Well, it finally happened.......

[JackFlorey]

The folks who wished to invalidate the original research were willing to play fast and loose with the data to get the results they wanted. Sort of like you're doing.

Gotta go with the guy who actually survived due to a helmet than an Internet guy with an opinion.

One actual outcome trumps a thousand Internet opinions.

 

[larsb]

Glad it annoyed you, you paid attention. I'm not sure I said I was smart. But I explained how I handle this particular situation that has happened to me plenty of times, on bikes, cars, mopeds, trucks. People drive like shit for sure and you better be ready, and experience will teach. Several of my dead friends taught me how not to get killed in particular ways. Their bad experience sure taught me not to do certain things.

But he could ride a strategy in the future, that minimizes the chances of that happening again. A starting point is knowing that bikes look slow to cars, but e bikes are not slow. So they turn in front of you all day. Figure out your method for dealing with this. It will happen again.

I stopped riding motorcycles for 30 years, because I definitely was riding stupid. But some things that happened to me then, I look for, anticipate its going to happen again, and I don't be there when the car is there. I just had that extra half second and went someplace else. Sometimes someplace else is not so great, two years ago a car on the wrong side of the road ran me into the ditch, and I broke a bone in my ankle. But I was not on that cars hood. Lotta riders would have been.

And yeah, he ran me off the road and kept on driving.

Don't be such an asshole. Sure looks like you said your dead friends were dumb and you smart here:

You can be glad it annoyed me, doesn't change the dead people being dead, many in situations that they could not affect. your ditch experience might as well have been a ditch with a tree in it and you wrapped around it. Stupid people, right?

 

[dogman dan]

Yes, pure luck no tree or boulder in that ditch.

 

[Chalo]

The folks who wished to invalidate the original research were willing to play fast and loose with the data to get the results they wanted. Sort of like you're doing.

Gotta go with the guy who actually survived due to a helmet than an Internet guy with an opinion.

One actual outcome trumps a thousand Internet opinions.

Riders who don't get hit, don't have "my helment saved my life!" stories. But not getting hit is still an outcome.

Again I'll point out that cyclist mortality rates haven't dropped with the broad adoption of helmets. What's your explanation for that?

 

[2old]

Glad to hear you survived without a life-altering injury. Every time I read something like this it increases my resolve to stay off road for my two wheel adventures. The fact my wife has a similar demeanor helps. The upside and downside favor avoidance.

 

[pullin-gs]

<snip>
Nobody has done original research that contradicts Walker's measurements. There are just some people who want to believe his measurements are incorrect, even though they are measurements and not opinions.

That is simply not true.....suggest doing a little digging on your own before falling "hook-line-sinker" of what someone else says as truth.
FYI measurements are just data and is neither correct or incorrect. I learned this in grade school.
The study is where findings are presented of the interpreted data.
Again, science (vs Walker's determinations which used non-statistically-significant observations) was applied to Walker's actual data and proved his thesis incorrect.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/
and another...
https://helmets.org/walkerchartsrev2b.pdf
and another debunking his methods.
http://outthereliving.com/Ian_Walker_move_over_pls.pdf

 

[JackFlorey]

Again I'll point out that cyclist mortality rates haven't dropped with the broad adoption of helmets. What's your explanation for that?

Bill Booth's theory of risk homeostasis. People choose the amount of risk that they want to take, and factor in safety devices. It's happened at least twice in skydiving, after the advent of the AAD and after the advent of the Skyhook.

The key in both cases is to skydive as if you don't have the safety device. If you can do that (i.e. train and make decisions as if you don't have the additional backup) you are safer than you were before once you add the new device. Same with helmets. If you learn to ride without one, and make decisions as if you don't have one - AND then use one - you are much safer overall.

 

[E-HP]

Again I'll point out that cyclist mortality rates haven't dropped with the broad adoption of helmets. What's your explanation for that?

