bike helmets

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
BespokeBiker
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:16 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by BespokeBiker » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:46 am

hi all - new member here, and an avid cyclist.

I just want to chime in on the MIPS system, mentioned by others above. For good reason it's fairly quickly become ubiquitous in bike helmets from different helmet manufacturers. It adds relatively little to the overall helmet price and if you've ever seen the documentary "The Crash Reel" (2013; about the top competitive snowboarders and the consequences of head injuries) you've seen up close how devastating concussive head injury can be. To be clear, MIPS is not magic -- just a plastic cradle for the head that will rotate within the helmet to disperse energy -- but having it may be the difference between suffering a mild vs serious concussion. Disclaimer: I'm no expert on helmet-ology and have no link to MIPS -- I'm just a fellow cyclist dodging cars and potholes.

User avatar
JupiterJones
Posts: 2792
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:25 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: bike helmets

Post by JupiterJones » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:23 am

TLC1957 wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:19 pm
Not only do I wear my helmet when biking I added this product to provide protection from the sun, works well. It fits on most helmets, very popular in Phoenix.

http://www.dabrim.com/html/products/cycling/classic.htm
That is the dumbest-looking thing I've ever seen.

...and I kind of want one. :D
Stay on target...

Andyrunner
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 9:14 am

Re: bike helmets

Post by Andyrunner » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:42 am

Interesting post as I'm looking at helmets right now. Mine is currently about seven years old and working fine, just I want something that would fit a bit better when I'm wearing a cycling cap under it.

I have read multiple things about MIPS, it sounds like it is the latest and greatest but there are questions out there whether it really does anything. Also Giro and Bell both have stakes in the MIPS concept.

I like the background of POC, company that wasn't happy with safety standards and based their mission on improving them.

There is also this link. VT does the research for football and motorcycle helmets:

https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2018/06/ ... tings.html

Andyrunner
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 9:14 am

Re: bike helmets

Post by Andyrunner » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:44 am

JupiterJones wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:23 am
TLC1957 wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:19 pm
Not only do I wear my helmet when biking I added this product to provide protection from the sun, works well. It fits on most helmets, very popular in Phoenix.

http://www.dabrim.com/html/products/cycling/classic.htm
That is the dumbest-looking thing I've ever seen.

...and I kind of want one. :D
x2

WhyNotUs
Posts: 1587
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:38 am

Re: bike helmets

Post by WhyNotUs » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:56 am

Back to the OP.... For $30 to $40 one can get a pretty good Bell helmet. It would be fine for regular riding, even if you decide to start riding more. Two suggestions: one buy a white helmet and two spend some time when you buy it adjusting it until it fits perfectly. A well fit helmet will not be noticeable when you start riding and provide good protection. People tend to do the minimum possible when adjusting them and then live for years with a compromised experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o61feDjSQ_0
I own the next hot stock- VTSAX

hifive
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:46 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by hifive » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:53 pm

I've been browsing Bogleheads for years and am amused that this is the thread that finally got me to register :D
Boston Barry wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:57 pm
This is a great article about bike helmets written by a grad student. The title is “Why It Makes Sense to Bike Without a Helmet”

http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Boston Barry, thanks for the link. Arguments backed up with data, statistics, journal articles, etc. do have more credibility provided the sources are carefully interpreted and the conclusions properly qualified, but Howie Chong's piece has some interpretation issues that others have pointed out and I feel compelled to explain further. Full disclosure: I'm a statistician, cyclist, and do wear a helmet.

Here's the first cited argument against helmets:
Over half of all head injuries occur in motor vehicles and more people were hospitalized after walking down the street than riding on a bicycle.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/113/5/500/149287

Some thoughts on the journal article. The study is a standard descriptive design, which basically involves constructing and thoroughly analyzing a dataset to look for interesting patterns. The authors looked at people who were hospitalized with head injuries, or were deceased with head injury as cause of death, in San Diego County in 1978. The relevant data is in a table on page 506. Importantly, note that the provided statistics are all based on the count of people in each category who were injured.

Thoughts on the interpretation. First of all, Chong's pie chart showing 53% of injuries were in motor vehicles, 15% vehicle-pedestrian, 10% motorbike, etc. is wrong! Refer to the table on page 506 - he got 53% by dividing the 2680 in the all motor vehicle column by 5055 in the all mechanisms column, but the 2680 from the all motor vehicle category is 1992 auto or truck + 274 motorcycle + 414 vehicle-pedestrian, so why are the latter two split out into their own category in the pie chart? That's double counting.

Here's the correct data.

Code: Select all

Non-vehicle = 2091/5055 = 41.4%
Auto or truck = 1992/5055 = 39.4%
Vehicle-pedestrian = 414/5055 = 8.2%
Bicycle = 284/5055 = 5.6%
Motorcycle = 274/5055 = 5.4%
So contrary to Chong's claim, the article shows that the plurality of the head injuries that year were actually non-vehicle injuries (including falls, assaults, and fights), but that's not really the point. The count of auto or truck head injuries is certainly much higher than the count of bicycle head injuries, but when assessing risk what we really should be looking at is the injury rate. Consider that there are more motorists than cyclists, and as a group they travel many more miles over many more hours.

Chong is arguing about relative safety, so comparing unstandardized counts does not help make his case. I see this mistake frequently in my work. Here's an example from just a couple months ago, with numbers changed for ease of explanation. Out of the 100 people who said they're unhappy with their tech resources, 90 used vendor A and only 10 used vendor B. Conclusion: vendor B is better? Not if vendor A has 900 clients (10% unhappy) and vendor B has 50 (20% unhappy). Rates matter.

Conclusion: the study is interesting but data cited is not relevant to the overarching relative safety argument being made, especially since the journal article doesn't have data on helmet use, which is what we're really interested in anyway.

The second cited argument:
According to a 2006 French study, pedestrians are 1.4 times more likely to receive a traumatic brain injury than unhelmeted cyclists.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7505001363

Thoughts on the study. The authors looked at 1996-2001 cases of traumatic brain injury (TBI) from a road trauma registry, and added in data from morgues and forensic institutions to also include deceased individuals. An extremely important caveat is given in the data collection section: pedestrians were only counted when they are hit by vehicles! So pedestrians hospitalized for falling, twisting their ankle, walking into a street sign while texting, etc. are missing from the data.

Here's the relevant data, from table 4.

Code: Select all

Type of road user		OR	CI
Un-helmeted motorcyclist	18.07	12.78, 25.54
Pedestrian			9.19	7.47, 11.29
Un-helmeted cyclist		6.39	4.67, 8.76
Unrestrained car occupant	3.87	3.11, 4.82
Helmeted motorcyclist		2.75	2.15, 3.52
Helmeted cyclist		1.59	0.58, 4.34
Heavy motor vehicle occupant	1.57	0.99, 2.49
Skater				1.22	0.56, 2.66
Restrained car occupant		1	
On each row the first numbers are odds ratios of severe TBI, and the other numbers are confidence intervals. I skimmed the methods used to compute the table and they check out. Basically, the authors built a model estimating the probability of TBI given age, gender, type of road user, collision with another vehicle or stationary obstacle, etc., and normalized a properly restrained car occupant's risk to 1. Higher numbers are associated with higher risk.

Note the confidence interval for helmeted cyclist (0.58, 4.34) includes 1, the restrained car occupant odds ratio, which can be interpreted as suggesting that cycling with a helmet is no more likely to lead to TBI than being a properly restrained driver or passenger in a car.

Thoughts on Chong's interpretation. The statement that pedestrians are 1.4 times more likely to receive a TBI than cyclists appears to have been computed as 9.19/6.39 = 1.43. Notably, this number appears nowhere in the journal article because it's an inappropriate comparison! Recall that the pedestrian group only counts pedestrians hit by vehicles, while the cyclist group includes cyclists hit by vehicles, who hit objects, lost control, fell over while stationary, etc. The population studied matters.

It's reasonable to assume that collision with a moving vehicle is much more likely to lead to traumatic injury than losing control, falling over, etc. and this is borne out by data from further down table 4:

Code: Select all

Collision with				OR	CI
Heavy motor vehicle			3.97	3.13, 5.03
Fixed obstacle				3.81	3.08, 4.73
Light motor vehicle			1.47	1.22, 1.78
Non-motorized road user or no collision	1	
Note that the 1.47 odds ratio for light motor vehicle collisions/no collision is very close to the 1.4 pedestrians/cyclists odds computed by Chong, which is pretty suggestive. To explore this I'd want to look at interaction effects for cyclists hit by vehicles, and compare those to the pedestrian group. Maybe the difference between them would vanish, or maybe not - unfortunately the data to compute this isn't available.

Interestingly, the journal article's discussion section states that the protective effect of biking with a helmet is similar to that of wearing a seatbelt in a car. I'm guessing from the first table above, the authors looked at un-helmeted/helmeted = 6.39/1.59 = 4, which is pretty close to unrestrained/restrained = 3.87/1 = 3.87.

Chong's argument that drivers should wear helmets ignores the effect that seatbelts already have on reducing TBI. If wearing a helmet but no seatbelt was less risky than wearing a seatbelt and no helmet, or if wearing both a seatbelt and a helmet led to a further 4-fold reduction in risk (un-helmeted/helmeted = 4), car helmet proponents would have a pretty good case. Both suppositions seem unlikely, but the data doesn't provide any insight into these arguments anyway.

(As an aside, here's another example of a flawed argument, but from the pro-helmet point of view. I could say that that 4 > 3.87 suggests everyone who wears a seatbelt in their car should also put on their bike helmet when out cycling, but this opinion does not follow from the data. 3.87 is probably not the right number to consider, since seatbelts prevent all kinds of bad outcomes, not just TBI. Remember, the population studied matters.)

Also, note that contrary to Chong's first argument based on the San Diego data, the risk of TBI to an un-helmeted cyclist is substantially higher than that to a properly restrained car occupant, odds ratio 6.39 to 1, and un-helmeted cyclists are even at higher risk than unrestrained car occupants. So are cars more dangerous than bikes or not?

Conclusion: this is a well-designed study and very relevant to the argument being made. It actually allows direct comparison of the risk of TBI when wearing/not wearing a helmet/seatbelt in a motorcycle/bike/car crash. Ironically, out of all these possible comparisons, the statistic computed by Chong (pedestrians 1.4 times more likely to receive a TBI) is not informative due to issues with the study's sample of pedestrians.

The third cited argument:
Risk of head injury per million hours travelled
Cyclist - 0.41
Pedestrian - 0.80
Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46
Motorcyclist - 7.66
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7596000164

Thoughts on the study. The author compares bicycle use and road injuries before and after mandatory helmet laws were passed in Australia. Creating a control group that didn't have to wear helmets was impossible, so the author does a careful job describing before/after statistics. Basically, other road safety initiatives as well as decreased bicycle use were the major drivers of fewer injuries after the helmet laws were passed. Furthermore, reduced use of bicycles may have led to worse health outcomes overall (less visibility of cyclists, increased incidence of heart disease due to less exercise, etc.).

Thoughts on Chong's interpretation. Interestingly, the statistics he quotes appear in the discussion section of the journal article, not the methods or results, because they are not based on the author's data but on the work of Australian government bodies. Here are the results from table 8, which compiles statistics from several agencies. Read the labels carefully:

Code: Select all

					Cyclist	Pedest	M Vehi	Motor
						rian	cle oc	cyclists
							cupant
Fatalities per million hours		0.41	0.80	0.46	7.66
% Deaths from head injury (%HID)	46	43	36	38
HI deaths/million hours			0.19	0.34	0.17	2.9
Hospital admissions for HI per HI death	11.6	5.8	9.4	6.2
Hospital admissions for HI/million hrs	2.2	2.0	1.6	18.0
At the top are fatalities per million hours, which the journal article author multiplied by % deaths from head injury to estimate head injury deaths per million hours.

