Cycle Helmets and Other Religious Symbols
Here in Denmark there are currently two debates going on relating to headwear. One is the muslim headscarf and the other is the bicycle helmet. The similarities between the two debates are striking and not a little unsettling. Not least because Denmark is experiencing an unfortuanate wave of helmet promotion that is putting our wonderful, advanced bike culture at risk.
The headscarf, like other religious symbols such as the christian cross or the jewish kippah, is worn because of one's faith and beliefs. The individual wears such symbols in subservience to their god and in the sub-conscious hope and belief that this symbol will somehow protect them from evil, danger or what have you.
The bicycle helmet is also worn because of a belief that this polystyrene shell will protect the wearer from percieved inherant dangers involved in cycling, including serious head injury or even death.
Bumper sticker from International Safety Union for Cyclists
As an atheist – which is really just a silly word for those of us who prefer humanism over monotheism – I'm not a big fan of religious symbols or subservience. I am, however, a big fan of science, although I am not a scientist. I merely choose to seek answers in scientific research.
Science and god will never go for a bike ride together. They are two opposite poles in the human mind. God remains a belief, stronger in some than in others. It is quite the same for bicycle helmets. Science tells us what we need to know about them, and yet people insist on sticking to their beliefs that they are wearing a polystyrene, all-powerful halo that wards off all traffic evils and will ensure a long, healthy life.
To be honest, when I walk down the street or ride by bike through town I don't notice what religious symbols my fellow citizens are wearing, whether headscarves, burkhas or a cross on a chain. My life is too short to notice. They're just fellow citizens who are an integral part of my society. The same can be said of the occasional cyclist who rides past wearing a helmet. Just a regular girl going to work or the supermarket or a nightclub. A girl who falls in love, laughs and cries, pays her taxes. All the things homo sapiens do.
These regular people are harmless and they are important cogs in the societal wheel. They don't preach their respective beliefs to others. They just do what they want to do of their own free will.
Things become rapidly different when we look at fundamentalists. Regardless of religious leaning or the name of their god. The loud, vocal and arrogant mobs who want us all to be just like them and who look down at others for not having 'seen the light'. Sad, intolerant, individuals strengthed by the volatile shoutings of clerics.
Unfortunately, the bicycling world has its own fundamentalists in the form of bicycle helmet advocates. They are loud and intolerant and they reject science with the same fervour as they embrace their beliefs.
Sticker from International Safety Union for Cyclists. A spoof site, but great all the same.
NAGGING AND BULLYING
What started this train of thought was a recent email from a Copenhagenize reader in America who lamented the fact that he experiences nagging and bullying from other members of his bike club because he refrains from wearing the symbol of their beliefs – the bicycle helmet. I've recieved many other emails in this vein.
On occasion I ride with the local cycling club (of which I'm a dues paying member) to enjoy a long ride on rural roads and some vigorous exercise not afforded by my daily errands. I have never been able to enjoy a ride without at least two people nagging or trying to bully me into wear a helmet. Sometimes shadowy "club rules" are cited, but I've found no mention of helmets in my membership application and the application contains a liability waiver in case of accident. Even if bicycle helmets were effective at preventing serious injury the behavior I encounter would be considered rude by decent people. And in fact the behavior of the other club members is polite in every other regard.
The extra insult is the rudeness is accompanied by the presumption that I am an inexperienced and ignorant cyclist who just doesn't know better. I am new to this area, but I've worked in the bicycle industry for several years and I support my family with a bicycle business that I own.
I am aware of The Helmet Wars in other countries. BikeSnobNYC attended an event in NYC in which Jan Gehl, the legendary urban planner, was speaking about Copenhagen:
Trillin was followed by Jan Gehl, the Danish architect, who described how over the past 30 years Copenhagen has been transformed into a pedestrian paradise thanks largely to bicycle-friendly city planning. Gehl was charming, despite an inordinate number of lascivious asides about how much easier it is to gawk at women while riding a bicycle. (Then again, he does live in Copenhagen). The crowd ooh-ed and ahh-ed every time Gehl displayed another slide of a happy person biking in a pristine bike lane, or every time he cited a statistic showing how many people in Copenhagen ride to work. In fact, the only time they stopped sighing longingly was when Gehl off-handedly mentioned that because Copenhagen has no helmet laws people don't need to bother wearing them. Suddenly the audience was silent and you could hear people shifting in their seats uncomfortably. Apparently even the most progressive Americans are not ready to accept the concepts of freedom of choice or personal responsibility.
