Helmets are your friend
Replies
-
That would be awesome. And while we're working on that, we have helmets.
The observation I'd make is that any time I've been hit by a cage my head has been the least of my worries. That said any car impacts have been sideswipes, I've never been tail ended or t-boned, which are both very different.0 -
A couple months ago I witnessed a bike ride out right in front of a motorcycle. Bicycle rider wasn't wearing a helmet and went to the hospital in critical condition. Motorcycle rider said he never usually wears a helmet but was that night. I bet he wears it from now on now.0
-
nothing sexier than someone in a bike helmet. seriously. its a total turn off for me when i see people riding around without them.3
-
denversillygoose wrote: »I for one, look like a total dingus in a helmet.
nothing says dingus like permanent brain damage though . . . especially when it might have been preventable.
i was annoyed a few years ago when i took a possibly-broken thumb to the er after a bike spill, and got asked by every. single. person. manning the medical conveyer belt if i'd been wearing my helmet. i got a little testy by about person six, but my non-damaged head understand their reasons for flogging the topic to death.
1 -
Remember, a much more common cause of head injuries is simply falling, and we (and children!) are far more likely to receive a head injury INSIDE a car than out of it.
So the message is clear - if you value wearing a helmet on your bike, you should be wearing a helmet everywhere!1 -
tcatcarson wrote: »Remember, a much more common cause of head injuries is simply falling, and we (and children!) are far more likely to receive a head injury INSIDE a car than out of it.
So the message is clear - if you value wearing a helmet on your bike, you should be wearing a helmet everywhere!
As ever, it's not that clear cut. Personally I'm hostile to mandatory helmets, despite using one myself. I choose, and my riding behaviour is influenced accordingly.
The big bike helmet debate: 'You don’t make it safe by forcing cyclists to dress for urban warfare' | Life and style | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels2 -
This is why I don't bike on the road. I mountain bike on trails. You can still get injured, but at least when you collide with another bike, it's more of a fair fight. I've heard so many nightmare stories of cars driving stupidly around bikes and getting people killed. I don't run next to roads, either. Along with all the creepers hooting and hollering, I've had a few close calls with distracted drivers almost hitting me.
ETA: I agree with the poster who said that helmets were like seat belts, and it feels like something is wrong when you aren't wearing one! Everybody I see is wearing them where I live.1 -
I don't wear a helmet, did it once when in NZ where it is cumpulsory - Completely put me off cycling because of the headaches. Plus I know a fair few head injury surgeons are not convinced. both for the type of injury as wel as protection - Research suggests that if a cyclist wears a helmet cars will move closer to a cyclist in normal circumstances and thus increase the danger to the cyclists.
I am of the opinion that the poblem is not the cyclists but the stupid drivers that need educating. Feel that the helmet punishes those that take the healthy route.
That said I am in the Netherlands where we have a generally very good cycling infrastrucure in many cases (though not always - where I live there are no cycling lanes in the inner city) and where a driver is always guilty in an car/cycle collission (also with pedestrians) as they have a duty of care towards the more vulnerable in traffic. Only if there is proof that the cyclist or pedestrian is wrong (skipping a red light) will they be let off the hook. That simple change in law saved more lives than any helmet ever can0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
As ever, it's not that clear cut. Personally I'm hostile to mandatory helmets, despite using one myself. I choose, and my riding behaviour is influenced accordingly.
The big bike helmet debate: 'You don’t make it safe by forcing cyclists to dress for urban warfare' | Life and style | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels
I was just about to link to that article! I particularly like
Yes, a helmet might make you safer if you get knocked off. However, it might also, even marginally, increase the chance that this happens in the first place.
and
The lessons seem clear and worrying. For one thing, no matter which outfit was worn, a small percentage of drivers still overtook dangerously near, at a distance of 50cm or less. More than this, it seemed drivers were perfectly able to distinguish between different types of rider, and to read and absorb any message displayed. But rather than adjusting their driving to the perceived experience of the cyclist, it was only when faced with a threat to their own welfare – a police rider filming their actions – that many allowed a cyclist more space on the road. Most alarming still, some seemed to treat the mild attempt at deception of “polite” as a reason to almost punish the cyclist.
We need to address the root causes of cycle fatalities, and that is that cyclists are endangered by sharing space with motorised vehicles.3 -
Where I live (Australia) helmets for both motorcyclists and cyclists - even recreational, kids etc - are required by law. This has been the case as long as I can remember and I'm 35.
There is also a new local law which means cars need to allow 1m distance when passing a cyclist. She since the introduction of this law you can see, even as a driver, other cars giving space to bikes.
2 -
I always advocate to wear a helmet, but they don't completely eliminate the risk. My FIL is a quad from a bicycle accident and my father is on disability from a TBI, both were wearing helmets.
Ride cautiously, conservatively and mentally prepare how to crash. Fortunately I've always crashed "correctly" and worse case walked out of the hospital the same day.2 -
dutchandkiwi wrote: »I am of the opinion that the poblem is not the cyclists but the stupid drivers that need educating. Feel that the helmet punishes those that take the healthy route.
It really does bother me a little bit that nobody can trust drivers, so the answer is a law saying cyclists must wear helmets. It's a bandaid.
We have a law requiring drivers to pass cyclists with three feet of space, but I've never seen or heard of it being enforced. Ever.1 -
denversillygoose wrote: »Just a friendly reminder that helmets save lives! My father-in-law wrecked his bicycle on Sunday. He was riding alone, must have hit a pothole and ate concrete. We went over the handlebars and blacked out. He doesn't remember the accident or the few hours after. His helmet was completely cracked and he has some road rash on his face, all indicating that he landed on his head. Without that helmet, he would not be with us right now. I like him. He takes us out for fabulous sushi dinners and treats me like a daughter. I want him around.
I for one, look like a total dingus in a helmet.
But my man still thinks I'm hot.
Be safe out there!
PS- The bike is okay
Had me worried there
Joke aside, I am glad he is okay. I ride motorcycles, and I remember seeing a guy doing a front flip falling head first. His helmet split into two. I don't wanna think what would happen if he didn't have any.
I always wear one cycling too.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »dutchandkiwi wrote: »I am of the opinion that the poblem is not the cyclists but the stupid drivers that need educating. Feel that the helmet punishes those that take the healthy route.
It really does bother me a little bit that nobody can trust drivers, so the answer is a law saying cyclists must wear helmets. It's a bandaid.
We have a law requiring drivers to pass cyclists with three feet of space, but I've never seen or heard of it being enforced. Ever.
It's one of those things that really bothers me as well. I feel like, in my state, nobody cares about cyclists or pedestrians. I see one news story after another of a driver seriously injuring or killing someone out of extreme negligence, and yet there is little or no punishment. I'm not a cyclist, but our society clearly sees cyclists and pedestrians as inferior and not worth protecting.
Example: Last year, not far from where I live, a cyclist was killed by a negligent driver. The driver literally just drove up behind the cyclist and continued going right through him. The excuse was that he just didn't see the cyclist. Sun was to his back, the road is flat in that area so it isn't like he came up over a hill... terrible excuse. Truth is the driver wasn't paying attention to the road in front of him. The cyclist died and after nearly 8 months, the D.A. finally decided to give the driver a traffic citation. While that is more than I've seen in other similar cases, I don't think that is good enough. Based on the reports (yes, I've been following this case closely because it really got under my skin), I can think of several traffic violations, but he was only cited for 1 of them. Additionally, he should have been charged with vehicular manslaughter. The traffic ticket was for operating too closely to a bicycle, and that is the first time I've heard of anyone actually being cited for that.
Another case even closer to where I live, happened last year - runner crossing an intersection gets hit and killed by a driver. No charges. Not even a traffic ticket. Every time I talk about these incidents with people who live nearby, they always respond in favor of the driver or a "well, you just weren't there, so you don't know..." There are police reports, driver statements, sometimes witness statements, and forensic evidence to show what happened. I didn't need to be there to realize a driver shouldn't have just continued driving through a cyclist operating on the road in front of him. I've concluded that everybody in my area sees pedestrian and cyclists lives as not worth protecting. Or at least if there is anyone who shares my minority view, I haven't met them yet.2 -
I don't think helmets should be mandatory, and there are some places I might take it off to enjoy a breeze (rails to trails trips where there are NO cars), but it's still a barrier between skull and pavement. I can't change texters, coal-rollers, dckheads, or distracted drivers, so I'll just continue to be proactive.1
-
Dang. I ride on trail and sidewalk. In a helmet.3
-
NorthCascades wrote: »dutchandkiwi wrote: »I am of the opinion that the poblem is not the cyclists but the stupid drivers that need educating. Feel that the helmet punishes those that take the healthy route.
It really does bother me a little bit that nobody can trust drivers, so the answer is a law saying cyclists must wear helmets. It's a bandaid.
We have a law requiring drivers to pass cyclists with three feet of space, but I've never seen or heard of it being enforced. Ever.
You are off on your own pet peeve, the OP accident was not caused by a car. I had two concussion worthy bike accidents in pre-helmet days and neither were caused by a car.
Helmets are a 'bandaid' needed by bikers independent of car. Also, bikers have been known to be the cause in enough bike/car smash ups.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Example: Last year, not far from where I live, a cyclist was killed by a negligent driver. The driver literally just drove up behind the cyclist and continued going right through him. The excuse was that he just didn't see the cyclist. Sun was to his back, the road is flat in that area so it isn't like he came up over a hill... terrible excuse. Truth is the driver wasn't paying attention to the road in front of him. The cyclist died and after nearly 8 months, the D.A. finally decided to give the driver a traffic citation. While that is more than I've seen in other similar cases, I don't think that is good enough. Based on the reports (yes, I've been following this case closely because it really got under my skin), I can think of several traffic violations, but he was only cited for 1 of them. Additionally, he should have been charged with vehicular manslaughter. The traffic ticket was for operating too closely to a bicycle, and that is the first time I've heard of anyone actually being cited for that.
If the driver didn't see the cyclist directly in front of his (or her?) car, that person is not competent to drive a car, and their incompetence has already cost another person their life. That driver should never be allowed behind the wheel again. But, it sounds like this person is free to maim and kill again.
And the law says that I must wear a helmet because this person is allowed to kill with impunity.
It sure sounds like a helmet made no difference to the cyclist, who took 8 months to die.
Sad beyond words.
0 -
The only thing worse than not wearing one is when peopleNorthCascades wrote: »dutchandkiwi wrote: »I am of the opinion that the poblem is not the cyclists but the stupid drivers that need educating. Feel that the helmet punishes those that take the healthy route.
It really does bother me a little bit that nobody can trust drivers, so the answer is a law saying cyclists must wear helmets. It's a bandaid.
We have a law requiring drivers to pass cyclists with three feet of space, but I've never seen or heard of it being enforced. Ever.
You are off on your own pet peeve, the OP accident was not caused by a car. I had two concussion worthy bike accidents in pre-helmet days and neither were caused by a car.
Helmets are a 'bandaid' needed by bikers independent of car. Also, bikers have been known to be the cause in enough bike/car smash ups.
You are correct sir. No car involved. My guess is that maybe the cause was a distracted cyclist, if you know what I mean (checking that strava info.?.). Sht happens no matter what.3 -
tcatcarson wrote: »Remember, a much more common cause of head injuries is simply falling, and we (and children!) are far more likely to receive a head injury INSIDE a car than out of it.
So the message is clear - if you value wearing a helmet on your bike, you should be wearing a helmet everywhere!
In large part because people don't use proper child restraints in the car. Rear facing to 2, harnessed until they can sit still in a booster (at least 5) and booster until they pass the 5 step test (between 9-13). I am a child passenger safety technician, and car accidents and drownings are the leading causes of death in children.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Reading this entire thread, I get the idea that wearing helmets isn't what we really need here. Instead, we need cars to stop hitting us.
It is probably a good idea to have a helmet on. A lot of unforeseen things could happen even trail riding. Flat tire, stick in the spokes, deer, or other animal jumping out. Accidents happen.
3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Example: Last year, not far from where I live, a cyclist was killed by a negligent driver. The driver literally just drove up behind the cyclist and continued going right through him. The excuse was that he just didn't see the cyclist. Sun was to his back, the road is flat in that area so it isn't like he came up over a hill... terrible excuse. Truth is the driver wasn't paying attention to the road in front of him. The cyclist died and after nearly 8 months, the D.A. finally decided to give the driver a traffic citation. While that is more than I've seen in other similar cases, I don't think that is good enough. Based on the reports (yes, I've been following this case closely because it really got under my skin), I can think of several traffic violations, but he was only cited for 1 of them. Additionally, he should have been charged with vehicular manslaughter. The traffic ticket was for operating too closely to a bicycle, and that is the first time I've heard of anyone actually being cited for that.
If the driver didn't see the cyclist directly in front of his (or her?) car, that person is not competent to drive a car, and their incompetence has already cost another person their life. That driver should never be allowed behind the wheel again. But, it sounds like this person is free to maim and kill again.
And the law says that I must wear a helmet because this person is allowed to kill with impunity.
It sure sounds like a helmet made no difference to the cyclist, who took 8 months to die.
Sad beyond words.
The cyclist died at the scene, and was wearing a helmet. It took 8 months to issue a traffic citation for the incident.
ETA: My point is that this is just one of many examples where the driver was clearly in the wrong and a cyclist died as a result. Yet the response from the community, law enforcement, and the D.A. has been apathetic. If they won't even charge the driver as strictly as the law allows, and if they wait so long before doing so (for no clear reason), then the message to drivers is that it is acceptable to be incredibly negligent as long as it is only a cyclist or pedestrian that dies as a result... that viewpoint really bothers me.1 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Reading this entire thread, I get the idea that wearing helmets isn't what we really need here. Instead, we need cars to stop hitting us.
It is probably a good idea to have a helmet on. A lot of unforeseen things could happen even trail riding. Flat tire, stick in the spokes, deer, or other animal jumping out. Accidents happen.
It's a two way thing. Yes, if you are in an accident, a helmet is likely to protect you. However, wearing a helmet may make you more likely to be in an accident.0 -
Equestrian here. Every. Single. Ride.9
-
tiny_clanger wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Reading this entire thread, I get the idea that wearing helmets isn't what we really need here. Instead, we need cars to stop hitting us.
It is probably a good idea to have a helmet on. A lot of unforeseen things could happen even trail riding. Flat tire, stick in the spokes, deer, or other animal jumping out. Accidents happen.
It's a two way thing. Yes, if you are in an accident, a helmet is likely to protect you. However, wearing a helmet may make you more likely to be in an accident.
Perhaps you can elaborate?
My helmets don't interfere with my visibility or hearing, and they improve my visibility1 -
tiny_clanger wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Reading this entire thread, I get the idea that wearing helmets isn't what we really need here. Instead, we need cars to stop hitting us.
It is probably a good idea to have a helmet on. A lot of unforeseen things could happen even trail riding. Flat tire, stick in the spokes, deer, or other animal jumping out. Accidents happen.
It's a two way thing. Yes, if you are in an accident, a helmet is likely to protect you. However, wearing a helmet may make you more likely to be in an accident.
Just curious tiny_clanger, how does it make you more likely to be in an accident wearing a helmet? I am not trying to be a jerk about this, I would really like to be educated about your reasoning for this. I realize that there may be a vision issue with certain types of helmets, but the design of them has greatly improved over the years so vision is better with a proper fitting helmet.
I have read that helmet use reduces the chance of head injury by 50%
2 -
tiny_clanger wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Reading this entire thread, I get the idea that wearing helmets isn't what we really need here. Instead, we need cars to stop hitting us.
It is probably a good idea to have a helmet on. A lot of unforeseen things could happen even trail riding. Flat tire, stick in the spokes, deer, or other animal jumping out. Accidents happen.
It's a two way thing. Yes, if you are in an accident, a helmet is likely to protect you. However, wearing a helmet may make you more likely to be in an accident.
Yep true.
You get treated differently when you dress "like a pro cyclist" - somehow it dehumanises you. I'm noticing less interaction recently as I've just upgraded to a helmet with visor. Less face on view so therefore I'm a cyclist not a person - upside is less children getting scared and having nightmares of course....
And also people in general when they feel safer take more risks.
A bit like when Volvo started really pushing how safe their cars were - it became folklore in the motorcyclist community to watch out for them as if you don't fear an accident you simply don't do as much to avoid one.
If you really wanted people to drive more carefully then a spike in the centre of the steering wheel would be more effective than an airbag.
On the cyclist and motorcyclist side people who have accidents wearing a helmet tend to get less head injuries but the speeds they have accidents at is often higher than those that ride without one.2 -
The drivers where I live are often downright hostile towards bicyclists, and when they do get in an accident they make excuses. You should've heard the excuses I heard someone use after she almost hit a bicyclist who was IN A BIKE LANE, all because she didn't do a simple check over her shoulder.0
-
I'm one of those who has a cracked helmet sitting in a place of honor for saving my skull. It was a freak accident (what looked like a patch of dirt on a bike trail, was mud underneath. I fishtailed.) I trashed my left shoulder and got a nice ambulance ride. My average speed on my Garmin was outstanding for that ride!
The EMTs thought I was nuts when I kept asking if the bike was ok. Then they all froze when I asked them to get my phone from my jersey pocket and they couldn't figure out where it was.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Reading this entire thread, I get the idea that wearing helmets isn't what we really need here. Instead, we need cars to stop hitting us.3rdof7sisters wrote: »It is probably a good idea to have a helmet on. A lot of unforeseen things could happen even trail riding. Flat tire, stick in the spokes, deer, or other animal jumping out. Accidents happen.
I've never in my life told anybody not to wear a helmet. I agree completely that life is full of surprises.
As a cyclist who rides thousands of miles per year, I know that putting a helmet on is not a complete and fullproof solution to bicycle safety. For example, this thread is aboutdenversillygoose wrote: »You are correct sir. No car involved. My guess is that maybe the cause was a distracted cyclist, if you know what I mean (checking that strava info.?.). Sht happens no matter what.
It's stupid and illegal to text or look stuff up on your phone while you drive, and most of us have airbags in our cars but not on our bikes. Distracted cycling is just as dangerous as distracted driving, the difference is that it's mostly a danger to the cyclist and not to everyone else.
Crashing without a helmet sucks. Crashing with a helmet sucks, too. It would have been even better to avoid the crash in the first place.
And they're not mutually exclusive. You don't have to stop wearing a helmet just because you're paying attention or riding on low traffic roads (or trails). Saying that we need better laws and attitudes to protect cyclists from cars isn't an attack on helmets.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions