Get rid bike helmets

[uscitizen]

This is kind of a pet peeve with me, and the fact that I found this talk today just encouraged me to bring it up.

Mikael Colville-Andersen is not the biggest fan of the bike helmet. An avid cyclist, filmmaker, and fan of livable, bike-heavy cities, he delivered a talk at TEDxCopenhagen in late 2010 that slammed one of our long-held beliefs about bicycle safety — he suggested that cyclists shouldn't worry about wearing helmets.
In the talk, Colville-Andersen describes the culture of fear dominating our modern society and "an almost pornographic obsession with safety equipment." The idea that we're in danger lends itself to a "bubble-wrap society," with many people financially benefiting from the everyday person's paranoia about the risks lurking behind every corner. He identified the promotion of the bike helmet as a marketing moves. The helmet lacks a great track record of safety scientifically, he notes, and the scientific community is split on its efficiency. What he scrutinizes is the testing, the statistics surrounding helmet safety, and the deeper dangers that could affect a cycling culture crippled by fear.
What we need, according to Colville-Andersen, is logic. Looking at Copenhagen, he connects the promotion of bike helmets with strong drops in cycling due to fear. "People are getting scared away from a very intelligent, life-extending, sustainable zero carbon transport form by making it seem much more dangerous than it is," he tells the TEDx audience. He compares the great health benefits of cycling to any of the risks inherent in bike helmet promotion and enthusiastically advocates for society to encourage cycling at the expense of helmets. The criticism has emerged elsewhere in the cycling community, such as in this article tracking the emergence of the helmet in America and how it affected actual cyclist safety.

Idea of the day: Ditch the bike helmet - @TBD On Foot | TBD.com

How about this. You put on a bike helmet.... i whack your head with a golf club. Would you rather be wearing the helmet or not

I wanna watch that!

 

[uscitizen]

How is it bull?

Can you provide clinical evidence that bike helmets, which are made out of Styrofoam, and designed only to protect you from impacts that hit you directly on the top of your head?

I am a retired nurse and my man is a retired fireman/paramedic. TBI's sux!

Never said they did not.

It is not, however, the business of the government to protect me from them.

Take that up with your state government.

Personally I do not think they should be mandatory, we need to weed out some defective genetics anyway.
Same with motorcycle helmets.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A helmet can reduce the risk of a bicycle-related brain injury by up to 88 percent, so buy one that fits well and make sure your child always wears it

Children's bike sizing guide

Lovely link. You apparently like corporate sponsored science links, I will keep that in mind.

If you do not mind, I will stick to the real science though.

This paper (TRT89) is by far the most frequently cited research paper in support of the promotion of cycle helmets. It is referred to by most other papers on helmets. In fact, many other papers, and nearly all helmet promotion policies, rely fundamentally upon the validity of its conclusions.
The claims that helmets reduce head injuries by 85% and brain injuries by 88% come only from this source, yet are quoted widely as fact. For example, a policy statement on bicycle helmets by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2001 states: “The bicycle helmet is a very effective device that can prevent the occurrence of up to 88% of serious brain injuries.” [1]
The prospect of achieving such massive reductions in injuries to cyclists lies at the root of helmet promotion and helmet laws around the world. Those who have taken the trouble to analyse the paper in detail, however, have found it to be seriously flawed and its conclusions untenable. Moreover, by making different - but no less valid - assumptions, the conclusions change radically.

A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets

 

[uscitizen]

It is impossible to say with a high degree of accuracy well if he had been or not been wearing a helmet this would have been different.
Some cases are obvious but many are not.

 

[Ravi]

A helmet can reduce the risk of a bicycle-related brain injury by up to 88 percent, so buy one that fits well and make sure your child always wears it

Children's bike sizing guide

Lovely link. You apparently like corporate sponsored science links, I will keep that in mind.

If you do not mind, I will stick to the real science though.

This paper (TRT89) is by far the most frequently cited research paper in support of the promotion of cycle helmets. It is referred to by most other papers on helmets. In fact, many other papers, and nearly all helmet promotion policies, rely fundamentally upon the validity of its conclusions.
The claims that helmets reduce head injuries by 85% and brain injuries by 88% come only from this source, yet are quoted widely as fact. For example, a policy statement on bicycle helmets by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2001 states: “The bicycle helmet is a very effective device that can prevent the occurrence of up to 88% of serious brain injuries.” [1]
The prospect of achieving such massive reductions in injuries to cyclists lies at the root of helmet promotion and helmet laws around the world. Those who have taken the trouble to analyse the paper in detail, however, have found it to be seriously flawed and its conclusions untenable. Moreover, by making different - but no less valid - assumptions, the conclusions change radically.

