My helmet saved me, and broke

[goldenchicken II]

This is an interesting discussion but please don't use 'us' or 'we' when you actually mean 'I'.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Mikefule <> wrote:
>
> But will the helmet help? It is a bicycle helmet designed for road
> use.
>
> Obviously, it will do more good than harm.

That statement sums up the entire problem.

It is not obvious. It might SEEM obvious, but the real-world fact of
helmet COMPULSION is that helmet compulsion does more harm than good
(unless you count removing cyclists from teh road as good - some
motorists do)

> However, they will generally do more good than harm.

But they don't - when they are made compulsory, teh rate of cyclist
killed and seriously injured goes up (in every jurisdiction that has
tried it and enforced it).

In teh UK, as the rate of cyclist helmet wearing has sky-rocketed
compared to that of pedestrian helmet wearing, the relative accident
rate has not changed dramatically (in fact, it has drifted in teh
wrong direction).

If you can explain how it can be obvious that helmets will generally
do more good than harm, when making everyone wear them increases the
rate of serious injury, and when lots of people choose to wear one
it doesn't alter the rate of serious injury, it would be very useful.

Until you can explain those observations, I don't think you can
truthfully say "obviously" or "generally" they will do more good than
harm - because in practice, increasing teh rate of helmet wearing
hasn't reduced teh rate of cyclist serious injury.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[entropy]

I see all sorts of references to studies and statistics in this discussion. Pardon my skepticism, but as a general rule, I don't believe anything I read in a discussion forum unless its backed up with reputable links or at the very least a date, publication and article title.

If you've got sources for numbers and facts, post them. If not, then all that typing is just proverbial hot air to me, and not terribly interesting.

Glad your helmet did its job, steveyo. (As in, glad you're still with us!)

[steveyo]

Originally posted by entropy
Glad your helmet did its job, steveyo. (As in, glad you're still with us!)

Thanks.

Guy wrote:
>>*I am delighted to have found one person who can speak for the entire
>>group, that should speed matters along just nicely.*

and John Foss responded:
> At the moment it's looking like "the group minus Ian Smith."

Count me in with Ian and Guy. And who was the other chap who used to
try to make the same points here, but seems to have given it up as futile?

<Googles>
I think I may be thinking of Rowan.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

[onetrack]

Originally posted by Danny Colyer
Count me in with Ian and Guy. And who was the other chap who used to
try to make the same points here, but seems to have given it up as futile?

That might be me. I've been riding for about 9 years, and have yet to hit my head. Maybe i just have fast reflexes , i dont know.

I've given up on arguing, and usually ignore helmet threads now. I don't really think it is responsable or nessessary ot discourage people from wearing helmets. some of us just don't find it nessessary (you know who you are).

[ChangingLINKS.com]

Originally posted by Danny Colyer

Count me in with Ian and Guy.
<Googles>
I think I may be thinking of Rowan.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)

Ditto.
Today's "Pearls Before Swine" remind me of this repeated discussion.





I wear a helmet most of the time now since I stopped having to worry about sweat getting in my contact lens.
I do it partly to satisfy the pro-wear-a-helmet-to-take-a-shower zealots.

[tomblackwood]

Originally posted by ChangingLINKS.com
I wear a helmet most of the time now. I do it partly to satisfy the pro-wear-a-helmet-to-take-a-shower zealots.

My son and I--zealots both--thank you for that. Never know when a stray bit of soap will get underfoot, take you down.

[ChangingLINKS.com]

Originally posted by tomblackwood
My son and I--zealots both--thank you for that. Never know when a stray bit of soap will get underfoot, take you down.

DAMN IT!
DON'T SAY THAT!
You're effectively raising the likelyhood of compulsory shower helmet laws. In like kind, shower fatalities will increase, and I'll end up injured. Thanks alot.


//At least Jagur will be safe.

[bjornthegreat]

I feel an experiment coming on. We get Mr 'Guy' to stand under a 500g weight, raised to a 50cm height (above his head). We then let him choose whether or not to wear a helmet. If he choses to do so, we win. If he doesn't, he wins but runs the risk of a serious concussion.

Weight drops. Point is proven.

Reasonable?

Loose. [/B]

Thank you! However, I think the major thing here is for people to choose for themselves to wear helmets.- Myself, I finally bought a BMX-style helmet (they call'em pisspots or half-shells in Norway) with which I usually ride. I know it does not look good and it can be hot and uncomfortable at times but I find it is worth it. I have been riding far too much without my helmet and will not push luck anymore. If you watch our first three movies, they are consequently WITHOUT helmets, our new movie will be fully WITH helmets.

Over all, it seems to me that you generally agree that one should use helmets but that bicycling helmets offer less protection than certain other types of helmets. This, again, is an induvidual dessicion, you have one of three choises, really:
1 - No helmet
2 - Bicycle/other kind of helmet which offers some protection
3 - BMX/other kind of helmet which ofers maximal protection

I have chosen the last with an hope of surviving a steadily more (and at times, perhaps, too) extreme unicycling. If other people choose one of the other two options, fine, I am happy as long as they take responsibility for their own riding and health.

Regarding wheter the helmet which broke did its job. I would say, yes. It saved him from serious damage (which MIGHT have been the outcome of one such impact without a helmet), but it also broke. I would like to quote my local bike dealer (and Secialized & GT importer in Norway) on the fact that "no helmet offer optimalized protection after any impact," meaning that once you have fallen with your helmet its protective abilities will be reduced to some degree. How much, he said, will be diffring from speciman to speciman. Meaning that yes, if you fall, yur helmet MAY and sometimes WILL break and yet fulfilling its job if YOU DON'T GET HURT!

(Yes, I realise that this post came a little late, but I felt I had to say it)

[Mikefule]

Originally posted by Ian Smith

But they don't - when they are made compulsory, teh rate of cyclist
killed and seriously injured goes up (in every jurisdiction that has
tried it and enforced it).

In teh UK, as the rate of cyclist helmet wearing has sky-rocketed
compared to that of pedestrian helmet wearing, the relative accident
rate has not changed dramatically (in fact, it has drifted in teh
wrong direction).

Regardless of whether these statements are true, and regardless of whether they are based on a fair interpretation of statistics, they are totally irrelevant to the discussion in this forum. This is a unicycle forum. The type of accidents unicyclists have will be very different from the type of accidents bicyclists have.

Bicyclists are, in the main, riding from A to B, mixing it with pedestrians and motor traffic. Unicyclists, in the main, aren't. Bicyclists usually fall off forwards or sideways and get tangled in their machines, or they are knocked off by motor vehicles. Unicyclists usually fall off at fairly low speed, but suddenly, when they lose control as a result of a failed manoeuvre.

As far as I am aware, no government has ever published accident statistics for unicyclists.

So we can only look at one case: A unicyclist falls off and bangs his head. Is he better off with a helmet or without one? There are many circumstances in which he will be better off with a helmet, and very few circumstances in which he would be better off without one.

[ChangingLINKS.com]

. . . . alright, everyone forgive Mikefule for the inaccuracies in this last post. Just overlook it.

Thanks.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 03:43:38 -0500> Mikefule wrote
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > *
> > But they don't - when they are made compulsory, teh rate of cyclist
> > killed and seriously injured goes up (in every jurisdiction that has
> > tried it and enforced it).
> >
> > In teh UK, as the rate of cyclist helmet wearing has sky-rocketed
> > compared to that of pedestrian helmet wearing, the relative accident
> > rate has not changed dramatically (in fact, it has drifted in teh
> > wrong direction).
> > *
>
> Regardless of whether these statements are true, and regardless of
> whether they are based on a fair interpretation of statistics, they are
> totally irrelevant to the discussion in this forum. This is a unicycle
> forum. The type of accidents unicyclists have will be very different
> from the type of accidents bicyclists have.

No, they are not irrelevant to the discussion, because they were made
in direct response to an assertion that helmets, on the whole, must be
a good thing, that it is "obvious" that they will do more good than
harm. If that were the case, it would be equally obvious whenever
bicycle helmets are worn.

If that were actually the case, then this obvious benefit would also
show up in bicycle accident statistics. Or are you really claiming
that bicycle helmets will work better for unicycling than for the
activity they were designed for? That would be surprising, given
that pretty much everyone else is saying exactly the opposite.

> So we can only look at one case: A unicyclist falls off and bangs his
> head. Is he better off with a helmet or without one? There are many
> circumstances in which he will be better off with a helmet, and very few
> circumstances in which he would be better off without one.

Again, you state as fact something that is (at best) your personal
guess (and one that many people disagree with). YOU GUESS there are
many circumstances in which he will be better, and you GUESS there are
very few circumstances in which he will be worse off. However, those
GUESSES seem to contradict the real-world observed performance of
helmets on bicyclists, so it is difficult to see a rational
justification for them.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Mikefule]

It is difficult to see a rational justification for arguing that a piece of equipment designed to protect the wearer will not do more good than harm in most circumstances.

As for my guesses, they are based on some knowledge and experience. I was a keen bicyclist for many years, and an active member of the Cyclists' Touring Club and the Tandem Club. During that time, I not only rode daily in heavy traffic in all weathers, but I had my fair share of knocks and spills, ending up in hospital once, as did my then wife in a separate accident.

I am also a motorcyclist (these days a scooterist) and have followed the very similar helmet debate in motorcycling circles. There are still motorcyclists who argue against helmets, rather than against compulsion. You also get the helmet debate in rock climbing circles too. And no doubt in horse riding and many other sports.

More to the point, I've spent the last 24 years of my life working in an insurance claims office. Part of my job is reading Coroner's reports and Police accident investigators' reports. Part of it is reading medical reports. Part of it is assessing how much damages to pay to people who have suffered severe injuries in road accidents.

Helmets are not perfect. Nevertheless, wearing a helmet will tend to reduce the severity of your injuries, or even prevent injuries altogether, in the majority of accidents in which your head comes into contact with a hard object. In a number of cases, the helmet will make no difference whatsoever, and in a minority of cases, the helmet may even exacerbate or cause injuries. As an item of safety equipment, helmets do more good than harm. To argue otherwise is irrational and irresponsible.

To argue against compulsion is fair enough, and to argue for one type or style of helmet in preference to another is useful and cosntructive.

[Seager]

I wear a hat that I made by hot glueing shards of broken glass dipped in the HIV to it. I think it makes me safer. I've never falled and hit my head anyway, so....

I also put nails on my pedals. They face up.

I have an air seat filled with brown recluse spiders. It's the most comfortable thing, EVER! It's like a party under my pants and everyone's invited - 'cept they're pissed about it so they bite me in the *****.

(it's bigger now!)

I do these things to look cool.