Note the numbers Chong provided are from the "fatalities per million hours" row but Chong labeled them "risk of head injury per million hours travelled" for his article - this is really inexcusable! These numbers have nothing to do with "risk of head injury," and the conclusions are not at all what he claims if you look at the correct numbers. If he wanted to look at head injury deaths (which are at least related to his numbers), he should use the third row, head injury deaths per million hours, which puts pedestrians first (0.34), followed by cyclists (0.19), with motor vehicle occupants in third (0.17). On the other hand, if we're interested in head injuries, which is the label Chong used, cyclists are actually at highest risk (2.2), followed by pedestrians (2.0) and then motor vehicle occupants third (1.6). This is explicitly spelled out in the journal article on page 417 but Chong must have missed it.

Conclusion: there's a good case to be made in this article that helmet laws may actually lead to worse overall health outcomes by discouraging people from biking. The discussion also provides evidence that pedestrians are at greater risk of dying due to head injury than cyclists. However, Chong misquotes the article's actual findings about overall head injury risk, which are the opposite of what he concludes.

I feel journal article fatigue setting in (and so is anyone who's made it this far I bet :wink: but this really got me going) so I'll leave it at those three.

To wrap up, my overall impression of Chong's article is not favorable, because the use of data seems to be typical of opinion pieces whose authors search for a few sources supporting their initial beliefs, don't take the time to really understand those sources and their limitations, and make careless mistakes as a result. Maybe that's unfair! But I hope this helps explain some of the concerns folks may have with the piece.

User avatar
TimeRunner
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:23 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by TimeRunner » Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:42 pm

Hifive, Excellent first post! :beer
One cannot enlighten the unconscious.

MnD
Posts: 4339
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:41 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by MnD » Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:22 am

WildBill wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:56 pm
Maybe I should also wear one in bed, as a contingency against falling out of bed, or my wife punting me up beside the head. She is a restless sleeper.
Helmet with a facemask.
A coworker fell out of bed last week and suffered a fairly serious head injury. His wife had purchased satin or some other sort of slippery sheets which we was not familiar with. He was reaching for a glass of water on the nightstand - leaned over too far and slid out of bed - hitting his face on the corner of the nightstand. ER visit, fracture of the bone around his eye, huge black eye and he had to see an eye specialist to make sure the eye was ok.

User avatar
c.coyle
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:10 pm
Location: Eastern Pa.

Re: bike helmets

Post by c.coyle » Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:40 am

Shackleton wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:15 pm
I think you should replace your helmet for the reason you listed (you only get one head in this life). I have the MIPS system because I ride hard and on technical trails (MTB), but for the casual rider that hasn't fallen in the last 14 years, you may not need MIPS. Any helmet that meets the current standards and FITS WELL will be an improvement over your old helmet.
I'm a casual rider, and I will never buy a non-MIPS helmet again. While there is some dispute about their advantages, they are intended to provide additional protection against rotational forces which contribute to concussions from some types of impacts. When I bought my first MIPS helmet (a Scott) they were hard to find and expensive. That is no longer the case, so why not?.

There are two types of bicycle riders: Those who have fallen, and those who are going to.
VTSAX - 40%, VTIAX - 10%, VBTLX - 50%

User avatar
c.coyle
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:10 pm
Location: Eastern Pa.

Re: bike helmets

Post by c.coyle » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:30 pm

Andyrunner wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:42 am
. . . I have read multiple things about MIPS, it sounds like it is the latest and greatest but there are questions out there whether it really does anything. Also Giro and Bell both have stakes in the MIPS concept. . . . There is also this link. VT does the research for football and motorcycle helmets:

https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2018/06/ ... tings.html
Virgina Tech's study seems thorough and well-designed, although I can't tell who may be funding it. 7 out of their top 10 are MIPS:

https://www.beam.vt.edu/helmet/bicycle- ... tings.html
VTSAX - 40%, VTIAX - 10%, VBTLX - 50%

Topic Author
letsgobobby
Posts: 12082
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:10 am

Re: bike helmets

Post by letsgobobby » Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:11 pm

deleted
Last edited by letsgobobby on Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hifive
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:46 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by hifive » Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:54 pm

TimeRunner wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:42 pm
Hifive, Excellent first post! :beer
Thanks TimeRunner, glad to be a card-carrying Boglehead :sharebeer

On topic, I have a couple-year-old Specialized Echelon helmet which I like for its good ventilation, due to the typical low-mid 90s summers here. I'll look into MIPS (or whatever the latest is) when I buy a new helmet. What I'd love to see is something breaking down the kinds of crashes MIPS makes a difference in, and what percent of injuries while wearing a normal helmet MIPS would've prevented. I couldn't find detailed test results in a couple minutes poking around the Virginia Tech site linked above.

Boston Barry
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:55 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by Boston Barry » Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:08 pm

Hifive, thanks so much for the in-depth analysis. That is the information I was hoping someone would provide, as I am not qualified (and am too lazy to boot) to conduct such an analysis myself.

Any thoughts about all the data regarding ski/snowboard helmets and no difference or increased rate of head injury (NY Times article posted above, other studies as well)?

User avatar
TimeRunner
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:23 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by TimeRunner » Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:15 pm

MIPS is making its way into bike, ski, motocross, motorcycle, etc helmets. Here's a link to MIPS posted R & D papers: http://mipsprotection.com/r-d-papers/

Home page for MIPS is: http://mipsprotection.com/

Company home page (Sweden) english-language is: http://www.mipscorp.com/?lang=en

MIPS technology hopefully helps more than it hurts, so given the option.... As motorcyclists say, "$50 helmet, $50 brain." :twisted:
Last edited by TimeRunner on Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
One cannot enlighten the unconscious.

InvisibleAerobar
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:33 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by InvisibleAerobar » Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:09 pm

JupiterJones wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:42 am

Anyway, in a well-designed transportation infrastructure, in culture where bicycling has been normalized, a bike helmet actually should be about as necessary as a "pedestrian helmet". Go stand on a corner in Amsterdam or Copenhagen and count the helmets you see. You'd think the hospitals would have to stack the head injury victims up like cordwood! And yet these exceptionally safe places to ride a bike (nowadays).
you raised quite a few good points about perception. Notice how in every news report of vehicle-caused bike crashes (not an accident), they always say whether the victim wore a helmet. What difference does it make if the victim did or didn't wear a helmet? That fact alone doesn't give anyone else the "right" to veer and smash into a cyclist. While the effects may be exacerbated when the rider didn't wear a helmet, the proximal and immediate cause is being slammed into at 35+ mph... That said, when I climb a ladder, I wear a (cycling) helmet.