Bill Booth's theory of risk homeostasis. People choose the amount of risk that they want to take, and factor in safety devices. It's happened at least twice in skydiving, after the advent of the AAD and after the advent of the Skyhook.

The key in both cases is to skydive as if you don't have the safety device. If you can do that (i.e. train and make decisions as if you don't have the additional backup) you are safer than you were before once you add the new device. Same with helmets. If you learn to ride without one, and make decisions as if you don't have one - AND then use one - you are much safer overall.

I used to love to ride my motorcycles (occasionally) without my helmet before helmet laws. I have 3 really banged up/destroyed helmets from after the laws. I'm not sure I was safer, but I was more protected when they were needed and made a difference (otherwise I'd only have 1 destroyed helmet, and not be writing about it).
I also had one destroyed bike helmet, which protected my head when it hit the railroad track that I was jumping over and caught my back wheel. I wasn't being safe, but I was protected.

 

[HK12K]

I have no dog in this fight, but I will say that most cycling helmets are little more than a styrofoam cup loosely attached to ones head. It seems that paying attention to the actual design of the helmet and it's performance during impact (such as mips and the like) is a somewhat recent advent.

Not that I'm suggesting such should be the case, but if every cyclist had been forced to wear an actual full face DOT approved motorcycle helmet, perhaps those mortality rates would have told a different tale.

 

[Manbeer]

Since this has become another helmet thread i will preface it by saying I am glad that the OP made it out with a lot less damage than what could have happened. While it sucks and its terrible, it could definitely been life altering or ending. Thats something we all need to keep in mind and it is far to easy to become complacent when everything goes uneventfully for a while

Anyway, the only helmet manufacturer I know of that specifically designs helmets for impacts with cars is POC. afaik, they work with Volvo to simulate safety in a variety of situations that other helmets may have little luck surviving. they are not cheap, but if one is to do it, may as well do it right

 

[Chalo]

I have no dog in this fight, but I will say that most cycling helmets are little more than a styrofoam cup loosely attached to ones head. It seems that paying attention to the actual design of the helmet and it's performance during impact (such as mips and the like) is a somewhat recent advent.

Not that I'm suggesting such should be the case, but if every cyclist had been forced to wear an actual full face DOT approved motorcycle helmet, perhaps those mortality rates would have told a different tale.

I think accident rates would have skyrocketed while ridership rates plummeted. If you want to cross paths destructively with a motor vehicle, impairing your hearing and vision is a great place to start.

Bicycle helmets are certified to the same level of impact protection as motorcycle helmets, meaning they are designed to render a 14mph impact non-lethal. That's the equivalent of dropping your head from 6 feet to the ground without any resistance. They're allowed to have more impact protection, but the certification (Snell, ANSI, USDOT etc.) is only for the equivalent of a six foot fall.

Motorcycle helmets are tested for successive impacts, while bicycle helmets are only tested for one. Motorcycle helmets are tested for abrasion and foreign object penetration, but bicycle helmets aren't. So their overall protection is different, but their single impact protection is about the same.

 

[DogDipstick]

Thank God you are ok. It is the only thing that scares me, is those 2800-22,000 lb beasts I share the road with. That. I enjoy your input nad have appreciated the input over the years of posts. Thank God for helmet scientists and the research that has helped and saved people time and time again.

Do not play with a real head injury.

I am getting a mirror just cause I know I want one every now and then and do not have one. Maybe one of those "Helmet Mounted Mirrors", for I want to keep bar real estate at a premium. I raced an old boss today in a F350 stakebody, roll on 5-40mph, I wrecked him... but the truck blasting past me as soon as I topped out..... was kinda loud with those 7.3L tubos at full spool. Lol.

It was loud even through my Smith, bluetooth, Snowboarding and Ski, high speed sports, helmet, with its (warm in the winter) removable ear muffs (comfy) and its lighweight ( honeycomb) shell. . Blasted me with stones from the big tires. Even with that hat.....

I know its no Shoei, Icon, or AGV. I have been thinking about Skydive helmets and Mountain climbing helmets for the lightweight protection I require, with no expensive DOT, or SNELL, or whatever, sticker, on the hat.

Still, I know the snowboarding hat i wear every day is not a hard shell Shoei happyland safespace Iluv andwannaretirein .

Goddamn. Its only a matter of time, the longer you ride (age), the more you ride on (size of bike), and the more speed at which it rides at ( a unit called velocity). Goddamn. I have learned you can go really really fast on 3-4 inch tires... No place for bicycle gear. People put me in daily bad situations if I ask for it.. and iknow how to stay far away f4rom the path most travelled, but this is a great nightmare of mine.

I am so happy you are OK Let me know if you need anything to rebuild I might have it.

 

[TDB]

Unfortunately, the ignore feature does not include quoted text. It is hard to avoid the mouth breathing troll derailing threads.

I hear there's a migration to xenforo platform. Sooner the better. Ignore works as it should.

pullin-gs, glad you are okay. :thumb:

 

[HK12K]

[
I think accident rates would have skyrocketed while ridership rates plummeted. If you want to cross paths destructively with a motor vehicle, impairing your hearing and vision is a great place to start.

Agreed.

 

[MadRhino]

There is only one sure way to save your head: don’t crash on your head. That is because the chances are high that someday, a helmet won’t suffice.

Those who do crash on their head should avoid riding, or at least do it only in the safest situations. It is a natural propensity that is almost impossible to reverse. Teaching horse riders, we see that all the time. Some are crashing on their head and some aren’t. Very few can be trained not to, no matter how much you try. The best we can do is to limit the risky situations for them ‘head prone’ riders, but we know that sooner or later they will do it again.

 

[E-HP]

Bicycle helmets are certified to the same level of impact protection as motorcycle helmets, meaning they are designed to render a 14mph impact non-lethal. That's the equivalent of dropping your head from 6 feet to the ground without any resistance. They're allowed to have more impact protection, but the certification (Snell, ANSI, USDOT etc.) is only for the equivalent of a six foot fall.

Motorcycle helmets are tested for successive impacts, while bicycle helmets are only tested for one. Motorcycle helmets are tested for abrasion and foreign object penetration, but bicycle helmets aren't. So their overall protection is different, but their single impact protection is about the same.

This is accurate information. Basically the helmets are designed for the speeds and types of accidents you would likely encounter at those speeds. For push scooters, roller blades, bicycles, etc. speeds, the protection that saves your life will likely only require it to withstand that initial impact of your head hitting the pavement or other stationary object. After that, you're generally just sustaining scrapes and bruises on your body until you come to a halt.

At motorcycle speeds, your crash may likely result in multiple impacts to the head/helmet, and dragging, scraping, sliding along the ground or other objects. For instance, you come around a corner, accelerating past 70mph, and sustain an impact. As the deer explodes into a pink mist, you hit the pavement with the initial impact, but then as you roll the next 100 yards or so, your helmet will hit the pavement multiple times, dragging at times enough to grind flat spots in it, but ultimately, if you don't extend your arms or legs so they get snapped in two while you are rolling, you can eventually come to a stop and maybe even walk away from it. They offer infinitely more protection, but with the trade off of reduced visibility and hearing.

I use a bicycle helmet, when riding my ebike, and try not to travel much faster than bicycle speeds, unless the conditions are ideal, which allows the additional visibility and hearing required, when you're operating a more vulnerable vehicle.

 

[HK12K]

My initial point was that the helmet laws have been in effect far longer than bicycle helmets have been worth a damn. Look back 10-20 years at what passed for a bike helmet. Garbage, all considered.

Also take into consideration user error. If you're forced to wear one but don't bother strapping it on properly the chances of it actually doing it's job are dramatically reduced.

