Are Helmets Completely Worthless as a Safety Device for a Bike Commuter?

Dan Overman wrote:
[...]
I'm done. If anyone replies they can have the last word.

"0.ahno. the edo comes and goes. you stand there and experience the edo
unless you are bound by ego
riding a bike is highly valued as a way to experience and sample the
edo” - gene daniels

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Mar 11, 9:40*pm, Dan O wrote, eventually:

I'm done. If anyone replies they can have the last word

Well, that certainly limits the value of responding to you. But
others may be interested, so I'll respond anyway.


On Mar 10, 10:55 am, wrote:

On Mar 8, 3:54 pm, Dan O wrote:

Absolutely wrong. *Appropriate protection for an activity should be
judged based on the probability of a harmful event and the cost of its
consequences (risk) vs. the cost and effectiveness of protection.

The risk(s) of any other activity is utterly irrelevant to this
assessment.

[fk:]

If someone came up to you and said "Dan, we've got good data; the risk
of serious head injury in that activity is 1.68 serious HI per million
hours activity." *How would you evaluate that raw information?...

Frank, I don't assess my own risk either way based on anyone else's
experience, data, or analysis.

Then what method is best? Gut feeling? Responding to the last bit of
propaganda you saw? Why wouldn't it be better to consider not only
the "conventional wisdom," but the actual data, if available?

The only rational way to actually judge is by comparison with other
activities.

That may be fine if your sole objective is a provably consistent
"Safety Stance" across every activity that you ever engage in. *(I
would argue this is impossible, anyway.) *My objective is merely to
employ some good judgment where it counts and avoid potentially
catastrophic consequences where the cost of doing so is acceptable.
...

You're saying I should base my perception of my own risk in a given
activity based on someone else's analysis of someone else's collection
of aggregate statistics of someone else doing something else. *You're
kidding, right?

I'm saying your judgment should be informed by the data that's
available. Otherwise, how do you even pretend it's "good judgment"?

Personal wild guesses of danger levels are notoriously faulty. There
are dozens of examples of this - from teenage kids drinking and
driving fast on mountain roads, to "my cholesterol is over 300, but it
won't hurt me," to "That AIDS stuff is made up just to keep us from
having fun." Or, on the other end of the scale, there's the hype
about stranger abduction of children, the worry about ever refilling a
water bottle, or the idea that nobody should ever ride a bike without
a helmet!

... I'm responding to my own consideration of the total circumstances
as they pertain to me individually, and my resulting perception of
risk. *Sometimes, for a variety of reasons, I *do* ride without a
helmet, but every time I do, I believe that I am accepting some
additional risk of potentially dire consequences. *I wear a helmet
because I believe the potential protection outweighs the cost. *I
believe it offers some good protection (against potentially
devastating consequences), and it doesn't unduly impinge on my riding
experience (heck, my head is just sitting up there along for the ride
and doing nothing but looking ahead for the most part, anyway).

I understand that there's no guarantee your individual risk at any
moment will precisely match any study's finding. I also understand
that you _believe_ you're properly judging your own risk level, and
that you're accepting only that there's "some" level of protection.

But do you really disagree that the helmet promoters have succeeded in
exaggerating the risk of cycling? ISTM that the typical American
would never guess that there are roughly fifteen MILLION miles ridden
between each bike fatality. ISTM that the typical American believes
incurable or fatal bike head injuries are extremely common, and that
simply wearing a helmet makes them almost vanish. And ISTM the odds
are that you've been influenced by that propaganda, whether you
realize it or not.

And I use the word "propaganda" because there is so much data to the
contrary, data that the public never hears - because the data argues
against the need for a profitable commercial product!

The situation we have is a lot like someone making a fortune selling
crucifixes to ward off vampires. By golly, once everyone started
carrying crucifixes, you got no vampire attacks! And there are plenty
of people who are convinced that they saw weird looking folks -
vampires! - who _would_ have attacked, but for the crucifix they
carried!

Except that the great danger was never there. The fact that it still
isn't there has nothing to do with the supposed protective measure.
All that the intense promotion has accomplished is to line the pockets
of the sales force.

Believe me I'd love to live in a world like Amsterdam where folks can
cruise around on bikes like it was a perfectly natural and socially
acceptable thing to do ;-)

I believe you choose your own world, to a very large degree. Or
perhaps I should say you make your own world. If you want cycling to
be natural and socially acceptable, just be a socially acceptable
person and ride your bicycle - naturally! Really, if you ride
properly, you may not be quite as safe as in Amsterdam - but the
difference is negligible. Infinitesmal times 10 is still
infinitesmal.

Finally, let me make this clear: I'm really not trying to talk you
out of wearing whatever hat you choose. As usual, I'm merely trying
to counter a lot of negative hype.

One thing I've noticed over the years: At least in these discussion
groups, we've largely moved away from "You should ALWAYS wear a
helmet, because riding a bike is proven to be so dangerous, and
helmets work so beautifully!!!" Now we get a lot more of "I'll always
wear a helmet because, well, um, I think there's still _some_ chance
I'll crash, and even if it's just a scratch protector, I don't want
any scratches."

I suspect people are still swallowing the propaganda, but just not
admitting to it. But again, that's their choice. As long as they
don't try to spread falsehoods and disparage cycling, then helmets,
purple shorts, cartoon jerseys, matching socks, etc. are all just
style and fashion.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 12, 1:15*am, wrote:

Krygo blather snipped to save everyone's time

- Franky's talking helmeats - again! -


I suspect people are still swallowing the [helmet] propaganda, but just not
admitting to it. *But again, that's their choice.

So nice of you to allow people a choice, Franky.


*As long as they
don't try to spread falsehoods and disparage cycling, then helmets,
purple shorts, cartoon jerseys, matching socks, etc. are all just
style and fashion.


And *anyone* who crosses that line will run afoul of Frank Krygowski,
The Caped Gasbag, er, Crusader!!!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/28yqwz

or, for the fearless:

http://tinyurl.com/28yqwz