That said, we cannot compare what people do in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, and Copenhagen to what is done stateside. Traffic calming features, generally slow moving (or absence of) automotive traffic, and slow cycling speeds all make the potential impacts much less than what we see stateside. Often times, there are dedicated bike lanes completely separate from automotive traffic or streets off-limit to automotive traffic. We just don't have those things here in the U.S. Even in the busy streets of NYC (with which I'm familiar), cars accelerate to 35 mph or more. Add to that the fact people riding Dutch-style bikes aren't hauling a** to get to places, the risks of serious injury would be less.

Cycle
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 7:57 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: bike helmets

Post by Cycle » Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:57 pm

InvisibleAerobar wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:09 pm
Traffic calming features, generally slow moving (or absence of) automotive traffic, and slow cycling speeds all make the potential impacts much less than what we see stateside. Often times, there are dedicated bike lanes completely separate from automotive traffic or streets off-limit to automotive traffic. We just don't have those things here in the U.S.
We have many miles of these things in MPLS. I ride 60% of my commute on off street bike Lanes. The other 40% is on a bike boulevard which has traffic divergent features. People choose where they live and often choose bike unfriendly locals.

Ive biked in Copenhagen, we have many of the same features, but Copenhagen has probably 100x the protected bike Lanes.

It would be nice if all streets had a protected bike lane... But I don't see that ever happening in any US city. Land of the cager.
Never look back unless you are planning to go that way

Fallible
Posts: 7014
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: bike helmets

Post by Fallible » Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:32 pm

Here's a good 2016 Consumer Reports article on the safety of helmets and hemet ratings that include MIPS helmets (favorable).

https://www.consumerreports.org/bike-he ... ke-helmet/
John Bogle on his early road to low-cost indexing: "When a door closes, if you look long enough and hard enough, if you're strong enough, you'll find a window that opens."

User avatar
djpeteski
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:07 am

Re: bike helmets

Post by djpeteski » Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:41 am

I cracked my head against pavement pretty good earlier this year. I broke my collar bone, ribs and punctured a lung. Although I hit the side of my head, I did not lose consiousness or suffer any kind of skull damage.

I was wearing a Bell Draft helmet, retail price $35. I bought a replacement on amazon for $30 as I knew the what fit me.

After the wreck, the helmet was visibly compressed on one side, and you could tell something was wrong. About a week later, the only visible damage was a crease in the plastic. The foam "recovered". Still it went into the trash, but I did give it a kiss and a thank you.

For such a low price point, you can probably get better protection with better ventilation and a lighter weight.

User avatar
c.coyle
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:10 pm
Location: Eastern Pa.

Re: bike helmets

Post by c.coyle » Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:43 am

InvisibleAerobar wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:09 pm
. . . Notice how in every news report of vehicle-caused bike crashes (not an accident), they always say whether the victim wore a helmet. What difference does it make if the victim did or didn't wear a helmet? That fact alone doesn't give anyone else the "right" to veer and smash into a cyclist. . . .
Sort of like asking what a rape victim was wearing.
VTSAX - 40%, VTIAX - 10%, VBTLX - 50%

User avatar
JupiterJones
Posts: 2792
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:25 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: bike helmets

Post by JupiterJones » Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:37 am

TimeRunner wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:42 pm
Hifive, Excellent first post! :beer
Agreed. A high-five for Hifive! :sharebeer

And may I say how impressed overall I am with this thread. For the most part it's civil, factual, rational... all the things that internet "helmet threads" tend not to be (see the never-ending helmet sticky on BikeForums for one example). It's very refreshing.
Stay on target...

User avatar
JupiterJones
Posts: 2792
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:25 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: bike helmets

Post by JupiterJones » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:03 am

Cycle wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:57 pm
Ive biked in Copenhagen, we have many of the same features, but Copenhagen has probably 100x the protected bike Lanes.

It would be nice if all streets had a protected bike lane... But I don't see that ever happening in any US city. Land of the cager.
Maybe. But in my earlier post, I mentioned that cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam are "exceptionally safe places to ride a bike (nowadays)".

The "nowadays" parenthetical was very deliberate. There's a common perception that these places have always been "bike cities". Attempts to promote Dutch-style infrastructure in America is almost always pooh-poohed with "yeah, but [city name] isn't Amsterdam!"

Well guess what? Amsterdam didn't used to be Amsterdam either. :D

Look at some photos of Scandinavian cities 50 years ago (here are some great before-and-after shots). They were as car-centric as anything here in the States today. But at some point people got fed up enough (specifically, with a spate of deaths--many of them children) to shift public and political will to implement the transit culture we see there today.

Granted, there are crucial differences. Specifically, the post-WWII-style community planning of most American cities (along with modern zoning) typically puts the places we live far from the places we work, shop, dine out, etc. The sort of density that allows active and public transit to work best was already there for most European "bike cities".

Still, it gives one hope that change can be effected. (And we're seeing it in places like NYC and even Minneapolis/St. Paul.)
Stay on target...

InvisibleAerobar
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:33 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by InvisibleAerobar » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:36 am

c.coyle wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:43 am
InvisibleAerobar wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:09 pm
. . . Notice how in every news report of vehicle-caused bike crashes (not an accident), they always say whether the victim wore a helmet. What difference does it make if the victim did or didn't wear a helmet? That fact alone doesn't give anyone else the "right" to veer and smash into a cyclist. . . .
Sort of like asking what a rape victim was wearing.
you know, I was almost going to type that...
Also not happy re: usage of the term "accident" to describe any collision. No sir/madam, you may think it's an accident, but you deliberately choose to fiddle with your phone, and there's nothing accidental about your vehicle veering off course...

language and rhetoric matter...
JupiterJones wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:03 am
Cycle wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:57 pm
Ive biked in Copenhagen, we have many of the same features, but Copenhagen has probably 100x the protected bike Lanes.

It would be nice if all streets had a protected bike lane... But I don't see that ever happening in any US city. Land of the cager.
Maybe. But in my earlier post, I mentioned that cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam are "exceptionally safe places to ride a bike (nowadays)".

The "nowadays" parenthetical was very deliberate. There's a common perception that these places have always been "bike cities". Attempts to promote Dutch-style infrastructure in America is almost always pooh-poohed with "yeah, but [city name] isn't Amsterdam!"

Well guess what? Amsterdam didn't used to be Amsterdam either. :D

Look at some photos of Scandinavian cities 50 years ago (here are some great before-and-after shots). They were as car-centric as anything here in the States today. But at some point people got fed up enough (specifically, with a spate of deaths--many of them children) to shift public and political will to implement the transit culture we see there today.

Granted, there are crucial differences. Specifically, the post-WWII-style community planning of most American cities (along with modern zoning) typically puts the places we live far from the places we work, shop, dine out, etc. The sort of density that allows active and public transit to work best was already there for most European "bike cities".

Still, it gives one hope that change can be effected. (And we're seeing it in places like NYC and even Minneapolis/St. Paul.)
thanks for the primer on European city planning

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And to bring this thread on point, now that i've taken up mountain biking, I've decided to get myself a MIPS MTB helmet. The trials I ride are gnarly, and my technical skills are wanting.

Topic Author
letsgobobby
Posts: 12082
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:10 am

Re: bike helmets

Post by letsgobobby » Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:07 am

deleted
Last edited by letsgobobby on Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sixtyforty
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:22 pm
Location: USA

Re: bike helmets

Post by sixtyforty » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:38 pm

Replace the helmet. Go with a MIPS system. Make sure it fits good. I'm an avid mountain biker and have crashed too many times. Don't go cheap.
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - Leonardo Da Vinci

hifive
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:46 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by hifive » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:02 pm

JupiterJones wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:37 am
Agreed. A high-five for Hifive! :sharebeer

And may I say how impressed overall I am with this thread. For the most part it's civil, factual, rational... all the things that internet "helmet threads" tend not to be (see the never-ending helmet sticky on BikeForums for one example). It's very refreshing.
Thanks JupiterJones! I agree, the level-headed community here is something special, and a big part of the reason I decided it was worth the time to write all that up.
Boston Barry wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:08 pm
Hifive, thanks so much for the in-depth analysis. That is the information I was hoping someone would provide, as I am not qualified (and am too lazy to boot) to conduct such an analysis myself.

Any thoughts about all the data regarding ski/snowboard helmets and no difference or increased rate of head injury (NY Times article posted above, other studies as well)?
Absolutely. For everyone's reference this is the NYT link: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/s ... uries.html.

The claim is that despite increased helmet use, head injuries continue to rise among snow sports enthusiasts. The article does have a nice call-out for MIPS, which apparently offers additional protection against rotational forces. Of course, nothing is foolproof - the various quoted experts point out that no technology in existence can protect against a sufficiently violent impact. They suggest that overconfidence in a helmet's protective ability plus a growing high-risk "energy drink culture" in skiing may lead people to take bigger risks even as safety gear gets better.

Let's look at the sources.
Although skiers and snowboarders in the United States are wearing helmets more than ever — 70 percent of all participants, nearly triple the number from 2003 — there has been no reduction in the number of snow-sports-related fatalities or brain injuries in the country, according to the National Ski Areas Association.
Unfortunately the National Ski Areas Association link takes me to their main page, not to a report or data. It's not clear whether they've found an increase in the number of head injuries, the rate of head injuries, or both. Recall the San Diego County head injury dataset: if the statistics are based on counting the total number of injuries, then the truth could be just about anything. Maybe the same rate of injury over more skiers, the same number of people skiing more hours, growing popularity among the higher-risk teenage-to-30s male population, etc.
A 2012 study at the Western Michigan University School of Medicine on head injuries among skiers and snowboarders in the United States found that the number of head injuries increased 60 percent in a seven-year period, from 9,308 in 2004 to 14,947 in 2010, even as helmet use increased by an almost identical percentage over the same period.
https://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/ ... ystudy.pdf

Based on this quote I assumed the study would just include counts and not rates, but it actually has both! The study authors describe their findings in an extremely terse half-page summary. I understand why McMillan (the NYT journalist) picked out the count of injuries to report on, because I had to read the results about 4 times to make sense of the other findings.

Basically, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission collects and compiles injury data from a sample of U.S. hospitals in their NEISS database. Between 2004-2010 the study authors were able to find 1,629 cases of head injuries in the database. Based on the number of hospitals sampled during that time period and "narratives" (physician notes?) to determine injury severity and helmet use, they estimated 68,761 total head injuries across the country. The rest of the statistics were derived from this estimate.

The authors went on to estimate the proportion of head injuries to all injuries for various subgroups. For example: "Riders aged 11 to 17 years old sustained a greater proportion of head injuries (47.7%) than did any other age group." After re-reading this a few times, I think what the authors are saying is that they calculated the proportion of head injuries to non-head-injuries for each sub-group they looked at. In other words, it's not X% for 10 and under, 47.7% for 11-17, Y% for 18+, where 47.7% + X% + Y% = 100% - this wouldn't be very interesting! It's that for 11-17 year olds, there were 47.7% head injuries and 52.3% non-head-injuries from 2004-2010, and the head injury proportion started low and kept going up each year.

If that's the right interpretation, then the key finding that the proportion of head injuries to non-head-injuries increased each year from 2004-2010 is definitely concerning, and more important than the NYT-quoted increase in the count of injuries. This assumes the authors' estimation process is solid and there aren't any issues with the "narratives" they used (for example, suppose physicians are more likely to report helmet use for life-threatening head injuries than less severe injuries).