I've often wondered how I would react if someone mumbled ”where's your helmet” to me on the bike lanes of my beloved Copenhagen. I may be tempted to harbour thoughts of smacking them one, but that would be frightfully un-European. It isn't necessary to be aggressive because I know that the average Copenhagener just isn't aware of the facts. It just isn't cricket to smack the uninformed.
A BIKE CULTURE UNDER FIRE
As mentioned at the beginning we are experiencing a spate of helmet promotion and we've never really had any helmet debate before, so it is understandable that the average Dane hasn't been presented with the facts. The only time we had some helmet promotion was back in the early 1990's and the number of cyclists fell sharply and drastically as a result.
I had hoped that we had learned from that regrettable mistake but then came a poster campaign from the Danish Cyclists' Union and the Danish Traffic Safety Board.
Fortunately, Denmark is, by and large, a rather secular nation. Only 7% of the population in Copenhagen go to church and the national level is 20% - most of the churchgoers live in rural areas and the church is more of a social club for the local area. Danes have a reputation for prefering to engage themselves in social activities and also for being well-informed and well-educated about their society and the world at large.
I am putting my money on this fact with regards to the bike helmet debate here. Because there has been a lack of information available to the public, Marie and I started a website called Cykelhjelm.org – in order to allow our fellow citizens to form their own opinions instead of merely being fed a handful of vague, but carefully selected stats from the public organisations seeking to create a doctrine on which the faithful can plant their new faith.
I know the vast majority of my fellow citizens will tackle the subject wisely. However, there are fundamentalists showing up on the radar. Facebook groups that preach the catch phrases they have memorized from the promotion campaign.
”It is common sense to wear a helmet!”
Common sense, in a modern society, is embracing the facts and learning about all aspects of the subject before forming an opinion.
”Strap on your helmet and avoid brain injury!”
The ability of bike helmets to protect against brain injury is questionable at best.
And so on. You know the drill. Emotional outbursts that brush science aside.
The organisations that were promoting bike helmets – Danish Cyclists' Union and The Danish Traffic Safety Board, among others - presented the public with one or two studies that 'prove' bike helmets save lives. Considering that fact that there are scores of scientific studies on the subject, choosing one, convienient study to base your claims upon is not that intelligent. Kind of like quoting 'thou shall not kill' from the bible, when the rest of the book is a cover to cover bloodbath. Such is the anatomy of propaganda.
The point of all this is that the vibrant and exciting Danish bike culture is under fire. It recovered from the destructive helmet promotion back in the early 1990's, coming back stronger than ever. Now our bike culture faces it's greatest challenge since the advent of the automobile age. Fear-mongering disguised as helmet promotion.
Safety in Numbers - respectable stats stand to fall
I am fearful that this fear-mongering helmet promotion will infest our bike culture. We already have the world's best cycling safety statistics, second only to the Netherlands, thanks to our separated bike infrastructure. A drop in cyclists, however, affects the Safety in Numbers concept, not to mention leads to increased illness due to lack of exercise. Branding a safe activity like cycling as dangerous, in a country that has enjoyed a century-long love affair with transport cycling, is going to send people into car showrooms in a flash.
More cyclists, fewer serious injuries. We used to be proud of these stats.
It's times like these that I look admiringly to our friends in the Netherlands. The official helmet wearing statistic is 0% and 5% for children. The best safety stats on the planet. Here in Denmark we are at 11% nationally. For every percentage point that rises, the number of cyclists falls. I love bike culture too much to just stand by and let that happen.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a bike culture to defend.
Links:
Saints:
Cykelhjelm.org - In Danish.
The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation
Sinners:
The Danish Traffic Safety Board [Rådet for Større Trafiksikkerhed] In Danish.
Danish Cyclists' Union. In Danish.
