Question for the anti-helmet guys

"Mike S." wrote:

If you went out on your ride tomorrow and KNEW that you were going to
crash
and hit your head, would you wear a helmet?

Dumb question. I wear a helmet whenever I ride for the same reason I wear a
seat belt when I drive: Some day I *might* crash, and the helmet/seat belt
*might* save my life or reduce my injuries. It offers some protection, and
it's not a big inconvenience.

More to your question, before the UCI required pro racers to wear helmets,
many riders chose to wear them in what they considered dangerous conditions.

Art Harris

Art:

You and others don't seem to understand the question. It's not for
those of us who wear helmets - it's for those who DON'T!!! I know why I
wear mine, you know why you wear yours. The question was for people who
don't wear a helmet, and I think it's a very valid question that has so
far been skirted around by just about everyone who's answered.

So, if you don't wear a helmet, and you knew you were going to get into
an accident the next time you go for a ride {and I'll add my own caveats
here : 1) The only way out of this is if you neve ride a bike again.
It's going to happen the next time you ride, period! 2) You don't know
the severity of the accident. It might be a bump and then again you
might do an endo and land upside down - you don't know!). The question
is (from memory) "Would you wear a helmet?"

Inquiring helmeted minds want to know.
Matt

Harris wrote:

"Mike S." wrote:



If you went out on your ride tomorrow and KNEW that you were going to


crash


and hit your head, would you wear a helmet?



Dumb question. I wear a helmet whenever I ride for the same reason I wear a
seat belt when I drive: Some day I *might* crash, and the helmet/seat belt
*might* save my life or reduce my injuries. It offers some protection, and
it's not a big inconvenience.

More to your question, before the UCI required pro racers to wear helmets,
many riders chose to wear them in what they considered dangerous conditions.

Art Harris

Matt Locker writes:

So, if you don't wear a helmet, and you knew you were going to get
into an accident the next time you go for a ride {and I'll add my
own caveats here : 1) The only way out of this is if you neve
ride a bike again. It's going to happen the next time you ride,
period! 2) You don't know the severity of the accident. It might
be a bump and then again you might do an endo and land upside down
- you don't know!). The question is (from memory) "Would you wear
a helmet?" Inquiring helmeted minds want to know.


Taking the question as you posed it, the answer for most people is
likely to be yes. If people are rational, the decision will be
based on a cost--benefit basis, where the benefit of wearing the
helmet is proportional to the probability of an accident times the
degree to which the helmet can be expected to mitigate the
injuries.

In real life, the first probability is quite low, and the second
quantity is modest -- helmets help in certain situations, but are
clearly limited in what they can do.

In the context of the question, the first probability is magically
set to 1, which mean the benefits will almost certainly outweigh
the costs (except for people with very high costs, or who believe
that helmets may have zero or negative effects on injury[1]).

But in real life, thoughtful non-helmet wearers weigh up a very small
probability of a rather modest protection, and find it's not worth
the cost. This is entirely reasonable and only appears weird if you
can't deal with probability[2].

Anyway, what's motivation for the question? If you wanted to know
whether helmet non-wearers thought helmets had any positive
effects, you could have asked directly.

Brendan


[1] This is not _a priori_ implausible -- the mechanism by which
helmets might cause rotational brain injury is clear, but it is
very hard to quantify how much it happens relative to protection
from linear accelerations. It could well be part of the explanation
why head injury rates don't seem to decline much with growth in
helmet usage.

[2] It has to be said, though, that humans tend to be very bad at
probability calculations, particularly when thinking about very low
probabilities of very bad outcomes.

--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-390476; Room F2-025 x 3147
http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

Matt Locker wrote:

The question was for people who
don't wear a helmet, and I think it's a very valid question that has so
far been skirted around by just about everyone who's answered.

You can't seem to understand your question's absurdity. Therefore, you
can't understand why it's not worth answering.

Say, I don't see that you've answered Trent's "very valid" and exactly
parallel question regarding walking across a street. So let's make a
deal: you answer Trent's question, then use that to explain _your_ usual
choice on the important issue of pedestrian helmets. ;-)

When you do, I'll tell you what I'd wear in _your_ scenario.

--
Frank Krygowski

Brendan:

The question has been asked 1000 different ways over the years and all
it does is cause endless waste of bandwidth. I believed that the
original question that my "updated" question referred to is valid and my
caveats only attempted to make it more so. I was really hoping some
anti-helmet types would answer it. As usual noone did - they skirted
the issue entirely.

MOO,
Matt

Brendan Halpin wrote:

Matt Locker writes:



So, if you don't wear a helmet, and you knew you were going to get
into an accident the next time you go for a ride {and I'll add my
own caveats here : 1) The only way out of this is if you neve
ride a bike again. It's going to happen the next time you ride,
period! 2) You don't know the severity of the accident. It might
be a bump and then again you might do an endo and land upside down
- you don't know!). The question is (from memory) "Would you wear
a helmet?" Inquiring helmeted minds want to know.




Taking the question as you posed it, the answer for most people is
likely to be yes. If people are rational, the decision will be
based on a cost--benefit basis, where the benefit of wearing the
helmet is proportional to the probability of an accident times the
degree to which the helmet can be expected to mitigate the
injuries.

In real life, the first probability is quite low, and the second
quantity is modest -- helmets help in certain situations, but are
clearly limited in what they can do.

In the context of the question, the first probability is magically
set to 1, which mean the benefits will almost certainly outweigh
the costs (except for people with very high costs, or who believe
that helmets may have zero or negative effects on injury[1]).

But in real life, thoughtful non-helmet wearers weigh up a very small
probability of a rather modest protection, and find it's not worth
the cost. This is entirely reasonable and only appears weird if you
can't deal with probability[2].

Anyway, what's motivation for the question? If you wanted to know
whether helmet non-wearers thought helmets had any positive
effects, you could have asked directly.

Brendan


[1] This is not _a priori_ implausible -- the mechanism by which
helmets might cause rotational brain injury is clear, but it is
very hard to quantify how much it happens relative to protection
from linear accelerations. It could well be part of the explanation
why head injury rates don't seem to decline much with growth in
helmet usage.

[2] It has to be said, though, that humans tend to be very bad at
probability calculations, particularly when thinking about very low
probabilities of very bad outcomes.

I will answer your question. I don't walk in the street, if I do I face
traffic. I look both ways and am very safe. I don't consider my
pedestrian acts as dangerous to me. Sure they could be - a tree could
fall on me, or someone could shoot me from a car/house. Such is life.
The odds are very low.

Put me on my bike. I'm in traffic, being passed by who knows who all
the time, cars pulling in front, rocks/sticks/glass/animals on the road.
A much more dangerous environment. I wear a helmet because I believe
it helps minimize the risks to my brain. I wear gloves because it helps
protect the hands as well as padding them. I wear a mirror because it
helps to keep track of my surroundings. But **** still happens. I've
fallen once and hit my head hard. I'm quite certain the helmet helped a
lot. If it wasn't for the helmet, at a minimum I would have lost a lot
of my scalp to the pavement. Quite probably the impact was strong
enough to have sent me to the hospital with concussion or worse. I had
no time to respond when the accident occurred and there was nothing I
could do to stop it. As it was the only skin lost was on the rest of my
body.

You can do what you like as you know. But why is that noone will answer
the !@#$#%^ question????

MOO,
Matt

Trent Piepho wrote:

In article ,
Matt Locker wrote:


You and others don't seem to understand the question. It's not for
those of us who wear helmets - it's for those who DON'T!!! I know why I
wear mine, you know why you wear yours. The question was for people who
don't wear a helmet, and I think it's a very valid question that has so
far been skirted around by just about everyone who's answered.

So, if you don't wear a helmet, and you knew you were going to get into
an accident the next time you go for a ride {and I'll add my own caveats




Matt, why don't you answer this one first? Say next time you cross a street
on foot, some driver talking on a cell phone decides to make a right turn on
red without looking and hits you at about 15 mph. You slide up the hood and
smack you head on the windshield and fall to the ground.

Would you want to be wearing a helmet? The only way to get out is to never
cross a street again. No fair dodging the question by saying you'll never get
hit crossing a street, or that a helmet would do no good. You make think
you're much safer on foot than on a bike, but that doesn't matter here.
You're going to be unlucky and get hit, so would you want to be wearing a
helmet or not?

I think you'll find your justification for not wearing a helmet when crossing
streets is pretty much the same one people use for not wearing one every time
they get on a bike.

Your turn...............

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Matt Locker wrote:

The question was for people who

don't wear a helmet, and I think it's a very valid question that has
so far been skirted around by just about everyone who's answered.


You can't seem to understand your question's absurdity. Therefore,
you can't understand why it's not worth answering.

Say, I don't see that you've answered Trent's "very valid" and exactly
parallel question regarding walking across a street. So let's make a
deal: you answer Trent's question, then use that to explain _your_
usual choice on the important issue of pedestrian helmets. ;-)

When you do, I'll tell you what I'd wear in _your_ scenario.

--
Frank Krygowski

"Matt Locker" wrote in message
...

WHATS THE HTML FOR?

The question has been asked 1000 different ways over the years and all it
does is cause endless waste of bandwidth. I believed that the original
question that my "updated" question referred to is valid and my caveats only
attempted to make it more so. I was really hoping some anti-helmet types
would answer it. As usual noone did - they skirted the issue entirely.

ME:
You miss a point. There are few "anti-helmet" people and a lot of
"anti-(helmet BS)" people.
One of the reasons why "helmet BS" is hated is because it over-estimates the
danger of ordinary cycling.
However, normal "helmet BS" does not get anywhere like saying that you WILL
have an accident tommorow.

The question is loaded - so no-one answered it.
Hows about:
"if you were going to have a bike accident tommorow that resulted in a
fractured spine, would you wear a helmet".

Matt Locker wrote:

I will answer your question. I don't walk in the street, if I do I face
traffic. I look both ways and am very safe. I don't consider my
pedestrian acts as dangerous to me. Sure they could be - a tree could
fall on me, or someone could shoot me from a car/house. Such is life.
The odds are very low.

Which, of course, doesn't answer the question at all. Remember the
question? "Would you want to be wearing a helmet [if you were going to be
hit on your next walk]? The only way to get out is to never cross a street
again. No fair dodging the question by saying you'll never get hit
crossing a street, or that a helmet would do no good. You make think
you're much safer on foot than on a bike, but that doesn't matter here.
You're going to be unlucky and get hit, so would you want to be wearing a
helmet or not?"

Despite your assurance that you will answer the question you then proceed
to do anything but.

Besides, your statement above is clearly false - unless you only walk
around the block you must walk in the street whenever you cross an
intersection. And intersections are where most accidents happen to both
cyclists and pedestrians. Furthermore the references to trees falling and
gunshots are deliberately ignoring the main threat faced by pedestrians
which is the same one faced by cyclists - getting hit by a motor vehicle.

Put me on my bike. I'm in traffic, being passed by who knows who all
the time, cars pulling in front, rocks/sticks/glass/animals on the road.
A much more dangerous environment.

The sidewalks I've walked on have also had rocks/sticks/glass and I presume
any animals on the road got there by going over the sidewalk. I certainly
haven't been immune from cars pulling out in front of me while walking - in
fact many cars have pulled right out of a driveway and across the sidewalk
before stopping at the road, thus posing a greater danger to a pedestrian
than to another road user.

You can do what you like as you know. But why is that noone will answer
the !@#$#%^ question????

Maybe:
1) "noone" is not a word and therefore your question above makes no sense.
2) Your previous question was specifically asked of "anti-helmet guys" and
as has been repeatedly pointed out to you there are no such people
participating in this discussion.
3) The answers you reject have mainly been along exactly the same lines as
your own 'non-answer' above.

My own answer to your original question, i.e. would I wear my helmet if I
knew that I'd crash on my next bike ride, is as follows.
Although I wear a bicycle helmet on most of my bike rides, I do not think
it adds significant protection in the case of a serious crash. Therefore I
would not wear it if I knew a crash was imminent and for some reason could
not avoid riding. Instead I would be wearing a full set of motorcycle
leathers, extra knee, elbow, shoulder, and hand padding, and a full-face
motorcycle or car-racing helmet. I'd also look into the possibility of a
'personal air-bag', i.e. a bag strapped to my body that would instantly
inflate upon my separation from the bike.

BTW, when hard-shell bicycle helmets first came out around '75 I thought
they did provide substantial protection. After reviewing many of the
subsequent studies I've changed my mind and now think the main benefit
provided is a legal one - in the event of an accident I or my heirs will
probably have an easier time collecting damages if I was wearing a bike
helmet.
It also provides a convenient mounting surface for my mirror and GPS antenna.

MOO,
Matt

Trent Piepho wrote:

In article ,
Matt Locker wrote:


You and others don't seem to understand the question. It's not for
those of us who wear helmets - it's for those who DON'T!!! I know why I
wear mine, you know why you wear yours. The question was for people who
don't wear a helmet, and I think it's a very valid question that has so
far been skirted around by just about everyone who's answered.

So, if you don't wear a helmet, and you knew you were going to get into
an accident the next time you go for a ride {and I'll add my own caveats




Matt, why don't you answer this one first? Say next time you cross a street
on foot, some driver talking on a cell phone decides to make a right turn on
red without looking and hits you at about 15 mph. You slide up the hood and
smack you head on the windshield and fall to the ground.

Would you want to be wearing a helmet? The only way to get out is to never
cross a street again. No fair dodging the question by saying you'll never get
hit crossing a street, or that a helmet would do no good. You make think
you're much safer on foot than on a bike, but that doesn't matter here.
You're going to be unlucky and get hit, so would you want to be wearing a
helmet or not?

I think you'll find your justification for not wearing a helmet when crossing
streets is pretty much the same one people use for not wearing one every time
they get on a bike.

WHATS THE HTML FOR?

The question has been asked 1000 different ways over the years and all it
does is cause endless waste of bandwidth. I believed that the original
question that my "updated" question referred to is valid and my caveats
only
attempted to make it more so. I was really hoping some anti-helmet types
would answer it. As usual noone did - they skirted the issue entirely.

ME:
You miss a point. There are few "anti-helmet" people and a lot of
"anti-(helmet BS)" people.
One of the reasons why "helmet BS" is hated is because it over-estimates
the
danger of ordinary cycling.
However, normal "helmet BS" does not get anywhere like saying that you
WILL
have an accident tommorow.

The question is loaded - so no-one answered it.
Hows about:
"if you were going to have a bike accident tommorow that resulted in a
fractured spine, would you wear a helmet".

Yes, 'cause you'll probably hit your head at some point in your accident
too. A bike and rider careening off a car flies in unexpected ways...

I have this allergy to death and a slightly smaller allergy to pavement.

Mike