It's hard to say how much to read into all of this. The write-up is too short to give any detail about the authors' methods, but that won't stop me from editorializing anyway :D From a statistical point of view the 9,308 and 14,947 numbers are not defensible. Since they came from a multi-step estimation process, they're artificially precise. Misleadingly precise, even: note how the NYT journalist reported them as exact results! 2 or 3 significant figures is all I'd recommend using (i.e. "an estimated 9,300 head injuries in 2004 and 15,000 in 2010") to make the uncertainty clear. I also consider it best practice to report on both counts and percentages. An impressive-sounding percentage (over 80%!) really should state its sample size (e.g. 5 of 6) for context.
A March 2013 study by the University of Washington concluded that the number of snow-sports-related head injuries among youths and adolescents increased 250 percent from 1996 to 2010.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3835801/

These authors estimated head injury rates based on a 1996-2010 dataset constructed from the same NEISS database the others used, and they described NEISS in much more detail!
Injury information includes age, sex, site of injury, body part, diagnosis, discharge disposition, consumer product(s) associated with injury and a 160-character narrative with additional detail on the injury and circumstances of its occurrence. Diagnosis codes are limited to the ‘most severe and specific diagnosis’, given by the attending physician. Helmet use was not consistently reported in narratives and therefore not used in this analysis. Patient outcomes other than ED disposition were not available.
It sounds like my speculation about the narratives inconsistently reporting helmet use was correct. The authors also mention that the NEISS database is not a good source for deaths, so they excluded fatalities from their results. This somewhat calls into question the helmets-don't-prevent-head-injury thrust of the NYT article - what if some of the increase is due to people who died not being included in the injury statistics for early years, and the later years including those whose helmets saved their lives? - but let's keep looking at the evidence.

The authors looked at traumatic brain injury (TBI) rates among 4-12 year olds and 13-17 year olds at ski resorts each winter season. It looks like they performed three separate sets of tests. They first checked whether the increasing TBI rates followed a linear trend, and they found a statistically significant increase for the adolescent group, but not the younger children (figure 1). Next, they divided each year's TBI rate by the 1996 TBI rate to obtain relative risk measures (table 2 - this is where the NYT 250% came from). Finally, they looked at the percent of patients who were able to be released immediately after treatment (i.e. no hospital admission necessary) and found no linear trend for either group (figure 2).

It's worth pointing out that the table 2 results don't match what the NYT reported. In the age 4-12 group, the relative risk for TBI increased by 111% (2010 rate divided by 1996 rate), while for the 13-17 group the relative risk increased by 250%. In other words, the NYT article misquoted the study: the 250% increase was just for adolescents, it was for TBI, not all head injuries, and it was a rate increase, not an increase in number. Additionally, the fact that hospital admission rates are flat among people presenting for TBI seems like evidence against injuries becoming more severe over time. (Non-life-threatening ones, anyway - remember that fatalities were excluded.)

These are all pretty standard methods and seem appropriate. I would've liked to see the authors try something besides linear regression to check for trends. I expect they could eke out some more statistical power with other techniques (at least for the injury rate - figure 2 really does look flat). I appreciate that the authors correctly decided not to report p-values for the relative risks in table 2. Since they computed 13 years of relative risks * 2 age groups = 26 statistics for the table, reporting p-values using the normal Neyman-Pearson p < .05 significance threshold would've been misleading. You'd expect to see 26 * .05 = 1.3 false positives on average.

The authors are very measured in their conclusions. Here's an excerpt from the discussion section:
Given the retrospective and observational nature of this study, it is not possible to directly determine the reasons for the observed increase in the incidence of snow-sports-related TBIs among adolescents from 1996 to 2010. We speculate that increases may be attributed in part to changes in snow sports behaviour. The rise in the popularity of snowboarding over the study period may have contributed to the increase in TBI incidence; research suggests that the incidence of head injuries may be greater for snowboarding than skiing. Also, the recent proliferation of terrain parks in resorts and the rapid growth of extreme sports, which include freestyle snowboarding and skiing, may play a role in the increased head injury rates during later years. Alternatively, the trend may not be due to a true increase in TBI incidence, but instead due to improved recognition of the clinical symptoms of TBI and increased reporting to EDs for head injuries incurred while skiing or snowboarding. Both possibilities are relevant and important for future research, awareness and outreach efforts.
This echos some of the causes suggested by people interviewed for the NYT article. Overall, I'm pretty impressed by this study. However, I want to emphasize that while it pretty convincingly demonstrates an increasing TBI trend (at least among adolescents), it can't explain why.

Helmet use and TBI among adolescents increased over the same time period, but this doesn't mean helmets don't work. Statisticians have a saying: correlation does not imply causation. A picture's worth a thousand words, so take a look at this site for some silly examples illustrating the problem: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations. Trends can move in the same direction without being related.

Having read all that, what am I comfortable saying? 1) Based on estimated injury rates, increased helmet use in winter sports hasn't led to decreased TBI as hoped (with the caveat that helmet use among people injured couldn't be measured directly), and 2) this is a public health issue meriting further study. At the end of the day, that's pretty much the message of the NYT article, which is fine. The two issues I see with it are the misinterpreted 250% statistic and that they chose a clickbaity headline, which confuses things by priming the reader to assume the studies show that helmets don't work.

rj49
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:22 am

Re: bike helmets

Post by rj49 » Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:15 am

I'm not sure how we in the US became so fixated on bicycle helmets, since Germans and Japanese and others around the world do without. I've also noticed that people, including myself at times, wear the helmet too loose and/or too far up the head to provide any reliable protection in a crash. In my 50 years of riding, I've had 5 or so crashes, , most involving landing on arm or shoulder or side (especially when clipped into pedals). But then I also grew up in the era of kids being able to ride bikes to school or wherever they wanted, before overprotective minivan helicopter soccer moms started shuttling their kids between constant lessons and organized activities and playdates. I was free to learn the lessons of a childhood bike crash, such as don't go down a steep hill on a bike carrying a glass jar of caterpillars in one hand.

lazydavid
Posts: 2541
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by lazydavid » Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:14 am

TimeRunner wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:15 pm
MIPS technology hopefully helps more than it hurts, so given the option.... As motorcyclists say, "$50 helmet, $50 brain." :twisted:
As a former motorcyclist, I agree with the sentiment, but not the way it was stated. I'm sure prices have changed, but when I last bought a motorcycle helmet, spending any more than $400 was almost pure vanity, with little to no marginal increase in protection. Even for specialized uses, spending more than $1200 was 100% vanity.

I value my brain at a lot more than $1200, but I spent $400 on a high-end Shoei.

User avatar
JupiterJones
Posts: 2792
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:25 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: bike helmets

Post by JupiterJones » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:55 am

rj49 wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:15 am
But then I also grew up in the era of kids being able to ride bikes to school or wherever they wanted,
Same here. And not only did we not wear helmets, I don't think we even knew where to get them if we wanted one. Maybe mail-order or something?

There just wasn't a perception that bicycling was some horribly dangerous activity back then. Everyone rode them, and everyone became good judges of how risky it was and wasn't.

I can't help but wonder if the overblown perception of biking risk stems from fewer kids having that experience these days. That, coupled with the shift of the activity from something all kids do in order to bump around the neighborhood to something mostly just adults do--and then mostly do just for (genuinely riskier) sport.

(Of course, I also remember riding in a car without a seat belt, but would never recommend that today. There is clear, universally-agreed-upon evidence supporting the fact that seat belts save lives.)
Stay on target...

inbox788
Posts: 6593
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:24 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by inbox788 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:31 pm

JupiterJones wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:55 am
rj49 wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:15 am
But then I also grew up in the era of kids being able to ride bikes to school or wherever they wanted,
Same here. And not only did we not wear helmets, I don't think we even knew where to get them if we wanted one. Maybe mail-order or something?

There just wasn't a perception that bicycling was some horribly dangerous activity back then. Everyone rode them, and everyone became good judges of how risky it was and wasn't.

I can't help but wonder if the overblown perception of biking risk stems from fewer kids having that experience these days. That, coupled with the shift of the activity from something all kids do in order to bump around the neighborhood to something mostly just adults do--and then mostly do just for (genuinely riskier) sport.

(Of course, I also remember riding in a car without a seat belt, but would never recommend that today. There is clear, universally-agreed-upon evidence supporting the fact that seat belts save lives.)
That was then, this is now. We know a lot more now.

When I was a kid, I ran into a car coming out of a driveway and bent my wheel and put a small dent in the car. I was a little bruised, but I healed. But neither of us though about suing the other. We didn't even exchange information. As a kid, I didn't know better. No helmet and lucky it wasn't worse. I can't imagine the trouble if same thing happened today, but given the outcome, I think it turned out the best. Around the same time, our family car was on the other side of a very similar situation, and again, it was a simpler time.

Recently (last year or two), I've heard anecdotes of numerous accidents of people I know, including 3 hospitalizations, some cracked bones (ribs, collarbone, fingers, etc.) and 1 cracked skull. That's more than what I thought the statistics would indicate. Maybe it's just a cluster that averages out a decade of accident-free riding, but it's enough to reinforce my concern over the dangers and I'm not taking any chances riding without a helmet.

There's also a difference with a kid riding around the neighborhood never or seldom crossing a signal light vs a cyclist that rides 20 miles and crosses 100 signal lights. If the odds of an incidence is 1:1 million when a cyclist crosses any intersection with a signal light, how many accidents would you expect with 1 million rider miles?

User avatar
JupiterJones
Posts: 2792
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:25 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: bike helmets

Post by JupiterJones » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:58 pm

inbox788 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:31 pm
If the odds of an incidence is 1:1 million when a cyclist crosses any intersection with a signal light, how many accidents would you expect with 1 million rider miles?
That might have been a rhetorical question, but if you do assume an average 100 signal lights per 20 miles (seems high, but let's go with it), then the number of "rider signal lights" in one million miles is 5,000,000. If we further assume that the probability of a crash per-signal-light-intersection is 1/1,000,000 then, statistically, the expected value is 5 crashes. (It's a binomial distribution, so E(X) = p*n.)

Although a better question to ask might be "what is the probability of reaching 1 million rider miles with no crashes, given the above crash probability and signal light assumption?" That would be (1 - 1/1,000,000)^5,000,000, or about 0.7%. Which also means a 99.3% chance of 1 or more crashes.

(For comparison, when I bike-commute to work, I encounter three signaled intersections in three miles. I'd have to commute round-trip, every workday, for over 3,000 years to get to five million signals. Let's instead say I commute 100 days out of the year for the next ten years. That puts my EV at 0.006 crashes and the probability of zero crashes at 99.4%, assuming the 1-in-a-million signal-crash probability. Although the fact that I've typed this post means that I will probably get clobbered on my very next bike ride, just out of cosmic irony. :D )
Stay on target...

Fallible
Posts: 7014
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: bike helmets

Post by Fallible » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:35 pm

JupiterJones wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:55 am
rj49 wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:15 am
But then I also grew up in the era of kids being able to ride bikes to school or wherever they wanted,
Same here. And not only did we not wear helmets, I don't think we even knew where to get them if we wanted one. Maybe mail-order or something?

There just wasn't a perception that bicycling was some horribly dangerous activity back then. Everyone rode them, and everyone became good judges of how risky it was and wasn't. ...
Waaaay back in the early 50s when I began biking on streets and police still had walking patrols in our town, a neighborhood officer often scolded us kids for biking on sidewalks - which we did because we'd had close calls on the streets with cars. One officer would chalk up an "X" on our tires so he remembered repeat offenders. That spooked us more than cars, so we'd go back on the streets - for awhile, and then return to the sidewalks if the officer was not in sight. And we had more than just close calls: I once ran into the door of a car the driver had opened after parking, and a friend fell off her bike and landed in the street, nearly being hit by a car. No serious injuries and we lived to bike again, but there surely was a perception of the dangers.
John Bogle on his early road to low-cost indexing: "When a door closes, if you look long enough and hard enough, if you're strong enough, you'll find a window that opens."

hifive
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:46 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by hifive » Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:57 pm

inbox788 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:31 pm
There's also a difference with a kid riding around the neighborhood never or seldom crossing a signal light vs a cyclist that rides 20 miles and crosses 100 signal lights. If the odds of an incidence is 1:1 million when a cyclist crosses any intersection with a signal light, how many accidents would you expect with 1 million rider miles?
What about other intersections? I honestly can't remember the last time I've had a close call at a traffic light, but something about seeing a bike makes certain drivers want to run a stop sign :x Maybe the risk averages out, since stop sign corners are typically less busy than traffic light ones.
JupiterJones wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:55 am
I can't help but wonder if the overblown perception of biking risk stems from fewer kids having that experience these days. That, coupled with the shift of the activity from something all kids do in order to bump around the neighborhood to something mostly just adults do--and then mostly do just for (genuinely riskier) sport.
You know, this is an interesting point. I had several wipeouts as a kid, mostly from doing stupid things like setting up wobbly ramps and racing friends too fast down hills. The worst destroyed a pair of pants and took about a half-inch of skin off my elbow, but I could still ride back home, so it really wasn't that bad. It certainly taught me what not to do. I haven't crashed since then, partly because I'm much better at controlling the bike but mostly because I'm more careful; I expect my adult self wouldn't get off as easy as 10-year-old, 1/2 to 1/3 the weight me did falling off that kid-sized bike.

These days I avoid risky behaviors and am not really worried that I'll lose control, crash into an object, etc. I look at the helmet primarily as a way to protect me from other people's risky behaviors (running stop signs, texting, cutting off city buses, all the stuff I see on a weekly if not daily basis).

To make a weak investment analogy, sometimes the pro-helmet crowd acts like the non-wearing-helmet folks are taking out a second mortage and plowing it into cryptocurrencies (foolhardy), while non-helmet folks act like the helmet wearers are preppers stocking up on gold and beans (paranoid). But at the end of the day, we're all probably somewhere in the realm of reasonable-ish asset allocations (lifestyle choices) and better off than the majority of people who don't save (exercise).

User avatar
jabberwockOG
Posts: 1809
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 7:23 am

Re: bike helmets

Post by jabberwockOG » Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:43 pm

Boston Barry wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:08 pm
Hifive, thanks so much for the in-depth analysis. That is the information I was hoping someone would provide, as I am not qualified (and am too lazy to boot) to conduct such an analysis myself.

Any thoughts about all the data regarding ski/snowboard helmets and no difference or increased rate of head injury (NY Times article posted above, other studies as well)?
As a skier for 40+ years I can say that the amount and level of risky behavior on the slopes by folks attempting to do various "tricks", or being cool by skiing dangerous out of bounds terrain, or through ungroomed tree line at speed, has increased exponentially over the years. Helmets can't protect against foolhardiness.

Never confuse data with information.
Never confuse information with knowledge.
Never confuse knowledge with wisdom.

ccieemeritus
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:43 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by ccieemeritus » Wed May 01, 2019 12:06 pm

JupiterJones wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:23 am
TLC1957 wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:19 pm
Not only do I wear my helmet when biking I added this product to provide protection from the sun, works well. It fits on most helmets, very popular in Phoenix.

http://www.dabrim.com/html/products/cycling/classic.htm
That is the dumbest-looking thing I've ever seen.

...and I kind of want one. :D
Thanks for the link. Got my dabrim last week and have done several 14 mile rides. I usually ride around 12mph. I'm very happy with the dabrim. Combined with my long sleeve shirt and pants and my halo headband (I'm bald--so need the halo to avoid "bike helmet spots" on my head) I no longer need to use sunscreen when riding.

If I was a faster road biker the wind resistance might be an issue. But at my speed its not an issue.

Cunobelinus
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:31 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by Cunobelinus » Wed May 01, 2019 4:12 pm

WildBill wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:47 pm
Boston Barry wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:57 pm
This is a great article about bike helmets written by a grad student. The title is “Why It Makes Sense to Bike Without a Helmet”

http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Howdy

I read it. Gibberish to support the writer’s apparent dislike of helmets. Reasoning unworthy of a prospective doctoral candidate. Clearly not a hard science student.

Not wearing a helmet while bicycling is stupid.To expand the topic laterally, I have a number of friends here in Texas who motorcycle without helmets. I consider that a best practice, as long as they have signed organ donor cards. There is a tragic shortage of transplant organs, and these guys can help remedy that.

So I hope the bicyclists have also signed up as organ donors.

W B
How often can a motorcyclist in an accident donate organs? I rode for a long time, and many of the accidents I saw either left the bodies pretty mangled or strewn about for many yards, rendering organ donation unlikely.

Cunobelinus
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:31 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by Cunobelinus » Wed May 01, 2019 4:20 pm

Deleted
Last edited by Cunobelinus on Wed May 01, 2019 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

lightheir
Posts: 2401
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by lightheir » Wed May 01, 2019 4:23 pm

I'm myself 100% for helmets in ALL situations bike, but especially not to be neglected when riding over 15+mph (like during training or downhills) or mountain biking.

I too used to think it was 'stupid' to not wear a helmet for years, but then I was introduced to the reality of European bike commuting in heavy bike commute cities where far more people in the urban center bike rather than drive, and almost nobody wears helmets there. And they're not dropping dead of head injuries at an alarming rate despite the hordes of people commuting. Of course, one has to also factor in the better bike commute infrastructure (protected bike lanes, better driver etiquette, etc) compared to the US, but it is worth considering for the dogmatic folks who think you have to strap on a helmet even for a 4 block ride down the block (which I would do myself.)

User avatar
2pedals
Posts: 913
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:31 pm

Re: bike helmets

Post by 2pedals » Wed May 01, 2019 8:47 pm

Fallible wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:35 pm
JupiterJones wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:55 am
rj49 wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:15 am
But then I also grew up in the era of kids being able to ride bikes to school or wherever they wanted,
Same here. And not only did we not wear helmets, I don't think we even knew where to get them if we wanted one. Maybe mail-order or something?

There just wasn't a perception that bicycling was some horribly dangerous activity back then. Everyone rode them, and everyone became good judges of how risky it was and wasn't. ...
Waaaay back in the early 50s when I began biking on streets and police still had walking patrols in our town, a neighborhood officer often scolded us kids for biking on sidewalks - which we did because we'd had close calls on the streets with cars. One officer would chalk up an "X" on our tires so he remembered repeat offenders. That spooked us more than cars, so we'd go back on the streets - for awhile, and then return to the sidewalks if the officer was not in sight. And we had more than just close calls: I once ran into the door of a car the driver had opened after parking, and a friend fell off her bike and landed in the street, nearly being hit by a car. No serious injuries and we lived to bike again, but there surely was a perception of the dangers.

The following link is about a tragic death on the cedar river trail.
https://www.seattlemet.com/articles/201 ... iver-trail

Cyclists need to be very careful. It is illegal in many places to ride on the sidewalk and some roads are very unsafe for cyclists. Pedestrians always have the right of way.

Post Reply