A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets

CR isn't corporate sponsored.

I see you are afraid to answer questions. Do you ride a bike? Is someone forcing you to wear a helmet?

 

[uscitizen]

Children's bike sizing guide

Lovely link. You apparently like corporate sponsored science links, I will keep that in mind.

If you do not mind, I will stick to the real science though.

This paper (TRT89) is by far the most frequently cited research paper in support of the promotion of cycle helmets. It is referred to by most other papers on helmets. In fact, many other papers, and nearly all helmet promotion policies, rely fundamentally upon the validity of its conclusions.
The claims that helmets reduce head injuries by 85% and brain injuries by 88% come only from this source, yet are quoted widely as fact. For example, a policy statement on bicycle helmets by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2001 states: “The bicycle helmet is a very effective device that can prevent the occurrence of up to 88% of serious brain injuries.” [1]
The prospect of achieving such massive reductions in injuries to cyclists lies at the root of helmet promotion and helmet laws around the world. Those who have taken the trouble to analyse the paper in detail, however, have found it to be seriously flawed and its conclusions untenable. Moreover, by making different - but no less valid - assumptions, the conclusions change radically.

A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets

CR isn't corporate sponsored.

I see you are afraid to answer questions. Do you ride a bike? Is someone forcing you to wear a helmet?

He is apparently a minor and being forced by law to wear one.
Figures.

 

[Toro]

Just got back from a 12 mile ride through Tropical Storm Lee! w00t! Loved it!

No way do I get on my bike without a helmet. I've heard doctors say from what they've seen, cyclists crashing without bike helmets are way worse. An anecdote, for sure, but it seems common sense to me.

 

[uscitizen]

I would wear the helmets but never the speedo biker shorts.
too much tool and jewel compression.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Children's bike sizing guide

Lovely link. You apparently like corporate sponsored science links, I will keep that in mind.

If you do not mind, I will stick to the real science though.

This paper (TRT89) is by far the most frequently cited research paper in support of the promotion of cycle helmets. It is referred to by most other papers on helmets. In fact, many other papers, and nearly all helmet promotion policies, rely fundamentally upon the validity of its conclusions.
The claims that helmets reduce head injuries by 85% and brain injuries by 88% come only from this source, yet are quoted widely as fact. For example, a policy statement on bicycle helmets by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2001 states: “The bicycle helmet is a very effective device that can prevent the occurrence of up to 88% of serious brain injuries.” [1]
The prospect of achieving such massive reductions in injuries to cyclists lies at the root of helmet promotion and helmet laws around the world. Those who have taken the trouble to analyse the paper in detail, however, have found it to be seriously flawed and its conclusions untenable. Moreover, by making different - but no less valid - assumptions, the conclusions change radically.

A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets

CR isn't corporate sponsored.

I see you are afraid to answer questions. Do you ride a bike? Is someone forcing you to wear a helmet?

They cited a study that is.

What do those questions have to with the general point I am making here? If you can provide some actual relevance, or even point to a place where I complained about anyone being forced to wear helmets, I will answer the questions. Otherwise they are irrelevant.

The point here is that people feel a need to protect others from non existent dangers. Did you even watch the video I posted?

 

[uscitizen]

Lovely link. You apparently like corporate sponsored science links, I will keep that in mind.

If you do not mind, I will stick to the real science though.

A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets

CR isn't corporate sponsored.

I see you are afraid to answer questions. Do you ride a bike? Is someone forcing you to wear a helmet?

They cited a study that is.

What do those questions have to with the general point I am making here? If you can provide some actual relevance, or even point to a place where I complained about anyone being forced to wear helmets, I will answer the questions. Otherwise they are irrelevant.

The point here is that people feel a need to protect others from non existent dangers. Did you even watch the video I posted?

You mean like the dangers of having gays in the military?

 

[mawmawsara]

How is it bull?

Can you provide clinical evidence that bike helmets, which are made out of Styrofoam, and designed only to protect you from impacts that hit you directly on the top of your head?

I am a retired nurse and my man is a retired fireman/paramedic. TBI's sux!

Never said they did not.

It is not, however, the business of the government to protect me from them.

I will agree with you on that. Children are another story though.

 

[Ravi]

I would wear the helmets but never the speedo biker shorts.
too much tool and jewel compression.

Damn, you are against government protecting those things from swinging around?

 

[Ravi]

Lovely link. You apparently like corporate sponsored science links, I will keep that in mind.

If you do not mind, I will stick to the real science though.

A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets

CR isn't corporate sponsored.

I see you are afraid to answer questions. Do you ride a bike? Is someone forcing you to wear a helmet?

They cited a study that is.

What do those questions have to with the general point I am making here? If you can provide some actual relevance, or even point to a place where I complained about anyone being forced to wear helmets, I will answer the questions. Otherwise they are irrelevant.

The point here is that people feel a need to protect others from non existent dangers. Did you even watch the video I posted?

So, you bike? Someone is forcing you to wear a helmet?

 

[Sunshine]

This is kind of a pet peeve with me, and the fact that I found this talk today just encouraged me to bring it up.

Mikael Colville-Andersen is not the biggest fan of the bike helmet. An avid cyclist, filmmaker, and fan of livable, bike-heavy cities, he delivered a talk at TEDxCopenhagen in late 2010 that slammed one of our long-held beliefs about bicycle safety — he suggested that cyclists shouldn't worry about wearing helmets.
In the talk, Colville-Andersen describes the culture of fear dominating our modern society and "an almost pornographic obsession with safety equipment." The idea that we're in danger lends itself to a "bubble-wrap society," with many people financially benefiting from the everyday person's paranoia about the risks lurking behind every corner. He identified the promotion of the bike helmet as a marketing moves. The helmet lacks a great track record of safety scientifically, he notes, and the scientific community is split on its efficiency. What he scrutinizes is the testing, the statistics surrounding helmet safety, and the deeper dangers that could affect a cycling culture crippled by fear.
What we need, according to Colville-Andersen, is logic. Looking at Copenhagen, he connects the promotion of bike helmets with strong drops in cycling due to fear. "People are getting scared away from a very intelligent, life-extending, sustainable zero carbon transport form by making it seem much more dangerous than it is," he tells the TEDx audience. He compares the great health benefits of cycling to any of the risks inherent in bike helmet promotion and enthusiastically advocates for society to encourage cycling at the expense of helmets. The criticism has emerged elsewhere in the cycling community, such as in this article tracking the emergence of the helmet in America and how it affected actual cyclist safety.

Idea of the day: Ditch the bike helmet - @TBD On Foot | TBD.com

Insurance companies definitely want to do away with bike helmets. In a collision with a car or truck, the biker wearing the helmet will most likely require years of expensive nursing home care, whereas with no helment he would be dead and no cost to the insurance company.

Cheers!

 

[Guntrainer]

I have been riding for decades, and will not ride without a helmet. I have been in two crashes, one caused by a car, the other by a dog. Cracked two helmets, did not feel my head hit the pavement either time.

Having belonged to several bike clubs, none of them will allow you to ride with them without a helmet. Every sponsored ride I have been on requires a helmet, or you do not ride with them. Period.

If you want to ride without one, fine. I will keep wearing mine.

 

[Sunshine]

I have been riding for decades, and will not ride without a helmet. I have been in two crashes, one caused by a car, the other by a dog. Cracked two helmets, did not feel my head hit the pavement either time.

Having belonged to several bike clubs, none of them will allow you to ride with them without a helmet. Every sponsored ride I have been on requires a helmet, or you do not ride with them. Period.

If you want to ride without one, fine. I will keep wearing mine.

I recall when seat belts were optional but recommended. My children were young, and we had only owned one car that had them. But we didn't wear them. To get the kids used to the idea every time we got in the car I would say, 'when we get our new car, we will all wear seat belts.' We got the new car. We all started wearing our seat belts. In less than 3 months an asshole ran a stop sign and hit us. We would have all been seriously injured without the belts.

 

[HUGGY]

"Get rid bike helmets"

It appears you already did...before the accident..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

CR isn't corporate sponsored.

I see you are afraid to answer questions. Do you ride a bike? Is someone forcing you to wear a helmet?

They cited a study that is.

What do those questions have to with the general point I am making here? If you can provide some actual relevance, or even point to a place where I complained about anyone being forced to wear helmets, I will answer the questions. Otherwise they are irrelevant.

The point here is that people feel a need to protect others from non existent dangers. Did you even watch the video I posted?

You mean like the dangers of having gays in the military?

If you mean it takes questionable assumptions and uses them to reach unsupported conclusions, then yes, that is exactly what I mean.

 

[whitehall]

If you really want to save lives make it mandatory to wear helmets in cars. Race car driers have to wear them, why not John Q Public? Too inconvenient?

 

[uscitizen]

I know of no law that requires adults to wear helmets while riding bicycles.

This thread seems to be 98% based on false outrage?