International Safety Union for Cyclists
Fakta om cykelhjelm
Fakta om sykkelhjelm
Fakta om cykelhjälm
65 comments:
In St Louis, our cycling advocates preach helmet use and support VC, thus the political rights of cyclists and road respect are virtually nonexistent.
Advocacy organizations spend much needed funds on bike trails to nowhere as most cyclists are seen as recreational riders and not commuters... and so goes the bike culture.
Jack
What odd bed fellows; helmet advocates and those Vehicular Cycling people.
Malplaced money is always a problem. Spending money on helmet campaigns could be put into better infrastructure. Instead, the money spent on campaigns will reduce the number of cyclists and health costs will rise due to fewer people getting much needed exercise.
The anti-evangelistic theme was rather humerous in light of your traditional closing remarks, "Copenhagenize the planet".
I like irony. Thanks for pointing it out. Although I don't sneer at cities that don't have bike lanes or at people who don't ride a bike.
So true. It's one thing to be an advocate and try to gently persuade, and another thing to sneer. My apologies for misspelling "humorous".
The thing that worries me about the helmet debate is that the playing field is not level: helmet manufacturers have a lot of money to put behind helmet campaigns, and there is, of course, a lot of money to be made if the government requires people to buy their products.
So its very important for helmet skeptics (I'm not really sure what the right term is) to get out there early and keep the camel's nose out of the tent.
indeed. The helmet manufacturers are especially looking to the EU's 500 million citizens - 100 million of them are daily cyclists - and are itching to sell helmets.
The big companies are silent about concrete scientific studies. They prefer to, as you say, finance lobby groups who can say what they please.
It's a brilliant system for profit and a horrible one for science and personal freedom.
should be just a personal choice like it is here. I live in a small town so I don`t use helmet, but in Buenos Aires (Argentine capitol) you need more than a simple helmet, maybe a motorbike helmet and a gun (to kill some taxi drivers) ja ja. I think that in Cities like your, you don`t need it because you have a strong bycicling culture and cardrivers respect a bike passing by.
If I lived in Copenhagen I wouldn't wear a helmet either. The appropriate infrastructure exists to make it reasonable to ride without one. However living in Seattle WA with some of the absolute worst drivers I have ever witnessed, and living previously in Chicago IL where motorists are routinely aggressive toward bicycle riders, my helmet is mostly worn as a symbol of my distrust of humans while they are piloting automobiles. I don't harbor any false beliefs that the helmet emits some force-field that protects me from harm. When you are in a warzone, you wear armor.
I came here to post exactly what Steven said. Sure, if I lived in a place with fantastic bicycle infrastructure- I might not bother to wear a helmet. But I don't. I live in the US. Ever seen the sticker, "I wear a helmet so that you can drive like an idiot"?
Also, while I would concur that bicycle helmet promotion can kill bike culture (which I don't want)-- I also feel uncomfortable that the "anti-helmet religion" if you will, is also guilty of making ME feel uncomfortable when I wear a helmet (akin to the opposite situation of making the non-helmet-wearer uncomfortable). When my head has smacked the asphalt, I was pretty glad that it was the helmet cracking, not me-- which did a good job of convincing me that my helmet worked in certain situations. So are you going to "bully" ME into NOT wearing a helmet? I fear that the "religion" can go both ways.
And I'm one of those "middle ground" people. ;)
Want to wear one? Go ahead. Don't want to wear one? Sure, fine. Just don't bully or make laws either way. Instead, put unbiased information out there for people to make the decision on their own.
Another rider in the US here, and I agree with Steven and RJ. I wear a helmet but I am certainly not under the illusion that it's "a polystyrene, all-powerful halo that wards off all traffic evils and will ensure a long, healthy life." In fact, I don't know anyone who believes this. I do, however, believe that wearing one is better than nothing.
Please stop with the sweeping generalizations.
Here in BC, Canada you can incur a large fine for not wearing a helmet while cycling, or motorcycling. That said, though, I don't know how heavily this law is enforced with "pedal" cyclists. In my own community I see as made helmeted riders as not.
Wearing a helmet is probably not necessary on our rural roads. But, we also have a lot of trails which are, in some places, more like single track mountain bike trails, and a helmet does help in a collision with a tree. My daughter found this out on one trip, hitting a tree root the wrong way and sailing over her handlebars to smash her head against a tree. She was not "mountain biking", she was using the trail which was created alongside the main road for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders. Much more pleasant to be on, until you hit a tree root.
What we should be doing is creating bike friendly cultures, instead of forcing people to wear helmets. Wear a helmet if and when you choose. No bullying, no propaganda.
I agree with the article and most of the following comments. There are times and places where a helmet really isn't needed. If you are cruising around safe areas, quiet streets, MUPs, and places with good infrastructure what is the point. But if you are driving in a busy US city with terrible drivers, no bikes lanes, etc you might want to consider a helmet. Either way it should always be a choice.
I'm wondering if you've seen this, at Dave Moulton's blog (US). He polled 700+ people via his blog, and in spite of the attitude that seems very prevalent among bikers in the US that it is their duty to admonish the helmetless, this group believes in choice. http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/helmet-poll-result.html
Aside from the debate about the effectiveness of helmets, I wonder if cycling is basically more dangerous in the U.S. than in places such as Copenhagen and The Netherlands. We are a very car obsessed culture and cyclists get very little regard.
That may not apply to all cities in the U.S. but I think it applies to most of them.
As an person who rides a bike to work everyday I can see both sides of the issue. But as a doctor who works in the emergency room, I lean towards wearing a helmet. I have worked on too many people who enter the hospital after an accident on a bicycle (some with cars, some on their own) and have severe head trauma. Now I know that not all of these people would be saved by a helmet, but I also treat many bicycle riders who come to the hospital after an accident who were wearing helmets and they often are still wearing their shattered helmets, strapped to a back board, with a broken bone and/or bad road trash on their face or elsewhere...with no head injury (or a minor concussion maybe).
So what you say? It's their choice? I agree, it is their choice to wear a helmet. But when my hospital is emptied of critical resources (doctors, equipment, money) because we have to treat a vegetable who chose not to wear a helmet, I feel bad for somebody who comes to the hospital for another life threatening problem and has to deal with diminished services. Hospitals don't have infinite capability, they don't have infinite money, and many people end up paying for these bicyclists either through taxes or higher insurance rates. A society PAYS for these head injuries one way or another, so don't try to pretend that it's purely an individual choice. Perhaps if you choose to not wear a helmet you should also have a note that says, 'don't spend any excess resources on me because I don't want others to pay for my decision to not wear a helmet.'
So go ahead and don't wear your helmet, but when it comes time to treat you for a major head trauma, please don't complain if we put you at the back of the line...it was your choice to go there.
ps - I love your website, your push for slow cycling in the clothes you wear to work and I'm very envious of the wonderful city you live in with it's fantastic bicycle friendly infrastructure.
And agree with many other posters that perhaps helmets aren't as needed there as they are in other places. But do you choose to wear a seat belt?? I see the decision as very parallel. They do prevent injuries, they reduce health care costs for society and they're really not that big of a deal.
Thanks for the great website(s)!
The amount of people getting in cycling accidents pales in comparison to the amount of people becoming obese/diabetic/just plain unhealthy. Maybe if some of these McDonald loving fatties got on bikes helmet or no helmet, we could reduce some healthcare costs.
9:28, you might want to read some of the studies on the effectiveness of bicycle helmets (Wikipedia's entry is a decent place to start). There is a very important difference between seatbelts (and motorcycle helmets) and bike helmets. Seatbelts and motorcycle helmets have been clearly shown to reduce injury. Bike helmets have not; in fact, the most reliable studies show that they have no effect on serious injury. (I.e., after they were made mandatory in Australia, the number of cyclists went down and the injury rate did not change. Despite the fact that many more bikers were wearing helmets.
The reason for helmet's ineffectiveness is pretty clear - in order to make helmets that people will wear, they had to make them so light that they provide no real protection. (FWIW, if a helmet breaks it is *not* working as designed - it has failed and consequently provided no protection to the wearer - there is a link to a discussion of this on the wikipedia page, if you are interested).
I used to wear a helmet all the time when I biked, even when I lived in Europe. I stopped not because I wanted to trade freedom for safety, but because I became convinced that bike helmets provided no safety benefit. Or, to tie into Zack's original post, no more benefit than would be provided by carrying a crucifix around.
I've been riding all my life - in Australia. I've crashed 3 times - all whilst wearing a helmet. Each time I've hit my head (!), twice VERY hard. Each time the helmet has broken, absorbed the impact, saving my head and maybe even my life - and keeping me out of hospital. Ride without one and you obviously don't particularly value your brain. I never ride without a helmet. What's the big deal? The newer ones are even cool-looking...
A Helmet Saved My Life.
Scientific Proof! that helmets work; I have yet to see any type of comprehensive study proving or disproving the effectiveness of bicycle helmets. They also have NO performance testing standard that mimics real world crashes, unlike safety belts and air bags.
I can provide documentation that seat belts cost lives, cause severe injuries and trap people in burning cars. However! these are in the minority...just like the "evidence" that bicycle helmets positively always save lives.
There are hundreds of other examples of risky behaviour that are much more likely to cause death and at a much higher statistical rate than wearing/not wearing a bicycle helmet. Smoking and driving while impaired are two that come to mind. Showers and stairs are very dangerous places too ;-)
Aaron
misplaced "and" in the previous post. Should read smoking OR driving while impaired...
Aaron
Thank you for the terrific article.
Previous commentators are on the money in that the USA is a different ballgame. With many fewer riders on the road, worse road conditions (minimal bike lanes, etc), and more angry drivers, helmet use might be an unfortunate necessity.
But here in the USA, the unfortunate effect of helmet-wearing on commuters and athletes seems to be a large increase in testosterone levels. The increased feeling of safety, combined with a feeling of identification with professional cyclists (which is magnified by awkward pedals and gawdy jerseys advertising cable channels or Wheaties) seems to make them bike through city streets at ridiculous speeds, giving a bad name to cyclists in general, making other commuters less likely to join them, and making it infinitely more likely that they cause a serious accident.
I rarely notice cyclists without helmets performing such testosterone-induced antics. It may follow that banning helmets would lead to an increase in low-testosterone biking and therefore an increase in cycling safety generally.
It seems a bit inappropriate to compare bicycle helmets to the hijab, don't you think?
Zakka, you are the best bike culture guy there is, but as a religious philosopher you are no better than the next guy. You should stick to bike stuff.
On the helmet issue we should all stick to the main point that helmet use shouldn't be a legal requirement. I think thats where you started out before so many started arguing about their own opinion about a helemt's value.
So many comments here just make me want to cry.
-- happily riding in DC w/out a helmet
You had me until you imply that anyone who believes in science can't truly believe the Bible. Makes me wonder if you did any real research on either subject.
Helmet use shouldn't be mandatory (but I don't see what the problem is).
I'd also like to get one thing straight... I have an accidnt, bang, scrape my head (eek - blood!)... and my head will be worse off in a helmet(!?) Man, you guys drink funny juice in Copenhagen!
isn't the problem that you are extrapolating population studies back to individuals and their very different behaviour? in genetics the overall risk of developing a particular disease in a given population can be completely different from that of an individual once their genetic background is known.
the most informative study would be the same rider, the same bike, the same behaviour and the same accident, twice over: once with and once without a helmet. anyone?
The helmet debate is hilarious. Or it would be if it weren't so sad. There are so many misconceptions, and in particular people hold their beliefs like religious beliefs, inaccessible to logical argument. There is a "discussion" on bikeforums.net that has been going since 2005. In it you can see all the same arguments, rehashed over and over again; sometimes the same things are said by different players.
For me, the most irritating thing about the helmet debate is that it is a fig leaf; some people feel that once all cyclists are wearing helmets, then no more needs to be done to make them safe.
In reply to the nameless "doctor who works in the ER", I look after brain injured patients, and I've seen far more patients in this situation after car accidents or as pedestrians, both of which carry a greater risk of severe head injury than cycling. None of them were wearing helmets either- so by your logic, perhaps they should be denied treatment. Your logic is not only flawed, your approach that blames the victim is profoundly unethical.
In reply to the doctor...
Here's the views of a UK Accident and Emergency doctor who is - unlike you - named...
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1610264,00.html
In reply to those who think "it's different in my country", the University of Bath has published research to suggest "wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk"...
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking110906.html
Here in Seattle, the helmet cult is very powerful. The county government encourages people to send their "Save-by-the-helmet" story as you can see here:
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/injury/helmets.htm
It's not even a religion, it's a cult. If you are not with them, you are against them.
In Australia, the law compels you to wear a helmet. I too have hit the road head first, and been grateful for a helmet, and feel unsafe without one. In our culture, you can't approach cycling as a casual "hop on your treadly and off you go" kind of thing, because there are just too many large steel objects rushing past.
I've done work with head-injured people too, and it is an appalling thing to contemplate. But it leads me to an opposite conclusion. It would be bloody good if we insisted that people in cars wear a light-weight helmet.
Then again, I think that all cars should be bright orange and covered in soft rubber...
- barista
My husband and I live in Philadelphia and recently got bikes. I had NO idea about the helmet controversy, but wasn't planning on wearing one.
Out of curiosity as to why people do or don't, I posted a thread on a local forum.
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/getting-around-philly/59654-bike-helmet-wear-not-wear-one.html
After this, my husband and I really looked into the science and realized the TRUTH.
Read the forum, some great posts there from the magic helmet worshippers!
~Beth
(aka "sugarcoma")
Zakka-
Big fan, but I have to ask - were you feeling lonely? You should know that the great helmet debate is bound to stir up a lot of conflict. I ride in NYC, usually helmetless mainly because it's damn uncomfortable and I'm not completely convinced of its magical abilities. I doubt you'll have much to worry about looking at the safety statistics, why would someone want to bother with a helmet when they're used to riding unemcumbered? Viva the Slow Bikes!
I'm a great fan of choice too, though offroad I believe in helmet, reinforced gloves, shin guards and elbow guards. So my bike gets damaged instead.
Onroad, it's a controversial story. The bath study also explored our city -Bristol- and showed that when you wore a helmet, vehicles drove closer. A good argument against them. Yet earlier this month in oxford, I
came across the results of a bike-on-road fall.
Zak,
Are you sure that website International Safety Union for Cyclists (come on "I-SUC") isn't a joke?? Do you know the connotation for "I suck"??
Plus the description of the people includes line like "he works at a law firm that represents large corporations like Tech Chemicals and she, too, is an upstanding member of her community," and (I really like this one) "Robert is well-known from the tv commercials in which he stars, promoting his car dealership - The SUV Showroom."
If the head injury folks were really serious about reducing head injuries they would be advocating the use of helmets for car drivers and passengers. Statistics have shown that this strategy would be the most effective way to reduce brain injury since most people who get brain injuries were IN the car!
But this would never fly since the car lobby is just too powerful and wouldn't stand for it. Bikes however are another story...
The doctor and others remind me of a recent debate in the UK, where the nanny-state zealots are currently being reined in, in various facets of life, by a public sick and tired of having their lives curtailed (village fetes cancelled through lack of funds to carry out huge risk assesmants etc).
A couple of years ago, an MP tried to force through a compulsion bill in parliament. The opposition (including our great national org, the CTC) came up with some interesting studies, which showed that even if the most damning of the helmet indutry stats were true, and which ever way you tried to skew the stats, the results would ALWAYS come out that, for every life saved by cycle helmets, you could save ten or twenty by compelling car drivers and passengers to wear helmets.
Bear that in mind as a neutering tool for the zealots - it shuts them up straight away! (Except the helmet industry of course, who would love helmets to be compulsory for every living being on the planet 24/7).
I fail to see how wearing a helmet is that much of an inconvenience. Admittedly, when I first started wearing one about 10 years ago i found it cumbersome and the feeling of something sitting on my head was a bit odd. A few weeks later I really didn't find it a problem at all. The weight of polystyrene is hardly anything and the way that the new harnesses work, it's not even that difficult to adjust a helmet so that it fits comfortably and securely.
The only reason i can think of is plain vanity. A helmet might mess up your hair and make you look like a goof while you're wearing it. Seriously, grow up guys.
In the event that you have a crash that involves your head coming into contact with something, how can a thick layer of polystyrene not to anything at all to protect you. It will at the very least protect your skin. