4:25, that’s a dangerous word. Were you wearing one while typing?

duh.

I went back and looked at the first post that started the helmet debate, it says “and why do I keep seeing CRCA juniors riding the Gimbels ride without helmets (stupid)?” This to me doesn’t say, “wear a helmet when you ride your bike or you’ll have a head injury”. It sounds more like “If there are places you should wear a helmet, the Gimbels ride is one of them and you would be stupid if you didn’t.

JFT was the first one to cry foul. He seems guilty of the very thing he complains about. If anyone says anthing remotely pro helmet JFT is right there to put them in there place.

I personally don’t always wear a helmet myself. I base it on perceived risk.

I wasn’t offended by the first post either. I don’t think the parents of the under aged juniors would be either.

i got a fever!

Captain Ed, I think I dated your first wife.

This thread reminds me of the long phone calls I used to have with my first wife. I would hold the phone away from my ear for minutes at a time and pull it back in close, listen just long enough to see if she was still rantin’, and then hold it back out there again. I’ll check back in tomorrow night and see if you guys are still at it. Must be cabin fever settin’ in.

stop bein so selfish gene!

Another statistical improbability. I

“why are you posting tables where even the author that originally posted them admitted that there was no way to verify since there was no information on the way the data was obtained. he didn’t even know what population it represented… ”

It was handy and is better than the info you have. Do you have better?

There was a post that is well sourced (national safety council http://www.nsc.org) that gave a similar impression, though w/o hours of exposure.

Do you have better info? I’d love to see it. Please share it.

And sign your name or initials.

PS – you might want to look up the word “author” in the dictionary.

Plenty of studies? Remind us – when was the last good study completed on cycling risks and helmets? And the last study using data was from what period exactly?

exactly, you don’t know the flaws but you use it for your argument when it suits you

we can only hope that you’ll quit responding but i find that unlikely

JT
why are you posting tables where even the author that originally posted them admitted that there was no way to verify since there was no information on the way the data was obtained. he didn’t even know what population it represented…

here, i’ll make up a table that supports every conclusion i’ve already come to. tables are pretty and they help drive a point home

JT
the data about car helmets came from the same source as the data about cycling helmets (the one you said didn’t control for for decrease in cycle use). sounds like you just like to pick whatever data suits your argument even if the same source has data that supports one of your arguments but not the other…where’s the consistency?

“Wrong assumption: cycling accidents with head injury are very rare – not so. Data is poor, study’s inconclusive and lacking in recency, breadth, and statistical validity for many reasons. ”

It’s been well-studied. You don’t agree but that doesn’t make it so.

“a) risk levels are equivalent – where do we see this?”

It’s been posted a few times. Risks in cars probably are more but might be less. The best info suggests they are not hugely different

“b) case assumes that helmets would provide same level of protection”
There have been a few posts about this from me and someone else. For all we know bike helmets offer less protection.

“- OBVIOUSLY not since a driver is protected by other devices both active and passive vs cyclist having no other means other than helmet to save scalp. ”
This is silly. Even with seat belts and air bags plenty of people are injured or die in cars, so it’s reasonable to look at this point forward: a cycist on a bike or a person in a car with seatbelts etc. Both have risk that could be reduced in some ways. Why do we consider it important to reduce it further for one group and not the other? The other in which 40K people die a year…

“ignores even the logical diffences of driving vs cycling in terms of recognizing hazards of auto racing helmets – limited head mobility and view – would have to compare to a full face cycling helmet to be logical here, ”

No, we could even be comparing cycling helmets to prevent head injuries to blood tests to detect cancer early. My point is that if two actions both have similar efficacy why is not doing one “stupid” and suggesting the other is “silly”? The cars and helmets are handy example since the general risks level is similar to cycling (the blood test example I’m not so sure about, but I’m just making a point)

PS – there are simple open-face car helmets that offer fine visibility. And visibility aside, what about helmets for passengers who don’t need to see much.

” d) using logic without inserting common sense is to ignore reality vs relying on theoretical,”

Common sense says a helmet in a car is stupid. But does that make common sense wrong. There was post here from an Australian government website which told some very interesting stuff about car helmets – you would do well to read it.

One more thing. Like the Chris M compare to Tom Cruise, I see parallel to Mosquito Coast – JT is like the protagonist that reads all sorts of books, learns from a book how to survive and garden etc, then moves his whole family to the jungle and proceeds to wreck their lives for failing to account for multiple real-life scenarios and human reactions in spite of creating a realtively comfortable existance away from society. JT is like the crazy Harrison Ford depicted character from the book as he runs around on his bike without helmet proclaiming that the data says he is the only sane man in town – all of us be damned with our ‘common sense’.

Logical thinking is interesting and good. Problem is, the helmet argument for bikes and cars et al doesnt rely on either side purely on logic. In JTs case, he is making wrong assumptions and omissions in his argument. Wrong assumption: cycling accidents with head injury are very rare – not so. Data is poor, study’s inconclusive and lacking in recency, breadth, and statistical validity for many reasons. So, we know that accidents occur, but dont know exactly how to measure the risk well enough to base an argument against helmets. This is quite clear I think.

The logic that helmets on bikes and cars are equivalent is also very poor in this thread. Case assumes that a) risk levels are equivalent – where do we see this? b) case assumes that helmets would provide same level of protection – OBVIOUSLY not since a driver is protected by other devices both active and passive vs cyclist having no other means other than helmet to save scalp. c) ignores even the logical diffences of driving vs cycling in terms of recognizing hazards of auto racing helmets – limited head mobility and view – would have to compare to a full face cycling helmet to be logical here, but even that wouldnt make the comparison really logical. d) using logic without inserting common sense is to ignore reality vs relying on theoretical, which doesnt make sense since we are trying to come to a real life decision about helmets. e) saying we have to agree that car helmets are equivalent logically is wrong because the desired product of measuring risk is inherently going to involve tradeoffs, since we all agree that helmets are not a perfect solution (ie. do not guarantee safety in either vehicle). Hence, as a partial solution only, but to drastically different efficacy (assuming that accidents are not similar by both modes and helmet result not same since they are not same helmet TYPE). So, the logical argument is full of holes as big as the one that could appear in JTs head were he to meet an errant cab in central park driven by a drunk that hits him from behind.

Please re-read what you posted from the abstract. It say “(1993) reported that the introduction of the legislation was accompanied by reduced bicycle use in the first year for all age groups, especially teenagers. Bicycle use by teenagers and younger children remained lower than pre-legislation levels in the second year while bicycle use by adults increased”

We cannot tell from this if total riding over the course of the study increased or decreased. We certainly cannot tell for adults. Perhap as importantly, if (and this is just an “if”), kids make up a larger percentage of people having head accidents, it would greatly skew the results because a community that is more likely to have injuries is riding less. I don’t know if it’s true that kids have more accidents, but it’s possible and even plausible. So that study is very equivicable.

I did read the HTML abstract/summary but not the whole study PDF. Quite a bit more carefully than you apparently (sorry that is condescending, but it is also true). Am I supposed to jump through another hoop for you before you answer some of the questions I repeatedly asked you?

“Even if the same people know of 1 person that had a head injury while walking or driving a car the risk overall for cyclists is implicitly greater.”

That’s a bizarre statement. Is that more of this… “common sense”?

The point is that the data is not unequivocal on either side yet jt uses that data as his sole justification for not wearing a helmet (my opinion: that is a stupid justification for not wearing a helmet because the “data” is suspect). Through all of this discussion, neither side has offered clear evidence that they are right. That leaves us with the dilemna of making a choice without cold hard facts. Not all is lost though. We have the ability to draw on our own and others’ experiences. We all likely know 1 or more people in the cycling community (which is a very small subset of society as a whole) that have had a crash and are likely to know someone or of someone that did benefit from the use of a helmet. Even if the same people know of 1 person that had a head injury while walking or driving a car the risk overall for cyclists is implicitly greater. I’d rather base my decisions on my own observations rather than inconclusive data. Guess that makes me stupid in JTs eyes. I guess he’s just smarter than most.

I disagree – but regardless of where you stand when you read news like this – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7189168.stm – its all just very, very sad.

“Helmets = Anti-cycling, I don’t agree with , but thats just an opinion.”

The anti-cycling part about when legislators, community groups, etc. focus attention on helmets-wearing as a high standard of safety, while ignoring the causes of danger to cyclists: namely negligent driving habits (of both cyclists and motorists) and poor road design. Instead of addressing real issues of danger, they put the burden of responsibility on the cyclists alone. That’s anti cycling.

I’ve been down this road before and I know my “final conclusion” reasoning will always differ from yours. Mine, I admit is simplistic, and plaigarised from someone on CRCA.net, “tap your head with a hammer whilst wearing a helmet, now try it again with the helmet” is as far as my logic needs to take me, and is good enough for me to wear a helmet all the time.

That said where you have swung me round is regarding the question of labeling others idiots for not wearing them. On this point I totally agree with you and I follow your logic entirely, you can’t call someone an idiot for not wearing a helmet cycling if they don’t follow suit with other past-times.

Helmets = Anti-cycling, I don’t agree with , but thats just an opinion.

Maybe you missed this part, maybe you just didn’t read it. My guess is the latter. Pay attention to the last line, this is directly from the study that you said didn’t control for decrease in cyclists. That’s because bicycle use actually INCREASED. Nice try though.

Surveys of bicycle helmet use have shown that post-legislation wearing rates were significantly greater than pre-legislation rates in all age groups (Finch, Heiman, & Neiger, 1993), although Finch et al. (1993) reported that the introduction of the legislation was accompanied by reduced bicycle use in the first year for all age groups, especially teenagers. Bicycle use by teenagers and younger children remained lower than pre-legislation levels in the second year while bicycle use by adults increased.

Not taking sides here or admittedly presenting a water tight argument but…when I was in New York I’d estimate I spent roughly 10-15 hours a week cycling (you wouldn’t know it from any results I know) and roughly 10-15 hours a year driving a car. Whilst that does nothing to prove or disprove the notion that you should / shouldn’t wear helmets in a car, it does at least play into my law of averages mindset when it comes to wear I’d wear a helmet.

That study doesn’t control for the reduction in total numbers of cyclists on the road due to the helmet law.

Now, do you want to put up some more hoops for me to jump through?

Did you read that bit about the EFFECTIVENESS of car helmets that was posted early today? No? Or are you worried it’s biased.

Whatever – don’t answer questions.

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc076.html
try reading this full report and explain to me where they went wrong and why you disagree with their conclusions. Until then i’m not arguing with you anymore.

I have begun to wear my helmet to sleep in case I roll out of bed.

Serious head injuries in cycling are roughly as rare as serious head injuries in walking. Or as common. Define it however you like — rare or common — but that’s how frequent they are.

“presumes the cyclist has an accident that would cause a brain injury. As I’ve said, those instances are exceedingly rare.”

head injuries in bike accidents are rare? riiiiiight

CR – can you give me a direct link to the second study you are talkign about. From the abstracts I can find, your summary is not quite complete. She says helmets can help prevent brain injuries a little, but this presumes the cyclist has an accident that would cause a brain injury. As I’ve said, those instances are exceedingly rare.
Walter, I’m condescending because you are repeatedly illogical.

You are the one that keeps talkign about risk and money, and from your summary of her article, and the abstracts, it seems money on helmets would promote more safety spent elsewhere.

And again I have to ask you: what’s so special about cycling. If you don’t spend $100 on something else that might increase your saftey a tiny bit, are you stupid.

It appears that CR may have’em pinned this time! Touche ole boy.

You can call me silly for not wearing a helmet in a car and I won’t lose any sleep over it. I’m pretty comfortable with decisions I make based on information I have. Why do you feel the need to be accepted by the helmet wearers at large. You’re a rebel…live free or die!

I’m more offended by your condescending manner. Admirable? Why are you such a smart a$$? The studies you have cited are old and biased. You’ve completely disregarded CR’s comment on one of the studies you cling to where the author later bactracked to say she wasn’t sure or her original conclusion (which is the essence of inductive resoning in nature btw). So like I said before, get some new data or get over it.

Interesting link – thanks 106

sorry…last one was me

Actually the main problem with all of these studies is that they cost money and the only people willing to spend the money are people that are trying to deliver a certain message (either pro or anti helmet). I believe this causes each side to model the studies in a way that will support their pre-drawn conclusions. That makes these studies ineffective at best or potentially deliberately misleading. So how are we to draw any conclusions from bad studies? One side dismisses increased risk taking that could occur by wearing a helmet while the other dismisses the idea that lesser head injuries are not included in hospital data because the crashee didn’t feel the need to go to the hospital. If they hadn’t worn a helmet they may have had no choice but go to the hospital.

I prefer to go with physics on this. A helmet will diffuse the impact and thus reduce the energy imparted to the skull and brain which will decrease trauma to the brain (vs impact/abbrasion with the skull directly) up to a point. At some point the impact is just too great for the brain/skull to handle. I believe there are many more cases of lesser impact that helmets can protect against than any of the studies I’ve read can account for. So, does this apply to walking as well? I don’t think so and I base this not on a study but anecdotal evidence collected through my own experience and those of others. I know of a number of people who have had cycling accidents (major to minor), including myself having suffered a separated shoulder after going over the bars on a training ride. Some hit their helmet, some didn’t. There are enough that did that makes me believe the risk for head injury is higher on a bicycle and worth the little bit of extra protection that plastic shell gives. I know no person that has even come close to having a head injury from walking. But maybe I don’t know enough people that walk.

“as far as wearing a helmet as a passenger or offering one to my passengers i’ll consider it…can’t say that’s an entirely preposterous suggestion. i’ll do some more reading on head trauma in auto accidents and get back to you.”

Hey Walter, did you do any of that more reading about bike helmets, or can you just talk off-the-cuff about those?

Yesterday my nephews school in CT was closed basically because the weather report was for snow. There was a very light covering. Years ago that would not have been a problem. Today, no chances are taken.

You are right; it is not an obscure study. But it is out of date. And, the study was criticized for using stale data when newer data (which did not prove her point) was available. You can read about this in the commentary at the bottom of her article.
But not to worry. The author (JL Robinson) updates the 2006 study in an article dated 2007 and published in Accident Analysis & Prevention. You can read that if you google the following article:
Bicycle helmet legislation: Can we reach a consensus?
D.L. Robinson *
There, she does not claim that helmets have a negligible benefit with respect to preventing brain injuries. She actually says she is not sure, but it is something worth studying. And she provides principles for doing so. The first principle is that helmet laws only make sense if the benefits of helmet usage outweigh the cost of mandating usage. If it costs $10 million to implement helmet laws, and the benefits of helmet usage are only $9.9 million, then under this narrow definition it would not be a good thing to do. There are other principles as well.

Nowhere does she conclude that helmets are not useful in preventing brain injury. To the contrary, in her conclusion she states:
Helmets presumably preventwounds
to the head. Although case-control data show wearers also have
lower rates of concussions and other brain injuries, evidence suggests
that helmet wearers were less likely to have collided with
motor vehicles and tend to be in lower impact bike/motor vehicle
crashes than non-wearers.

So, which study by the same author (Robinson) do you suggest we use? The older one, which debates whether helmet laws are any good, or the newer one, where the same author says she is not sure?

“That said, if someone wants to go without one, I’m not going to preach to them. ”

That’s all I’m asking. Not to be called stupid, insupportable, etc for daring to suggest that not wearing a helmet is a big deal.

I know where the 88% came from and it’s baloney. I’ve seen most of your stats before BTW and there are issues with some of them. But so what. You’re not saying it’s stupid to not wear a helmet and that’s all I care about.

“On the car helmets, on the one hand you say the helmet you’re familiar with $1K is not safe for road use, but on the other hand you say it’s better than the ccheaper helmet. I don’t get it – if the cheaper helmet offers you enough visibility, why not?

Ohh, hearing problem. OK. Well, do you at least wear one of your car helmets when you’re a passenger? Or offer for passengers in your car?

JT,
I haven’t read a whole lot about this–I’ve personally been in maybe 6 or 7 crashes, and of those, 4 of them have resulted in broken helmets, and 2 of those 4 were in training–once I was hit by a car, and another time, a kid on a bmx darted in front of me in central park and sent me over the bars. For me, that’s always been enough to keep me wearing a helmet. Not saying I’d be brain dead or anything without the helmet, but if it saves me a concussion or the sight of pieces of my scalp on the pavement, then ok, I’ll wear it. That said, if someone wants to go without one, I’m not going to preach to them.

The little bit I have read is persuasive enough to keep me wearing it. Some stats I found (very cursory web search):

773 bicyclists died on US roads in 2006

About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries.

1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries has a brain injury.

Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury.

A very high percentage of cyclists’ brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.

…No idea how they come up with that last one.

I do understand the “anti-cycling” argument, to an extent–one of the first things I was asked by a doctor when I was lying in the hospital having been hit by a car, my chief complaint being that I couldn’t move my arm, was “were you wearing a helmet?” Definitely seemed like if I’d said no, there would have been the assumption that I’d been acting recklessly, and that it likely would have affected the legal stuff to follow.

Anyway, not sure if this adds anything, except to say that it seems pretty rational to me to ride with a helmet, particularly if 2/3 of cycling deaths are brain injury-related, and helmets can significantly reduce the likelihood of such injuries. Happy to hear other stats, though…

…and the thread grows…

No, I’m saying i would gladly pay over $1k for a car racing helmet, the $250 is probably just fine but i’d pay more because the risk justifies the expense. But i’m also saying that operating a car while wearing a helmet will increase your risk of a collision on public streets because sensory deprivation will limit the inputs you receive from your surroundings (catching something out of the corner of your eye, hearing something outside of your car that you should pay attention to) that will increase the likelihood of you making a bad driving decision. The same cannot be said for cycling helmets while riding a bike. Once again, i have to assume by your responses that you have not done both so I suggest you drop comparison until you have.

So back to the fundamental question…finally (which has nothing to do with how people live their lives as you allude to). How do I make the decision to wear a helmet while cycling? For that I will repost my previous response and add upfront that the cost of wearing a cycling helmet is different for each person. I’ve read the anti-helmet studies and have yet to find one that is convincing enough to cause me to assign a high enough cost that would prevent me from wearing my cycling helmet.

Your entire argument has been based on the fact that there is a very slight chance that a helmet could protect you from head injury. Fine, i agree. I also agree that a plastic helmet will do little to protect your head from a 30mph+ direct impact (possibly even as little as 20mph), BUT the cost of wearing the helmet (not allowing ones locks to blow freely in the wind or not wanting to give in to the fascist helmet conspiracy) seems to be so insignificant that it just doesn’t make sense to most people NOT to wear one. People may not be able to assign a specific value to this “cost” but since humans on the whole are relatively smart in the animal kingdom I think we can chalk that part up to “common sense”. Which is why most people (i know i’m going out on a limb without my scientifically executed experiment with proper controls to back me up on this) view people that don’t wear helmets as stupid. Stupid because they don’t think the insignificant cost justifies the risk (as small as it might be).

That cheap open-face Bell helmet doesn’t look to affect peripheral vision at all…The more expensive models at the same site might

Walter, you’re not using the right helmet…

operating JT properly

http://jt10000.com/tales/instructions.htm

Laugh all you want…i suggest you actually try driving a car while wearing a helmet, then see how much you laugh afterwards (that’s great retort btw…very convincing…especially since you added the capitalized ‘HARD’…really drives the point home and strengthens the argument).

Comparing the two is not the same because a helmet will likely interfere (thus raising the risk) with driving a car safely.

at least one person here is big MJB fan

CR, I have to wonder if something being “obscure” to you means you don’t want to learn from it, or don’t want to trust it?

I’ve got no problem with someone being misinformed about helmets or not knowing about this “obscure” info. But that doesn’t make it righ to deny the usefulness of that sort of info or get Schmalzy and say there is no fact that could change my mind so I won’t read it.

“I do think that if you are going to take on higher levels of risk, and I put bicycle riding in that category, why not do everything, within reason (and only you know what is reasonable for you), to minimize that risk, despite what some obscure study might say?”

Because the study is more accurate than our “common sense” estimate of risk. Your putting bicycle riding in that category is probably factually wrong. I say “probably” because we don’t know anything with certainty. But the best information says your assessment of risk is wrong.

Well, that

Dismissive? That seems harsh– I thought jft answered your question completely and honestly.

Was your question asked in sarcasm?

“Saying anything remotely anti-helmet ”

I’m not even at all anti-helmet. I’m just saying not using a helmet is not a big deal. I’m not pro-helmet.

The comment about not wearing shoulder pads due to heat makes sense, but this is circular logic:

“Thats why we cyclists only wear helmets instead of hockey pads. ”

Hey, in the winter, then it’s cold, maybe you could wear more armor on your bike? Maybe elbow pads. Though you can’t die from breaking an elbow. What about a face guard like on a downhill mountainbike helmet? It could help, right? Don’t you care about your safety?

yeah, in some instances they probably can. I know accidents that result in severe head injuries are rare and the stats suggest little or no effect of helmets. But “common sense” suggests some protection is bettter than none, so they probably can rarely help in a rare situation.

I doubt it can hurt to use a helmet and it might help. If you’ve got one and like to use it, fine.

That one, the one about the pool?

That was an analogy.

It is not a silly analogy.

It is silly to suggest that the logic of wearing a helmet for cycling does not apply to driving.

Describing it as a ‘silly analogy’ highlights the inconsistency, though – i.e., it is accepted as fact that wearing a helmet while bicycling is normal and wearing one while driving is ‘silly’.

To paraphrase the author of Freakonomics, if you have a pool in your backyard and a gun in your house the pool is 100x more likely to be a lethal threat.

But people aren’t afraid of pools, generally.

Because they don’t seem threatening.

And people don’t wear helmets driving.

And suggesting it may be logically consistent with other decisions is ‘silly’.

And you’re an idiot without one on a bike.

OK.

Also, JFT got treated shamelessly here and not enough of us stuck up for him.

Kiiiiiiilllll meeeeeee! Pleeeeease. Killlll meeeee! Im done foooooor. Leeeeave meeeee beeehinnd. Save yourselves.

But aren’t we all?

but I did cover this very issue in a prior post when pointing out how to argue a point effectively. In case you missed it, here it is again:

“Also stay away from silly analogies like should you wear a bike helmet to drive a car. That

“How many cyclists who’ve died in NYC have been in accidents not involving cars? I can’t think of any recently. I don’t know if they had non-head trauma or not, but can you fill me in on why peds who get die from getting hit by cars get non-head trauma whereas (presumably) cyclists don’t?”

THis question doesnt make a lot of sense to me, but I will point out that I dont know the stats on number killed or why, but some have been killed, and presumably from a combo of injuries, but I can think of one well publicized where the guy on west side path got run into by a car crossing from municipal lot and killed him – no helmet worn and his head was struck. So it has happened, at least once to my knowlege and Im sure other times given overall stats of deaths on road.

As for why peds die from non head trauma with cars and trucks while cyclists dont when they crash, I think its pretty obvious, but maybe you are slow. Its a physics thing my man. Even at 30 mph we tend to skid and slip on road. Hitting a car, or wall or whatever is a bit different, you know? I wont demonstrate, but hope you can imagine the distinct differences. Thats why we cyclists only wear helmets instead of hockey pads. We are protecting the main asset against the not infrequent event of hitting our heads on the ground as first step of a broader skidding process. Hockey pads would help against cars, but they are a bit uncomfortable for long rides, and kinda warm in summer. Plus we have brakes and steering ability to help mitigate such crash risk, while head against ground is tough to predict or prevent in all cases. It only takes one bad crash.

The martyr/messianic complex arrives — I’d been waiting! Thanks fellas. I’ll fly back to earth now.

“Saying anything remotely anti-helmet use is like saying Jesus was a chump”

…but Jesus walked with the lepers, didn’t he?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/cross.php?id=cross/2008/jan08/roubaix08

lets get the Kissina track powers at be to do a cross series next year, it is crazy popular and would be great for the local cycling community to get some cross skills, they do it in Roubaix !!!

“for number of posts on a single thread?”

I think it would be the same for a discussion of religion. Go to a Catholic chat group and take an unpopular position. You’d likely get the same emotionally-charged reactions that you’d see here.

Saying anything remotely anti-helmet use is like saying Jesus was a chump. People get very emotional and irrational (remember that word?) when their religious beliefs are challenged.

You’ve got it backwards. Belief that helmets are very important in protecting against serious injuries is like belief in the flat earth before we could fly. It’s obvious right? Look at the horizon? It’s flat and everyone knows that. Everyone thinks so, right?

Questioning the efficicacy of helmets is the opposite. It’s based on real study of the issue and is counter-intuitive.

There are strong, peer-reviwed, studies that show this.

Even if you don’t agree with those studies and place more faith in studies showing some effectiveness in helmets, it’s just not the case that doubting helmet is a flat-earth view. It’s a view based on statistical evidence and learning.

“Do you think I would be alive or talking about this without a helmet? ”

Yes. The thing is, we hear anecdotes like yours all the time. But given that some significant percentage of cyclists don’t wear helmets and have similar accidents, the death rate in cycling would have to be much higher if accidents like yours generally resulted in death.

But it’s not.

for number of posts on a single thread? Must be the off-season

They’ll never understand, jft. Never.

How can you let them make fun of me like this. They obviously have not educated themselves, nor do the have my superior thinking skills.

The site is pretty open source, if you want to open a “JT world” page and run however you see fit, feel free. I’m not stopping you, please, teach me, JT, teach me to love again.

Again, I do not know who you are, nor does it matter to me. Why would you believe I should automatically know you anymore than you know me from my initials? You don’t sign with your name. And don’t worry, I won’t ask you any questions because I don’t respect what you have to say. Thanks anyway.

Your refund is in the mail…

Dan, there are already websites out there that present comprehensive looks at the efficacy of bicycle helmes. A few links to them have been posted in this thread and I can show you more if you like (but know you aren’t interested — you don’t want more facts IIRC).

The problem is that on this site there are people who aren’t interested in learning more so they won’t look at that stuff. And another problem is that you help set the tone here — I’m used to insults but it’s pretty lame of you to sit by as people insult me and then when I ramp up to similar insults (mainly at anonymous posters) you call me out for my language. Still, it’s your site, so if that’s how to you like to play that’s your business.

But hey, I still “respect” you despite your desire not to learn and your unwillingness to engage in real discussion here.

well said 6:14

dead pedestrians in NYC

I don’t know how many pedestrians are dying, pal. I got a lot on my hands. Hey does anyone know where I can get a good Vietnamese bun sandwich. Gonna be in NYC Tues-Fri, meeting with Trump.

I don’t know about Gimbels so I don’t go around making firm statements about it. I don’t go around saying it’s X or it’s Y. So what? There are lots of things I don’t know about and can only go by rumour, speculation or my own gut. An old guy who I trust a lot told me Gimbels is really good now, so

But on the helmets thing I have much firmer knowledge. Life is inherently chaotic, so for sure I could have a head injury riding tomorrow. But on average cycling is quite safe. I have firm knowledge of that. On average, across large populations, helmets haven’t made a difference in rates of serious injuries.

I’m not asking anonymous dipshits like you to be perfect and all-knowing. None of us can be. Just be honest with yourself and with others about is the best information we have. If we don’t have good information to make decisions, use poor information. That’s better than nothign. But don’t rag on me for presenting better information than what your small mind thinks it knows.

These are just attacks now. You guys aren’t saying anything interesting, creative, or meaningful. jft is demanding a higher level of discourse here. But you guys are keeping us in the mud.

My friend’s father fell off of a ladder once and suffered a brain trauma– and his head never impacted the ground.

You know what makes me laugh? The notion of a “safe ride” where a head trauma can’t occur. Hoo ho ha ha.

By the way, you guys are boring me. XO God (See I signed my name)

One time, A cabbie ran a red light, and I t-boned him. without a helmet on. I broke a rib. I didn’t hit my head. Imagine that. you can actually crash your bike at 30mph and not hit your head? crasynesss…

Well I do know you were a regular on the Sleeping Giant ride and they ran lights on that ride too.

Maybe you don’t plan on having kids and maybe your hypothetical kids would have the right to choose, I just don’t see you as a guy who would let your real kids go riding nilly willy like that.

I’ve never done the Gimbels ride RAF, so I guess you fall off that limb

I’m a non-parent and don’t plan on becoming one, but if someone asks me to hypothesize what I would do, I use the example of my parents and my own opinions. In the case of my parents, there was stuff they didn’t want me to do in cycling but and they told me, but they didn’t try to stop me

Wow. Roger didn’t have to comment here, and he still got flamed.

Obviously from a crappy cat 5 or 4. Anyone who can ride and races Cat1-2 or Cross knows (1) Roger’s first language is not English (2) hes one of the strongest Cat 1s in the NorthEast and a monster cross racer.

JFT, have you done the Gimbels Ride? Did you wear a helmet? I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess you did.

I’m also gonna say that I think your full of crap when you say you would let your kids decide for themselves, red lights or not.

The discussion was not about whether one should wear a helmet or not. It’s been about the responses to helmet-less-ness.

The responses have included insults, calls for local legislation, unsubstantiated claims of safety and danger, self-righteous preaching, and other illogical (and weird) posturing.

jft has been commenting on the lack of rational thought exhibited here.

Oh man. Im so done with this argument JT. If you want to take a risk by riding without a helmet because you figure its no worse than walking to the bagel shop without one post-ride, then go ahead. Just don’t pull up on my wheel without one, ’cause Ill have to tell you to ride up front the whole time or ride somewhere else. Peace brother.

Obviously, a comment from a non-parent

good sound advice from Roger (prior post link) especially that riders with i-pods suck, hearing stuff behind you on bike is super important, but funny at end it says:
“keep the rubber side up”…i thought it’s keep ur rubber on 😉

Not about Chris, or CR or Albin or Potty or the few other people here trying to hash things out – I’m really self-righteous about the people who can make insults and jokes about other people, but aren’t willing to engage themselves publically and intellectually in this discussion.

Is just left hanging. *sniff*

wow, I should wear a helmet in case I commit suicide.

You wrote of CM’s comment: “It’s too worrisome that you’ll give someone head trauma, but it’s not too disturbing that they could crack your face open or break their neck or arms? Or lose an eye or something? I just don’t understand how cycling can be so terrifying for some parts of the body but acceptable for others.” Well, perhaps you should wear a helmet on your ass. Most of us, however have brains in our skulls, which evolution has provided as a means of protection for what nature, by design, clearly deems a most valuable asset.

ITS NOT THAT SERIOUS GUYS RELAX

That’s good, 9:35. Maybe you can teach Mother Nature.

If you were the parent of a junior racer, would you make him or her wear a helmet on the Gimbels ride?

This whole discussion started with some guy talking about some juniors riding the Gimbels ride without helmets. Seems pretty relevant to me.

If your talking about the Ball argument, then your right.

I don’t ride around yelling at people with helmets that they should take them off. I just mind my own business.

But if you spend time riding w/o a helmet you will get people yelling at you “where’s your helmet!?”

So who are the zealots?

if/when that person has an accident and suffers a head trauma that would have been prevented/minimized with a helmet- who has to take care of him? everyone else. its a burden. don’t be that guy.

Ball, said the queen. If he had ’em, he wouldnt need a lambo and $250 jeens.

Dear Schmalz can you please take this thread out behind the barn and do the humane thing?

JT: (Standing on couch, jumping up and down) I love studies! I love studies! I just love them! They are so perfect. So great.

http://sheldonbrown.com/images/kidbacks_dover.jpeg

Should be JFT. I think he and Ball would get along splendidly.

I’ve seen Sheldon Brown riding without a helmet. You all should chastise him immediately.

Ah! I just remembered who you are currently reminding me of, JT. Its TOM CRUISE. Yes. Tom, poor chap, has apparently read so many books (and loves to cite this repeatedly which gives us a great window in his psyche) that he can stand up and say, with utter confidence in his position, that post-partum depression is a total fiction. JT, your logical position, study-laden reliance, tone, and general approach in this argument is so similar as to be almost a deliberate mocking of Mr. Cruise. JT, why do you hate Tom Cruise so much?

If you’re going to use studies, some are better than none. But best of all is to look carefully at them if you can.

Yes, there are studies out there to back up many points of view. That doesn’t mean that some are better than others or that some points of view are more likely to be correct.

Chris, I don’t mean to be outrageous with my questions but I do mean to promote critical thinking. I personally find it outrageous that people here insult those of us who don’t believe that helmets are important in preventing serious injuries, insult me repeatedly for writing a lot, etc.

THAT is outrageous.

I also find it outrageous that guys can make jokes and revel in ignorance just because they are in the majority.

I think you missed my point re studies. Here it is again: However tempting, don

This is great. First we have JFT hinting fairly directly that he is basically making outrageous points to stimulate critical thinking from a crowd that he evidently believes comes here to be prodded from a state of intellectual stupor. Next, we have some other initial guy telling us how to communicate politely, complete with helpful tips on how to think critically. That may be the funniest comment seen on this site in weeks, though the author probably doesn’t appreciate the humor. Guys, this is NYVelocity, not an online course at U Chicago…

What you say in that post makes sense. I believe helmets help like that. So what? Is that worth ragging on people who don’t wear helmets? We’re riding around a lot of the time with tons of exposed skin that can be hurt the same way. So what?

I’m going to take this thread and make a paper maiche helmet out of it

Back to NYCC and alt.rec.cycling.loons

His life really IS worth living!

Yes, I remember him. On the surface, the things he wrote seemed well-thought and interesting. But when looking deeper, there was a hint of madness.

But best of all was that he and JT got into it a few times.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html?cnn=no

Seat belts are different from helmets. Seat belts provide a benefit in all accidents. If nothing else they keep you behind the wheel so that you can keep your car under control. When you have a bicycle accident the chances are pretty good that you won’t hit your head, so the helmet does nothing for you. Airbags, what I assume you mean when you said seatbag, are also different. Airbags can and do kill people. It’s because airbags are designed to restrain an average sized male who is NOT wearing a seat belt. So if you are a small person there is a good chance the air bag will do damage to the person in the car. The other difference is that the air bag is a one shot deal. If you have multiple impacts, the airbag is useless after the first. But it might not matter if it kills you when it does deploy.

that wasn’t bragging, that was just saying. nothing intended by that.

the problem is we wont’ be able to tell you “told you so” when you Do actually experience head trauma from a bike accident and are deep in a coma, so we’re all getting it in now while you’re still (barely) conscious

ahahahah this is great!

after i get my epic bj from a man at college, i will rethink wearing a helmet when i’m not racing. HOWEVER, until then, i’ll ride like liz, my she-hero, sin helmet.

not now though. Eating, then going for a ride.

I was off by an order of magnitude in a couple directions in a recent post – deaths in car crashers per year in the US are 40K and deaths for cyclists are about 700/year

“It

the stats don’t support the effectiveness of helmets in preventing death and serious injury while I believe they do on seatbelts.

Moreover, on aggregate, deaths and serious injuries to car drivers place a huge burden on society. I think it’s 400,000 people killed in car accidents each year in the US. And about 80 on the bike.

I don’t wear a seatbelt or a seatbag.

I absolutely would wear my bicycle helmet for every day activities if I thought the odds justified it. It

JFT,

Well played sir. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Your method is decent, though you ignore the costs of taking care of something, washing it, etc.

And we don’t know if your stats are accurate – I think the risk of serious injury are lower than you think but we can look around.

But most of all, you ignore other ways to use that $100 and the attention/decisino-making involved in it for safety. If you’re going to be really economically rational you’d have to ask, can I get more safety for the same or less money with something else? Most people don’t ask that question — they focus on just a few risks that they hear the hype about, or that make them feel good (“I’m a serious rider”).

So if you have a helmet, wear it if you want. It might help in some remote instance prevent a rare serious injury. So what? Is that worth telling people to always wear a helmet? Is it worth the vehemence of reation to someone saying not wearing a helmet is not a big deal.

One other economic question for CR: since you presumably already have paid money for the helmet, why don’t you wear it in other activities than cycling? That’s free protection, even if you feel those activities are very safe.

no helmet people WIN

when I was a little we used to lambast kids who wore helmets, calling them chicken shits. How come everyone turned into a chicken shit.

anonymous=integrity

to keep up – I’m feeling very presidential now…

but it was a simpler time back then…

Because of this thread, i won’t let my kids use the internet.

I think unskilled riders should be forbidden to race because they pose a danger to other riders. We need to institute a rider’s licensing program that tests riders abilities to ride safely before they can ride within 2.5 feet of anyone else. Otherwise we run the risk of a possible crash.

In other news I’ve seen liz hatch riding without a helmet. This sets a bad example to other riders and her participation in the roller races should be put into question.

your bikes to school when you were in elementary school and those of you with children, how many of you would allow your kids to ride to school today? Show of hands? Okay, now how many of you who used to ride bike to school and yet would not let your kids ride to school had your minds made up by this constant pressure to wear a helmet? JT, you can also vote if you like.

than an anonymous coward

One other thing – if you really want to hide, at least be use a consistent pseudonym so we can keep track of who says way.

Dan, I called “I WANT IT TO END” an idiot. Was I WANT IT TO END you? I didn’t know that.

i’ve come to one conclusion on this one

JFT is an A-hole. shut up already

“I’ve already made up my mind long ago according to my interpretation of the facts, no facts that you are going to throw at me will change my mind.”

And more to the point, I’m not throwing new facts at you — I’ve asked you some simple questions to help you (and us, if you share the answers) understand your views more clearly.

“Why should I suddenly start caring about what you think about this? ”
If you mean that I think you’re cowardly, you problably shouldn’t. If you’re but if you mean you can care enough to decide somethig is crap and tell other people it is crap, but not enough to learn, well that’s…crap. If you want to be ignorant, fine, but don’t revel in it and share it.

Dan,

Stating that no facts can change your mind is easily the stupidest thing written on this thread. It might even make you dumber than George W. Bush, who also doesn’t seem to know how to integrate facts. If nothing can change your mind, then you’re not discussing anything, rather you’re a parading pompous ass. I respect you, but I do not respect your inability to learn.

Less importantly. Jared is not only a doper, but he raced doped. This is not a smear or an allegation. It’s a fact. He raced between his first positive test and when he accepted his suspenion. Haven’t heard him apologize for cheating his friends and fellow racers. Doesn’t matter if the doping was accidental or not. He knew after the first test he was doping, and he raced anyway. I’d say that’s a big fuck you to those he raced against. guess he doesn’t think much of them. Just cheap marks to be taken advantage of.

“I mean it honestly when I say I really, profioundly don’t care what you think.”

Guys posted some stuff I don’t agree with — a link to a study — and I read it and tried to learn from it.

Dan doesn’t care what I think, which is his business, but it’s odd to think someone’s ideas are crap and not even go through a simple series of questions to understand that point of view.

That’s the spirit!

I didn’t call you a name. I described your behaviour.

But I still respect you, even for hiding from some pretty simple questions.

Not to digress but when is AVD gonna post the results to the Blistered Butt Road Race? I think I nabbed 10th.

Thanks for being cowardly

Back At You, that is also true.

not the same thing – sorry for conflating them

JFT – do not think the person called juniors stupid, instead, they Juniors riding without helmets is stupid. I guess the same thing.

What I want to know what people think about Battenkill –

Cat 2s and 3s – any predictions?

to even consider seriously. They mentioned periods of 10-12 years ago and longer. A mere 35 years ago when i was a 5 year old, i was allowed to stand on the front seat of my dad’s truck when driving around. It was not even frowned upon. In fact, my cousins and I would push each other around on that font seat so that my dad would have to give us each a slap every now and then. Did I forget to mention that there was only 10% as many cars on the road as today. The deterrant might well have been something completely different and not helmets at all like the number of cars on the road. I would say this, if you have good reflexes it is good to wear a helmet in NJ because last night on my way home a guy claimed that I do not ride my bike in a proper manner and was shouting obscenities at me. Now if he was going to hit me and I could quickly duck and he hits the helmet with his bare fist, that would help me a lot and would hurt him at the same time.

JT is this why you last your previous job?

This site let’s people post anonymously and call me names, call the juniors stupid, and now Schmalz asks if there is name-calling going on?

Great.

PS – I post anonymously on this site sometimes, but as soon as I start slamming people or calling them names I sign my own name. I’d appreciate it if other people did so too.

Did you just call someone an idiot? Is the name calling thing on?

you have to wear one, but it needs to have at least one beer can attached to it. just like my normal training helmet.

nice dodge

I am just showing restraint, and I only said your helmet ideas are crap (which I really, really believe) – it’s my opinion. You obvisously differ, and if you want to call my ideas crap, I don’t mind. We disagree, and we’ll never change each others minds because we are both very stubborn people. To keep arguing would eventually descend into smarty pants name calling on my part – which would be just silly.

And I am willing to bet I might be a better smarty pants name caller than you…

” But it’s bothersome to watch people be so casual with health and common sense, just to get a kick.”

You really don’t get it. Can people who do one thing safer than you claim you’re so casual with your own safety>? Would you like that?

My car has 4WD. Does yours? If not, I’m glad you didn’t tell us. That’d be really irresponsible of you and if you want to be reckless and drive w/o 4WD, well that’s your business. But you shouldn’t be so casual about it. This is safety we’re talking about!

If you guys keep this up Liz is sure to cancel her appearance at the roller races.

“You think people get turned off by cycling because they see riders wearing helmets? No.” Wrong answer:
http://cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1020

“I don’t think anyone is saying anyone has to wear a helmet here”
But 12:15PM wrote, “I think CRCA Juniors should be required to wear helmets or face a penalty”

“No one’s saying anyone has to behave any way.” See above.

Respectfully: that’s just silly. Let’s just take New York, our backyard. You think people get turned off by cycling because they see riders wearing helmets? No. They get turned off because they see congested streets, screwy drivers, potholed roads, and terrible accommodations for cycling in general. Helmets didn’t cause any of those things. If I was going to use your reductionist style of logic I guess I could ask are seatbelts anti-car, or glasses anti-vision or leashes anti-dog?
Lastly, I don’t think anyone is saying anyone has to wear a helmet here, and the righteousness, to me, seems pretty minimal. What’s aggravating, really is reading all these follow-my-logic arguments – these are the same obnoxious tropes that get trotted out by cigarette manufacturers and so on. No one’s saying anyone has to behave any way. But it’s bothersome to watch people be so casual with health and common sense, just to get a kick.

like the people that can walk around at 30mph.

“The always-wear-a-helmet message is anti-cycling” because:

It sends a message that cycling is much more dangerous than it really is– more dangerous than driving in a car, crossing a city street, climbing a ladder, walking a flight of stairs, walking on an icy sidewalk, and many other things which are common practice and which are done helmet-less.

The effect of this message is that many people who may want to ride, don’t. It effectively reduces the cycling population.

There are other reasons, but that’s all I could think of right now.

In places that have put helmet laws in place, the number of people riding has dropped.

Even without law, if most all “experts” – including cyclists themselves say helmets are very important, it gives the impression that cycling is more dangerous than it is, and discourages people from riding. “Riding is dangerous, like skydiving or rock climbing or pro football.” But it’s not. It’s dangerous like walking around our city.

jtf, All of a sudden you don’t seem like a douchebag anymore… at least to me.

Did you just ask JT to “expound”? He’s written the “War and Peace” of helmet rhetoric, and you ask him to “expound”?

The internet might explode!

i am glad you were able to boil down my thoughts to such a simple, concise form.

I tried to fire JT for wasting time, but he just kept talking and talking and talking and then it was lunchtime and I was hungry.

well… first i don’t think JFT has accomplished any work in the past 48 hours. with that said, his logic is awesome.

second, i only read the first 2 paragraphs of every post that requires “scrolling” on my screen – unless amy was writing about blow jobs at which point i could not tear my eyeballs from the screen.

with that said – i love this thread. i think connor will choose to wear a helmet when he gets his blow job next year – whether it be man on man or not.

brehmer also cracks me up with his “my wife and mom say so…” logic behind wearing the helmet “almost all the time.”

that about sums it up. some of us feel like we have the balls and the right to choose and make choices about our life. some feel like they can’t make choices because their wife/mom rules their world and its unfair that these “idiots” get to make a choice.

“your bitch don’t really got no ass… she just poked it out.”

Wear a helmet in my car because I’m busy blow drying my hair.

The greater the rethorical gymnastics involved to justify something the closer it is to BS. Here’s a simple helmet argument, “it won’t save you if Wile E Coyote drops a 10 ton acme weight on you, but it’s safer than nothing. Why not wear one – it can’t hurt?”

And I had the airbags in my car removed as I enjoy the feeling of the air rushing through my hair when I have a head on collision.

Where did I say you said no helmet in racing. What I did say is that your point is theoretical as far as the Gimbels ride or racing is concerned because the facts that you base your arguuments on are not taken from either racing or a competitive group ride.

that some people claim riders don’t wear helmets to “look pro” when helmets are part of the uniform of hardcore racers and wannabes

I can’t disagree more. The sport is fighting to hang on to sponsors because of the doping stuff. Ball brings exactly the wrong type of publicity and image. Besides for Hamilton, none of the guys have served a penalty and hamilton was kicked off of Tinkoff because of new allegations. What should happen if Rock racers start getting busted? Should Ball be allowed to run rampant and chase all of the legit sponsors out of the sport?

I wear cycling gloves when racing for grip (except in flat TTs). In warmer times other than racing I never do.

I did for the first 15 years or so of serious riding – they were part of the get-up that I associated with serious cycling. But stopped five or seven years ago.

The highway death rate, in deaths per million miles traveled, has been steadily declining for many years. Check http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/safety/crash_data/trends/pdf/death_rate_mile_chart.pdf
There is a nice graph right on top show the steady decline. Roads and cars are quite safe, so you won’t see huge decreases in the years to come.

It is accepted that the safest, and most efficient, way to set the speed limit is to use the 85th percentile speed to set the limit. Most interstates do not have their speed limit set that way. They are set via legislation set forth by a politician who know squat about setting a speed limit.

If a car knocks you over, that would be the same as falling over when you were first learning to use your clipless pedals, then the helmet should offer good protection. If you get hit by a car, then that is much different. Then you no longer have the force of falling down, you have have the speed imparted on you by the car. Once you exceed the force of a simple straight fall, you have exceeded the helmets design limits.

You should also ask if all the bike accidents that occur, how many involve head injuries? Many bicycle accidents do no involve head injuries, so a helmet neither helped nor hurt.

How long do you think Mr. Ball will be able to sell his $250 jeans? Once his market for $250 jeans fizzles out, will he continue to spend his money on a cycling team? Will he even have any money left at that point?

Like Bremer, I have gone out before into CP and taken my helmet off and stuck it on my bars, usually on some 95 deg summer day when Im just begging for relief. It feels so good to ride with no helmet – even if I have no hair. But, on nearly every occasion, as “pro” as I may feel riding around with no helmet, as if to announce to the fatties in CP that Im just good enough and skilled enough to ride comfortably with no helmet without undue risk, I start to think about the possibilities of crashing, and the relative insanity of carrying a helmet on my bars instead of sticking it on my mellon. I think about the stupid Tri riders that are just bad enough to crash into me. I think about the runners who swerve quickly into my path every so often, forcing evasive action. I think about the fast moving cars that not infrequently take out riders – even skilled ones. I think about my Cat 1 buddy on the West Coast who nearly cracked his head open at the end of a training ride just because he got lazy and no doubt felt “loose” from the long ride, and just ran into a pothole and endo’d – could happen to any of us and we all know someone who has done it (Jaime on our team, for ex.). I think about all the ways I could go down in spite of my basic abilities as a rider, in spite of the conservative nature of my style, and in spite of the fact that I havent had a bad crash while training over some 6 years – as if thats some sort of proof that it wont happen to me.

I agree that we should not be “forced” into helmet wearing – its a personal choice, and a free country. Its not like smoking, which affects those around us, or like driving drunk, which risks others lives. But, the no helmet guys should think about who they affect if they do crash and end up like Saul or worse. What about their kids? What about their parents who will have to care for them in recovery? What about the grief to those around them? Yeah, its a personal choice, but there is another concept called personal responsibility and respect for your loved ones that should also be considered, but which interestingly no one acknowledges so far. To me it seems downright selfish to take unneeded risks. Granted, this is defined differently by all of us, but its front and center in my thought process.

I also want to point out that JFTs arguments seem to focus on logic without considering obvious factual differences. For example, its clear that it makes no sense for a crashed rider who scrapes an elbow and didnt even bang his head to directly cite the incident as proof that the helmet saved him or even that it is evidence that the helmet should be worn. Fine. Logical. Still, the point that the rider is making is not so simple. It simply acknowledges that risk is present, and perhaps makes the complacent rider think again about the Saul’s out there or whoever you think about when you think bad injuries, and the fact that the helmet can play a role in safety, however little that role may be. For JT to dismiss helmets as a contributor to safety is to over-emphasize logic at the expense of other factors. Sorry JT, it just “ain’t smart”, even if you are an otherwise smart guy. Unless of course your point of logic is your only point, which is too narrow to be very meaningful.

Do helmets help if you hit your head if you crash, probably. Do helmets help you crash less often, no. If you do crash will you hit your head, maybe, but probably not. That is probably JFT’s point. I personally wear a helmet just about every time I ride a bike. But that’s my choice. And I like having that choice.

Schmalz ask’s why we are encouraged to wear helmets. It’s all about the insurance company. If you race, chances are very good you will crash. With that many crashes chances are a few of them will involve the type that a helmet could lessen injuries. So in order to get insurance, and you would be a fool to not have insurance, you have to require participants to wear helmets. Since you have to wear a helmet to race, it is a good idea to train with one so that you get use to riding with it. Even with the current crop of light and airy helmets, you body still needs to get used to the weight and the extra bit of heat retained by the helmet.

Someone else suggested that training rides are dangerous because of cars. A car could hit you. You can be sure that if a car hits you a bicycle helmet will not help much, if at all. Helmets are only required to protect the average head from a straight fall of about 6 ft. If you get hit by a car you will have more force than a helmet can cope with. Helmets are not designed for a car/bike crash.

If most people think seat belts are a good idea, why do we need mandatory seatbelt laws? Without them we wouldn’t have the stupidity that is seatbelt check points. Also, seat belts provide a benefit in the overwhelming majority of crashes, which is not the case with helmets. So you can’t compare the two.

The speed limit comment is also pretty lame. Many speed limits are set by politicians, not by traffic engineers, so exceeding them is usually not more dangerous than obeying them.

To stay a bit on topic, I think Michael Ball is good for the sport. He gets lots of people talking about cycling. I also like that he gives people who did something wrong and did their time a second chance. If they served their sentence they should be given another chance.

Fantastic! Best post in months! JFP – how you like them apples?

brilliant!

Actually, the no-helmet proponents are arguing, albeit unwittingly, over the benefits of having insurance. If you have significant assets to protect (house, car, family, brain) it usually make sense to buy insurance because if in the remote instance something catastrophic happens (house burns down, car is stolen, you die, etc.), you are protected.

Conversely, if you don

Amy’s gotta be a guy, but very funny.

i hate all of you

i have always thought it to be common sense to ride with a helmet. however, i really enjoy riding without one, and will go out to the park without one sometimes. the problem is that i feel stupid doing it because of how common-sense it seems to wear one.

my girlfriend rides/races also, and she will not ride with me when i do not wear a helmet. and in a few conversations we have had about it, my mom has given me grief at the idea that i sometimes opt not to wear a helmet.

i love feeling the wind in my hair, but it just seems overly risky to me. i am studying engineering, and so i can visualize collisions (elastic and inelastic), energy transfers, and the dynamics of crashing on a bicycle at high speeds, all of which give me a sense of respect for the dangers of our sport.

i would love to be convinced otherwise, so i can actually feel carefree when i ride with a helmet, rather than overly careful (or maybe that is part of the arguement??).

seems like you should probably spend more time researching your home building and auto retailing stocks and less time worrying about the helmet nazis

coach ball, is it ok if i ride my bike without a helmet so long as my vanishing twin does?

sometimes the truth isn’t all that complicated

http://scottwax.com/rice/ratedr/attention%20whore3.jpg

Wow.

i got a blow job once after i crashed while dirt jumping my bmx bike in college. sadly my life is only 1% as cool as it was then. however my wife is hotter than that chick was so there has been some improvement.

what’s my point? connor – i like your attitude. go to college and get a blow job. in fact you can get one by a boy or a girl. it’s your choice. similarly you can wear your helmet if you want to.

in fact – i think everyone should wear their helmet if they want to. don’t let what i or JFT say deter you from feeling safer.

what blows my mind is the people who rant on this page like it is their mission in life to tell other people what to do. get over yourself. whether or not i wear a helmet is not your problem.

also i don’t appreciate people calling out us winter chubby guys (team stuffed sausage). you can beat me up the hill next week – go for it.

back on topic: michael ball is a total loose canon. personally i like reading about him as i like reading about britney. it’s some real content in an otherwise media bland world of cycling right now.

I like the direction of this conversation – linking cycling to blowjobs – though am disturbed to login to discover a three-peat of the old JT helmet rant. Tell us more about the pole sucking, Amy. What do I get for wearing my helmet backwards or sideways all ghetto style?

You know its widely thought that cars give cyclists without helmets more room that ones with helmets on…..But that does not help you colliding with ghetto ass kids riding their bmx bikes the wrong way in the park. Or bums.

Why? You’re not planning on wearing it at the kitty fight, are you?

I’m just playing with you, but its good for the kids to know your jibes are just that. Don’t want to encourage their misbehaviour. The rest of it is mostly serious.

I remember first hearing JFT’s arguments. The one that stuck in my craw was, “Do you wear a helmet when you drive?” Ha! I had the same visceral reaction as most. But I kept my mouth shut and thought/read about it off and on a little bit.

I could not care less about helmets. But it helped me think, and one of the things I’ve learned along the way is: we have a strong, innate bias to assume when something “seems” true, it is true. It’s an insidious tendency that serves us well the majority of the time. But it lulls you into such thought complacency that you can make minor and major decisions based on faulty reasoning (or more precisely, lack thereof) regularly. I do it. You do it. Companies do it. Nations do it. Repeatedly.

A friend of mine crashed and said he was glad he was wearing his helmet, because he didn’t hurt his head. I asked him if he got a blowjob that night. Turns out he didn’t. I suggested not wearing a helmet next time, and maybe that would increase his chances of getting a hummer later in the day.

Wearing a helmet and not getting a head injury from a crash seems logical. Wearing a helmet and not having someone swallow your pole later that night seems ludricrous.

But they’re logically equivalent – even if they don’t seem that way.

As an aside to JFT: you posted a while back during a dehydration/cramping discussion. You said that someone’s urine should be clear. I forgot to give you a gotcha. That’s not based on any science. Please stop perpetuating that myth.

And yes, Schmalz, immature elders should respect more mature elders.

procycling magazine did an article over the summer about an extensive study/research that showed the greater likelihood of sustaining a head injury while riding with a helmet than without (because of psychological reasons — feeling more comfortable on the bike, being more careless etc..) The U.S. has the most head injuries per capita and we wear our helmets the most often (compared to european countries)– maybe we just can’t ride though

sometimes i’m in spotlight
but to save this lame brain
i’m about to get chucked
there’s a new cooler one

Hey you dillbags — what’s with this helmet crap. I thought we were talking about me. But some of you mouthy juniors sound perfect for Rock Racin’!

sorry, i just read briefly and didn’t fully comprehend. i got a little heated.

My post earlier today about not wearing a helmet (penalizing CRCA juniors) was more of a suggestion to help protect a great Junior Development program and to teach safe riding practices. If you read it again my focus was to teach safety to young riders. Believe it or not I had good intentions. Eitherway, keep racing cross I will see you on the road and at Augusta.

Gosh, I’ve usually donated a bit extra for the Junior Development team. This year I’m not so sure. Maybe I’ll give it to the CPC instead this time, or a program for kids who don’t already have Zipps and Powertaps. You guys are not helping yourselves at all. You may not be stupid, but you are rude. Not wearing a helmet is stupid.

Go do your homework, fools!

maybe you need some help putting your name down if you’re going to talk to me like that.. huh?

Damn, I’m still here!

HAHAHAHhahahaha that’s great. you know what i’d like to see? i’d like to see you actually try and make me pay for not wearing a helmet. i don’t wear a helmet because i like the wind in my hair, and there’s nothing better than that. i’m laughing at you.

Michael Ball fires riders for wearing helmets on team rides. No helmets and no cooked meat. Only real tough outlaws need apply.

It’s just a guess, but more cyclists are probably severely injured or killed while training or just plain riding vs. racing. The reason: cars.

I am sure that this is true on a relative basis even after adjusting for the fact that most riders don’t race and therefore may have more oportunities to be injured.

So, you actually may be taking the same (or even greater) risks out training than racing. At least in terms of potential for serious injury.

How often do you read about a rider killed in a race? Rarely. How often do you read about a rider killed while out riding/training? Plenty.

Of course, I haven’t done the requisite google search to prove my point as “fact” (while at the same time conveniently disregarding studies/articles/research that do not support my “factual evidence”)

Lighten up folks, clearly JFT bumped his head.

The only worse duller than angry moral guy is angry libertarian guy

Wear a helmet or not, its your fucking skull. Don’t preach. I really enjoy how everyone on this site is a fucking moral crusader trying to save the cycling world from drugs and head injuries.

If Ball wants to promote a doping friendly atmosphere, more power to him. The fast the team will go away. USADA is already all over their shit, and they will imploade this year. He’s and ass, get over it.

Are you kidding? Do you take the same risks in your training/riding as you do in racing? Wow.

Could Ball really be flamboyant funnyman Mario Cantone? You decide:

Ball:

http://tinyurl.com/3xwuw2

Cantone

http://tinyurl.com/2utqtf

–BSNYC

If he splits his head on a club ride and then he (or his parents) get the idea that it’s not his fault and start pointing fingers, then it’s not just personal choice.

I don’t always wear a helmet myself, but if I’m on a ride with a bunch of riders of varying abilities… it’s just stupid not to wear one.

God damn, am I still reading this???

JT, what is so goddamn remote about falling on yer bike? Happens nearly every season to racers, espec when riding with packs. How many people got shot last year out of 9 million NYorkers? How many of them were not in gangs or otherwise familiar with the shooter, hence not random shootings? Like 20? 30? How many riders fell down on bikes who regularly race? 60%? 80%?Why make such silly comparisons? The point is not comparable, obviously. When the risk is not remote at all, its not silly to consider a simple safety measure that could potentially help, however unproven by fancy scientific studies. I would think most scientists have better uses for their time other than proving common sense safety measures, hence the lack of reading material that you value so highly.

I love how jt always drops in little phrases like “remote case of an accident” into his generous missives. Funny how a single adjective can overwhelm an entire page of writing and make me just scratch my head in disbelief. As if crashing on a bike in NYC is so uncommon as to be camped alongside UFO sightings.

seriously guys…his last name is BALL

When does Bear open?

LIke spring approaching or the even the sun rising, I look forward to your “helmets don’t really help in the case of serious head injury, but if you want to wear one that’s cool” dialogue. It’s like a sign that winter is to soon end. It’s calming to know in this crazy world of ours, we’ll always have the helmet argument. I find solace in every word of it. Keep your head up, JT! But not too far up – if you get my drift…

There is a remote chance of many things happening that can hurt us. Does that mean we have to defend against them all?

A relative of mine was shot and partially paralyzed in a store. Does that mean I should be calling for bullet proof vests? If a risk is remote and the effectiveness of a particular action against it is minimal or unproven, go ahead and take that action if you want. But it’s not a big deal if you don’t and we shouldn’t rag on people who don’t.

“And at least as importantly, what is the risk to one’s head in cycling? Is it really big? Just because something can happen do we have to defend against it?”
I know JFT has probably forgotten more about cycling than the rest of us will ever learn, but such a statement requires such a level of cognitive dissonance he may have to upgrade that tin foil to something a little more sturdy.

Reading comprehension, people. Please.

Who’s forcing anyone to wear a helmet

Do you wear cycling gloves?

I’d seen a summary of that study and it’s decent.

But a key problem with it is that at that time the profile of the type of cyclist who wears and doesn’t wear helmets is very different (it still is, but less so as helmet use in the US has become more common). I know the study attempts to correct for that by looking at the rate of non-head injuries, but that’s still a flaw in the study. I’d put more faith in a study looking at the same population with and without helmets (such as at two poins in time just befor e and just after helmet use increased a lot).

And at least as importantly, what is the risk to one’s head in cycling? Is it really big? Just because something can happen do we have to defend against it? You may think my questions about oat bran are a joke, but if oat bran has even a remote effect in preventing cancer, does it mean that not eating oat bran regularly is just plain dopey?

who is this JT clown?

“i bet you wear cycling gloves” comment was priceless and i’m willing to bet it went over jt’s head

Tin foil.
Sailor hat.
Subway.

You probably wear cycling gloves… priceless

Should you wear a helmet when you wear $250 jeans?

Is our children learning?

Thats a very long paper with really big words, I for one am sticking with common sense.

“Head injury = only thing the doc’s cant fix with all of modern medicine tools.”

Baloney on both sides. There are lots of body parts that can’t be fixed if injured severely, and there some head injuries (including some that helmets could help with) that can be helped by medical treatment.

But that’s besides the point. The big issues are do helmets help, what are the odds of having the sort of injury they help with, and how bad are those injuries. The best evidence suggests that serious injuries are rare, that helmets help little or none against serious injuries (apart from the rips and tears to skin, ears etc that someone mentioned). There are good studies on this sort of thing. Take a look at them.

Here’s an example:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a

There are others.

Or keep using your “common sense” and stay ignorant.

Dont know the guy but does anyone want to hear his mindless dribble?

I ask you some simple questions which you can’t answer. At least do yourself a favor and think about them carefully. Do it privately if you like, but think them through.

that’s funny and sick and true

I dont’ argue about helmets “for the sake of making a point” (whatever hat means). I argue against people saying wearing helmets is very important to cycling safety because they are wrong, and because that attitude is tiresome and anti-cycling, and in this case becuase some dope called the CRCA juniors stupid.

If I argued for the sake of arguing I’d be posting about lots of other things as well.

Jared doped. He is a doper. End of story.

If you hit your head a helmet will help. If you’re meandering around Central Park and get hit by a bike traveling at 35 mph, a helmet will help. If all pedestrians in Central Park were required to wear helmets we might still be doing TT’s.

It will be very funny when Ball’s team is denied entry into the UCI American pro tour events, The UCI can do it, just like they blacklist other riders from protour events in europe, tyler and floyd will never do the tour again and as long as things stay the way they are i bet they will not even get into tour of cali or tour of georgia

You are a clown.

I believe many or most CRCA sub teams require helmet use at all times as part of team policy.

CRCA should have this in place if juniors ride for CRCA only. Club policy should mimic common team policy that may be aimed to avoid legal exposure for sponsors etc – makes sense to protect CRCA, esp in litigation crazy NYC.

jft is so tedious. Intellectual snobbery at its worst. Even genius has nothing on common sense.

Pavement = very hard
Head = relatively soft
Head injury = only thing the doc’s cant fix with all of modern medicine tools.
No helmet = riders right
No helmet in fast group ride = your right as adult but just plain stupid
Ban on juniors no helmet = responsible club policy for adults to set for juniors

“Regardless of proof one way or the other, a helmet will offer some form of protection as as such, why not wear one.”

Do you use that same logic in making other decisions. Oat bran helps prevent cancer, so why not eat it? If you don’t eat it, can I mock you? You could die from cancer and bran can help a little. Right? If we learn some kids we know are not getting enough bran can we say how stupid they are? They should be more careful with their health.

Wrist guards surely offer some protection against hurting one’s risk, so why not use them? Face protection could help in a lot of daily activities in which someone could get hurt, so why not promote it?

Is that how you decide things? Really?

No one’s saying you gotta wear one, but helmets save lives. End of story. And please don’t bring up that Bath University study, which has been taken apart countless times. These arguments are only fun for the old-school cranks. And god bless you guys.

Helmets can prevent disfiguring scalp and ear injuries.

If the people who think helmets should always be worn cycling limited their claims to those sort of things I wouldn’t have any problems with their statements.

I risk disfiguring nose injuries myself every single time I ride the bike (no protection of the front of my face….)

Magnum of Krug: $600

Low-level pro cycling team: $700,000

Watching your team get spanked at the Tour of California despite your trash talk: Priceless

“Keep telling the new riders to ride without helmets. ”

Have I ever said that? Can you read? Can you think critically or understand nuance?

I guess not.

What?

Oh yeah, I see. Saul Raisin was injured so he’s an expert on injuries rates and helmets. And when he was injured, the injury was *in spite* of his helmet (assuming he was wearing one). If he wasn’t wearing one (I don’t know if he was) it was *because* he wasn’t wearing one.

Riiiighht. Do you use that sort of logic in your financial dealings? In making decisions at work? In other aspects of health? I was eating broccoli and I got skin cancer, so it would’ve been worse w/o the broccoli. Riiight. LOL.

is JFT’s point about helmets.

If testing at local races is done correctly and all rules are obeyed according to the USAC. I think it would be a great idea to test at a local level. It would help prevent doping and doping allegations. It possibly would catch on with other race promoters and help clean the sport up from the bottom up.

Like arguing about 9/11 with a person wearing a tin foil sailor hat on the subway. Not worth your time.

Please don’t ask JFT for his “proof.”

I am tired of the continuous smears to invidual local riders who alledgedly dope or references to how many local rider potentially dope. One potential way to stop it would be to test for doping at local races. I realise the costs and admin make this onerous. However, if race promoters charge an extra $1 or $1.50 to each rider and (regardless of Category) that is surely enough to test one rider? The selected rider is chosen randomly from those who place in the most competitive race on the day. The threat of potentially being tested will hopefully be enough to cut it out and if not getting caught will be. If more can be tested with the additional costs than that would be even better. Unless a rider is busted they are innocent, period.

O’Malley and Eric B ride dirty. Do I need to further prove that point Smaltz?

Probably because they realize helmets aren’t very important to avoiding serious injuries.

Crazy! You are posting that Helmets have little to do with preventing serious injury. Ask Saul Rasin if he agrees. Keep telling the new riders to ride without helmets. Great

about whether these big names show for anything besides GA and Cali. Same about easy on Bunde. As for Ball, big talk gets the attention. This has value but it probably becomes counter productive after a while

I’ll assume you’re not saying doing the Gimbels ride is stupid. Probably because they realize helmets aren’t very important to avoiding serious injuries.

What make you think they won’t get caught? The past couple of years haven’t exactly been easy street for dopers. Are they that smart? Do you know something we don’t? Are Micheal Balls pockets deeper than Lance’s? I thought Leogrande was riding well because he “lost weight”? What ever do you mean dirty? Dirty? Does he need a shower? Hate, hate, hate.

silly poster, if you want to call someone “dirty”, you must provide proof…

whos going to win Battenkill Roubaix 2s and 3s and why do I keep seeing CRCA juniors riding the Gimbels ride without helmets (stupid)?

Are you saying that being a questionable team with dirty riders makes you bad ass vs. “usually pussy bike racers”. Those clean pussy bike racers are the true bad asses of the peloton and will keep the sport going. Please explain…

Why should the cycling community be outraged they use hummers? The guys and asshole, the team will implode within 2 years. They cant even keep a DS cause Ball is insane and thinks he can run a team, regardless of his win or else mantra. He could care less if his riders use drugs, no one is stupid enough to think that Botero is or was ever clean, or will remain clean. I’d be interested to see if any of the big names ever show up to a race in the US, other than Cali or Georgia.

Easy on bunde.

Is a joke on so many levels. He loves the attention he is getting and will not stop. Not sure if any of these shady riders are going to be that great on the NRC circuit. The races are so different compared to big Pro Tour events. Tyler is old and not good off dope. Botero – same, Sevilla – same. The only good recruit they got that will make an impact is Freddy R. I love how Ball sad Horner basically sucks once he went to Astana. Please, Horner is tailor made for NRC events. Him and Fast Freddy would be deadly. Finally, I am suprised more of the cycling community is not outraged by this ass clown using Hummers as team cars. This team is wrong for cycling on so many levels.

I heard that they are thinking of signing Bunde. Oh he is not even good enough doped? To bad.

what better way to encourage doping? what does a rider have to lose by doping on that team? and he has assembled a nice conglomerate of “shaddy” riders. I’m all for redemption…but you have to come clean first. If memory serves me, the only reason Tyler has the Olympic gold medal is because his B sample was mistakenly frozen by the lab. That being said I am curious to see how riders like Tyler will perform when not on drugs….R & R has certainly got the attention of the cycling community and I am excited to see what will happen with them next. (just like a good soap opera)