I vote for freedom, personally. It's your head, do what you want with it.

 

[E-HP]

I vote for freedom, personally. It's your head, do what you want with it.

I agree with this for adults. I'm on the fence about minors, since the decision depends a lot on their parents. That said, I miraculously survived childhood.

 

[HK12K]

On the fence as well. I hate the idea of criminalizing children, or their parents, over issues that are frankly none of the government's business. Especially in America, where you're on the hook for your own healthcare. Doesn't sit right with me.

I survived childhood as well, bouncing baby boy and all that. That said the world would probably be a better place if we stopped trying to Nerf it and just let Natural Selection do it's one job.

 

[TDB]

I vote for freedom, personally. It's your head, do what you want with it.

Your choices can have much broader implications.

Should others have to pay for your freedom when you make insurance, disability or welfare claims?

 

[HK12K]

If that's the governmental healthcare structure they chose, then yeah, that's how it works. Though I do understand your point, where exactly does it end? Mandate PPE, ban soda, alcohol, etc? Slippery slope.

 

[TDB]

If that's the governmental healthcare structure they chose, then yeah, that's how it works. Though I do understand your point, where exactly does it end? Mandate PPE, ban soda, alcohol, etc? Slippery slope.

Money doesn't grow on trees. Whether it is government or private I pay one way or another and have the right and expectation those "funds" to be managed responsibly and that includes managing/limiting my liability/responsibility for your bad choices.

 

[Chalo]

Again I'll point out that cyclist mortality rates haven't dropped with the broad adoption of helmets. What's your explanation for that?

Bill Booth's theory of risk homeostasis. People choose the amount of risk that they want to take, and factor in safety devices. It's happened at least twice in skydiving, after the advent of the AAD and after the advent of the Skyhook.

The key in both cases is to skydive as if you don't have the safety device. If you can do that (i.e. train and make decisions as if you don't have the additional backup) you are safer than you were before once you add the new device. Same with helmets. If you learn to ride without one, and make decisions as if you don't have one - AND then use one - you are much safer overall.

You can consciously decide to ride with a helmet, just as carefully as if you weren't wearing one. But you can't make car drivers around you drive as carefully as if you weren't wearing one. Risk compensation (the term I have become accustomed to) is everywhere and can't be offset by any one person's actions when other people are present. When the risk is car drivers, much (maybe most) of the risk compensation is out of your hands.

Wearing PPE for something that really isn't very dangerous can make it seem dangerous, and may have the opposite of the intended effect by causing others to treat you with disregard (because you're knowingly doing something that obviously must be dangerous).

 

[Chalo]

If that's the governmental healthcare structure they chose, then yeah, that's how it works. Though I do understand your point, where exactly does it end? Mandate PPE, ban soda, alcohol, etc? Slippery slope.

Money doesn't grow on trees. Whether it is government or private I pay one way or another and have the right and expectation those "funds" to be managed responsibly and that includes managing/limiting my liability/responsibility for your bad choices.

Now you're talking actuarial stuff. As I already pointed out, bicycle helmets don't reduce risk of serious injury or death in whole populations. The numbers are consistent on this point. So there's no added cost to the taxpayer or insurance ratepayer when people don't wear them.

People who wear bicycle helmets are less likely to be hurt or killed when they hit their heads, but more likely to hit their heads. It's a wash, actuarially speaking.

 

[E-HP]

I vote for freedom, personally. It's your head, do what you want with it.

Your choices can have much broader implications.

Should others have to pay for your freedom when you make insurance, disability or welfare claims?

In America, we recently observed Memorial Day. Another way to look at it, is that many brave men and women fought and died for the freedoms we enjoy, including the free speech.

By placing a dollar amount on that freedom, and allowing it to be taken away, is effectively saying that the cost of insurance, disability or welfare claims is of greater value than those lives. Of course, you have the freedom to state that opinion, because of those men and women died in order for you to express it as well.