your life more often than a helmet.
Because people like breathing?
You mean all those people in full face motorcycle helmets are suffocating to death?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Was skiing off-piste, lost his balance, and crashed. Speed was found to be not an issue, and the gear was also found to be not faulty. Moral of the story: don't push yourself past your limits, and if you do, expect to take the good with the bad. Practice in safe environments and work up to the riskier stuff. I'm a former competitive cyclist, and also a motorcyclist (and cage driver). But while I don't wear a helmet during normal cycling, non-race, you sure as hell won't find me on a motorcycle without a full face helmet.
Suffocation? How? These things aren't air-tight, and they only remain inflated for a few seconds. Besides, if you read further, I was suggesting having the nose and cheek areas protected. ie, something more like this, but scaled for a person's head. The way it's designed now, it looks like post inflation esthetics played more of a role than preventing head trauma.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Waiting at a red light in the bicycle line is usually seen as common sense rather than going straight through. Still, there are drivers who aren't looking in front of them (texting? getting something off the floor ? looking at that chick in the car next to them which lane was empty ?) and when they notice that previous drivers stopped at the red light they swirve toward (one of) the side.
I would have a hard time blaming my aunt which suffered such an accident; if it wasn't for her helmet she would not have made it through, and she barely did. Broken legs and arms and bruises all over her (truck climbed onto her). There's a limit to the potential errors that you have to take into account, else you'd have to go live quite far because of all the potentials of errors by others. Don't drink water you haven't purified yourself, don't eat any food you haven't fully prepared yourself (unsafe meat!!), and most of all stay away from any aircraft flight plan, it could crash on you!
Spoken like a true motorist...
Yeah, but it was merely his perception. Forester didn't do any reliable or exhaustive research on this issue. The drivers were as likely responding to the cyclists riding style as anything else. The study is dated, because the majority of cyclist wear helmets these days.
Drivers can tell when you are a competent cyclist, just by the way you handle the bike on the road. If you weave an wander, they will give you wide berth. If you hold a straight line, take the whole lane when necessary and move left when safe, signal your turns, they are likely to pass you a little closer because they know you won't be doing something stupid.
Then there are stupid drivers who have no clue, and nothing you do will get them to pay attention.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Right, helmets shift it over, and in the past, an accident involving the head was likely going to be fatal. Now those result in brain injury.
This is nothing at all like the seatbelt debate, where a small number of people are actually injured by the seatbelt when they likely wouldn't have been without it. That one is a weak debate, because of the huge number of lives saved, and the issue of secondary accidents.
But this one is rank absurdity.
Well that is good, having a financial interest implies it might be made into a product that you can actually buy.
Compare to a theoretical academic exercise, which isn't going to protect your head at all.
In Oregon, where we passed seatbelt laws by direct vote, the winning issue was secondary crashes. The driver needs to be able to control the vehicle after the initial contact, not to save their own life, but to avoid involving additional people in the accident. And the backseat passengers flying into the front will also be a problem there, so everybody in the car has to wear them.
In the back of a motorhome there is little danger of landing in the drivers lap, both because of the vehicle type, the low speed of the vehicle, etc., so it is not required there.
In the case of a cyclist getting squashed, the helmet might save their life; but it isn't going to save anybody else's life, and it isn't likely to reduce the chance of secondary accidents. So while the life-saving nature of helmets has a solid foundation, requiring them doesn't.
I've been insulting these idiots for decades, and they still keep spouting it off.
It isn't hard to find somebody who thinks seatbelts are dangerous, murderous devices, and part of a liberal conspiracy. Just ask anybody driving a jacked-up penis truck, where the truck is actually an ugly POS and not a nice new vehicle.
Injuries others have suffered are not a subject for humor among adults,
Yes they are, unless the person died, and then only if they died stupidly. Or if they experienced brain damage, and haven't "overcome" the challenges.
Your doctor doesn't know what he's talking about.
Yeah, always trust a random anonymous idiot on the internet over a medical doctor.
Styrofoam will only protect you in low speed collisions
Oh noes! Maybe somebody will invent something made of a better material. Oh, I dunno, maybe paper.
Riding over rail tracks at an angle, sounds like the dizziness started before the accident. ;) Glad you're alright, though.
You might have bonked your head pretty good if you remember it as being the back wheel getting stuck, but you went over the bars. It was probably the front wheel.
Only if by "qualitatively better science" you mean, wishy-washy nonsense that conflates issues. There is not really even a theoretical scenario where the helmet increases the brain injury of the same accident. As other haves pointed out, they could increase the risk of neck injury... in accidents that would otherwise involve abrading the back of the skull.
It is easy to come up with scenarios where the helmet doesn't help, but if the science is so "qualitatively better" how come we don't have a single example? Oh, because it is hand-waving and twisted statistics.
If you mean that the people politically opposed claim to have stronger science than the doctors, I'd say it is probably because the doctors are more cautious in phrasing their claims.
Here in Oregon, over the last 5-10 years almost everybody has switched to wearing helmets. People only laugh at them until maybe 1/4th are wearing them, then it becomes normal, and then the rate goes up every year as more people notice they don't hate helmets anymore, and think about if they want it... for the first time. And the answer is often yes. I live next to an off-street bike path, and it is mostly poor people who aren't wearing them.
Here you can rent bicycles and they always have helmets available either for free or as an additional rental.
I'm curious, what contagious disease is spread by bike helmets? (*spoiler: none)
Yes, always be aware in a door zone. It is the drivers responsibility to make sure it is clear before opening their door, so don't be shy; be mentally prepared in advance to lift the leg on the same side as the door, and take most of the impact on your leg. Don't worry if your foot might land on the hand opening the door; your job is to reduce your own injury; his job is to check before he opens the door. Also lean towards the car, so your weight stays centered and you're not deflected into a traffic lane. If you do it right, the door hinge will take most of the force.
Don't try this at high speeds, in that case you only have seconds to decide on your last words.
It's notable that all their crash test videos only use a stationary bike falling over of being rear-ended. Such a system would be useless against real world situations where your head could be sliding across the ground at 20+ MPH.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I didn't make the hygiene concern up. As for diseases caught from wearing a helmet, I would be tempted to say lice, but I could be wrong.
No, avoid the doorzone, don't cycle in it at all, I could well be dead right now if I cycled in the door zone - I had some driver fling his door open whilst a bus was coming the other direction up the road, the door just missed my handlebars.
Watch this and tell me you have any time to react when someone opens the door at the last moment.
http://youtu.be/CudJvSbS2aY
Skip to 1:05
Why endanger your life? - stay out of the doorzone and show this video to anyone who cycles because I'm sick of people cycling in the door zone and confusing drivers as to the correct place a cyclist should be cycling - I end up getting harassed for staying safe because of them.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Hair you go. http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/attachment.php?s=3d545f0a3eb606d6558b04711b5f6be2&attachmentid=47575&d=1302996883 or http://justanothercyclist.veloreviews.com/files/2014/01/Bret-Hair_Helmet.png
Yeah, but then how would you scratch them?
Caution: May contain nuts.
I was required to wear a helmet while taking a track driving course, but was driving my own car and it did not have any of these other safety features. So somebody felt the helmet alone was worth it even without the 6-point harness, etc.
Indeed. Could be. ;)
In most places, it isn't a common risk. Nor is transmission associated with things like trying on hats at the clothing store. Also, in the rare event somebody does get lice, it is not associated with any significant health risks. It is a minor annoyance, easily dealt with.
Your advice translates basically to, don't ride a bike in a city, even in bike lanes. Or ride on the sidewalk and get squashed by people starting out of driveways, in order to avoid the much safer designated riding locations.
Because it's required by the rules of the sport. Where the rules allow the helmets to be removed (e.g. an alpine ascent), the cyclists remove them.
The context was government cycle programs where they changed the helmet laws to save money on the cycle programs. So a cheapskate cycle program.
Now do you get the connection - governments starting businesses changing safety rules to benefit their business.
There was no other way than riding over the track at an angle. It was a narrow road with cars parked in two rows - fucking bastards - and the light rail track in the centre. And no, it was the back wheel. Unfortunately the tire had the same width as this cavity in the rail. The back wheel slipped into it, stuck, and since the bike decelerated immediately (I had only half a second of forewarning when I felt the rear wheel skidding which I used to unclip the pedals) I have been thrown off the bike by inertia.
Hurt myself pretty hard with bruises on bruises all over. Limped for about two months afterwards.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Watch the video.
I ride around 8,000 - 9,000 miles a year through London's roads, and I avoid the door-zone and I don't cycle on the 'sidewalk' - that's illegal here.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Bike lanes? The idiots who wasted public money painting those on the roads should be put in stocks. Cycle correctly - not where some idiot who knows nothing about cycling says you should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pillory-stocks.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_zone
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/jul/24/cyclists-threat-parked-cars
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Because it's required by the rules of the sport. Where the rules allow the helmets to be removed (e.g. an alpine ascent), the cyclists remove them.
That doesn't rule out the possibility that the sport only allows the helmets to be removed in cases where the risk of a serious collision is much lower (e.g. an ascent, like you mentioned, where the speed is much lower).
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
If you're going 30MPH I'd advice you to wear a helmet too, but most people (http://www.verkeersnet.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/amsterdam.jpg) are not going anywhere near 30 MPH, or even 20 KmPH.
If you're going 30MPH you're probably also doing it on a bike like this: http://www.online-fahrrad.de/Bilder/Mountainbike-Cube-Reaction.jpg or this: http://www.bikester.nl/fileadmin/mediapool/bknl/racefiets.jpg and not a nice classic city bike like this: http://static.batavus.com/bikes/HT140021/batavus/Blockbuster-7.jpg
The bike type has a huge impact on safety and I expect the chance of head injuries and thus the effect of wearing a helmet to also change significantly with bicycle type.
Why would anyone need to make such a specious argument to justify not wanting a compulsory governor on her car? The simplest argument is, "It's my car, and I choose to be the device that limits its speed." You see, a car is a privately owned possession that has use on public roads, but its use is not limited to public roads.
For 99% of all people that is also a specious argument, since their cars are never used on private roads where it is possible to break the speed limit. Their venture onto private ground is limited to their driveway and private carparks, neither of which could remotely sustain a 150 km/t speed.
Also there is nothing wrong with the public saying that you are fine having a non-speed-limited car (we won't interfere with you privately owned possession), but we won't allow you to drive on our public roads, because that is actually a privilege and not a right and we get (through democracy) get to chose who drives on it. We already refuse plenty of people/cars.
It is really cool, but oh man I'd hate to see what happens if it triggers while 'misaligned'.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
He definitely had me on board when he mentioned "blancmange "
So vehement, readers should note, that he lied about decreasing rates of cycling in Australia after helmet laws were imposed when instead the reality is a cycling boom.
He also did not have the courage to admit it when I pointed that out in a reply to one of his other posts.
My last taste of cobblestones was because of a car coming round a 90degree corner (at the exit of a bridge) on my side of the road as I was approaching the bridge, forcing me into unseated cobbles and subsequently into a drystone dyke.
No actual contact with the car, who didn't even stop.
(And yes, I was using lights, as was the car. And no, I wasn't wearing a helmet - but since I was doing about walking pace when my pedals finally caught in the wall and toppled me, that's not terribly relevant. I don't wear a helmet when I'm walking either.)
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Personally, I'd be all for some (rational) TV or poster ads that said something like "cycling without a helmet? You're X times more likely to get a head injury"
The problem with that is that X = 0
Studies have shown that pedestrians are about as likely to get a head injury as cyclists.
Campaigns like the one you're up for suggest that cycling is dangerous - It isn't. Cyclists live longer than car drivers. TV and poster ads should be getting that message across if anything.
This.
You'll be safer in an accident, but your brain will cook into a nice thin gruel first.
That's basically a pile of derp with no substance to your comment at all. You threw out some insults, but there is nothing in your comment that conveys information or even opinion other than in regards to the people who made it so I have a place to ride without getting run off the road.
Perhaps you're simply ignorant to the civic choices available in different places.
Or, judging from your user id, you're just not weened yet.
Fuck you too
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.