Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

On 12/22/2010 3:47 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:

Maybe that's why the malaise is setting in with all of the frigging snow
here...

I'm with you there, brother. I dumped my bike at dawn today on ice
unseen beneath the snow. Hey if winter riding was easy, everybody would
do it!

Studs might have helped, although (loose) snow covered ice isn't one of
the things they handle well.

On 12/22/2010 3:00 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:11 am, wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/22/2010 1:54 PM, landotter wrote:
http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video...ville-andersen

Look at the comments at the bottom. First one is from Fred.

Was that _The_ Fred? The guy with a yellow windbreaker, Bell
Biker helmet and a flippy flag?

Yes it was, and he's the future of American bicycle commuting
according to infrastructure planners.

This presentation is slick, but it is wrong in so many ways --
particularly when applied to American cities (paraphrasing):
"returning to the way things used to be . . . going back to
bicycles." Dude, California was built around the car. Sure, we rode
bikes as kids, but any adult who commuted by bike was considered some
Bohemian freak. Bicycle commuting was never big on the West Coast --
and in fact, it is bigger now than when I was a kid.

True, but the difference in bike culture between the US and Europe (this
was a talk given in Copenhagen) has its roots in economic history as
well as geography. The US, after an initial, but brief, bike boom,
entered the auto age, much earlier and enthusiastically than most of
Europe. Bike culture really never got started here. You can't go back to
what never was.

On 12/22/2010 12:00 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:11 am, wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/22/2010 1:54 PM, landotter wrote:
http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video...ville-andersen

Look at the comments at the bottom. First one is from Fred.

Was that _The_ Fred? The guy with a yellow windbreaker, Bell
Biker helmet and a flippy flag?

Yes it was, and he's the future of American bicycle commuting
according to infrastructure planners.

This presentation is slick, but it is wrong in so many ways --
particularly when applied to American cities (paraphrasing):
"returning to the way things used to be . . . going back to
bicycles." Dude, California was built around the car. Sure, we rode
bikes as kids, but any adult who commuted by bike was considered some
Bohemian freak. Bicycle commuting was never big on the West Coast --
and in fact, it is bigger now than when I was a kid. His vaccine
analogy also is wrong -- FDA needs two confirming studies, which there
are for helmets. A "fourteen percent greater chance" of getting in to
an accident while wearing a helmet (?). What, did they run the same
riders with and without helmets? He mistates helmet testing protocol,
at least in America. I have no interest in MHLs, but this sort of
laugh-a-minute banter is useless. It's like talk radio.

Like talk radio, TED events are meant to be entertainment, not
scientific presentations, and those in the audience most likely
understand that. There's always some danger that a slick talking
presenter will fool some people, but don't you think that most people
listen to Glenn Beck or Rush for the entertainment value?

I love it when he says "The scientific community has been completely
split for years on the subject 50-50, down the middle." Uh no, the
scientific community has never been split on the effectiveness of
helmets, the closest they've ever come to any split is the idea
presented by someone that a helmet law will lead to less cycling
(something that is demonstrably untrue) resulting in those that give up
cycling becoming obese from lack of activity because they will not
substitute the cycling (that they didn't give up) with other types of
exercise.

Sounds like he's fallen for the junk science and statistics from places
like cyclehelmets.org, complete with Frank's "walking helmet" shtick.
Sad, because if there's one way to guarantee that more helmet laws will
be enacted it's fact-free presenters at public policy debates being made
to look foolish by physicians, EMTs, and statisticians. Much more
effective to take the approach of promoting personal freedom to accept
higher levels of risk, which has already resulted in the repeal of many
motorcycle helmet laws.

On 12/23/2010 1:44 AM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/22/2010 2:49 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:

Yeah. Up side is that the skis are getting sharpened, even as we speak.
Missing the bike though.

I thought skates were sharpened, and skis were waxed?

Skis are waxed on the bottom. Downhill skis have edges
for cutting and are sharpened.

On 12/23/2010 1:52 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:44 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/22/2010 2:49 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:

Yeah. Up side is that the skis are getting sharpened, even as we speak.
Missing the bike though.

I thought skates were sharpened, and skis were waxed?

Not surprising. Skis have metal edges that can be sharpened.

Downhill skis. Regular cross country ones don't usually.

On 12/23/2010 7:03 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 12/22/2010 3:47 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:

Maybe that's why the malaise is setting in with all of the frigging snow
here...

I'm with you there, brother. I dumped my bike at dawn today on ice
unseen beneath the snow. Hey if winter riding was easy, everybody would
do it!

Studs might have helped, although (loose) snow covered ice isn't one of
the things they handle well.


Last ride I tried was last week. Around my house we have small
towns and each town has different snow removal and salting policies.
My town doesn't use salt so I had the ice under the snow that he's
describing but a block later, I'm in the next town and they use salt.
So now I have the salty puddle under the snow problem. And then, just
when my wheels are good and wet, I'm in the next town that uses sand so
that I can get grit everywhere in time for the next town's ice.

Too much fun for me.

On Dec 22, 3:27*pm, James wrote:
landotter wrote:
http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video...ville-andersen

I note that Melbourne and Sydney are in the most livable cities list,
but not so good for bicycles :-(

Then there's Frank's favorite bit. *"Fear!" *The rest is right up the
AHZ's alley.

At least he acknowledges that cars are the biggest threat to pedestrians
and cyclists.

JS.

I find the term AHZ to be telling. Zealotry is something that flies in
the face of evidence, not a calm attitude that explains clear
statistics. Zealotry is enthusiasm for a device disproportionate to
its efficacy.

Zealotry in the bike helmet world is really best expressed by what I
call the "concern troll". It's not about cycling, but about being smug.

On 12/23/2010 9:29 AM, landotter wrote:
On Dec 22, 3:27 pm, wrote:
landotter wrote:
http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video...ville-andersen

I note that Melbourne and Sydney are in the most livable cities list,
but not so good for bicycles :-(

Then there's Frank's favorite bit. "Fear!" The rest is right up the
AHZ's alley.

At least he acknowledges that cars are the biggest threat to pedestrians
and cyclists.

JS.

I find the term AHZ to be telling. Zealotry is something that flies in
the face of evidence, not a calm attitude that explains clear
statistics. Zealotry is enthusiasm for a device disproportionate to
its efficacy.

zeal·ot·ry   /ˈzɛlətri/ Show Spelled
[zel-uh-tree] Show IPA

–noun
undue or excessive zeal; fanaticism.

World English Dictionary
zealotry (ˈzɛlətrɪ)

— n
extreme or excessive zeal or devotion



Zealotry in the bike helmet world is really best expressed by what I
call the "concern troll". It's not about cycling, but about being smug.

Aren't most fanatics smug?

On Dec 22, 9:15*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 22, 7:55*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:



Mount Hood Meadows has been open for a month and a half!
Unbelievable, light snow for the Cascades this year. *This is why I
make my son wear a helmet:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWv-EX6bgw0
He's big in to Fright Trees. *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwWqnQj_ozw

You might want to explain to your son that ski helmets, like bike
helmets, are tested and certified only for less than 14 mph impacts.
Watch out for that "I've got a helmet, I'm bulletproof" risk
compensation.

BTW, I was a little hasty saying that I make him wear a helmet,
because I don't generally. He wears his free-ski helmet as a fashion
statement, and he wears his racing helmet as a requirement. In
general, and assuming he is not in the trees or the park, I don't care
whether he wears a helmet because I question the necessity or
effectiveness in soft snow impacts -- and the effect of added moment
to the head. If it is really icy, I might re-think that.

As for risk compensation, he might think twice about skiing tight
trees with no helmet -- but he is a smart kid and does not get in over
is head, helmet or not. At his level, however, there is very little
terrain that is over his head. -- Jay Beattie.

On 12/23/2010 10:36 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 22, 9:15 pm, Frank wrote:
On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, Jay wrote:



Mount Hood Meadows has been open for a month and a half!
Unbelievable, light snow for the Cascades this year. This is why I
make my son wear a helmet:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWv-EX6bgw0
He's big in to Fright Trees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwWqnQj_ozw

You might want to explain to your son that ski helmets, like bike
helmets, are tested and certified only for less than 14 mph impacts.
Watch out for that "I've got a helmet, I'm bulletproof" risk
compensation.

BTW, I was a little hasty saying that I make him wear a helmet,
because I don't generally. He wears his free-ski helmet as a fashion
statement, and he wears his racing helmet as a requirement. In
general, and assuming he is not in the trees or the park, I don't care
whether he wears a helmet because I question the necessity or
effectiveness in soft snow impacts -- and the effect of added moment
to the head. If it is really icy, I might re-think that.

As for risk compensation, he might think twice about skiing tight
trees with no helmet -- but he is a smart kid and does not get in over
is head, helmet or not. At his level, however, there is very little
terrain that is over his head. -- Jay Beattie.

The snow board classes that my son takes require helmets.
For him to work as an instructor, he's required to wear a helmet.
He's grown up snow boarding with a helmet. He's grown up cycling
with one as well. Doesn't occur to him not to wear one, Frank's
mantra of Danger! Danger! notwithstanding.

I don't ski with a helmet but I find snow relatively soft to
fall on. I don't ski in the woods much -at least not intentionally.
Snowboarders do ski in the woods though as well as in snow parks with
slides, rails and jumps. Helmets are required in the snow parks but not
on slopes in general here. There's some movement to make them
mandatory after that actress died in Tremblant on the bunny run but I
doubt it will get anywhere.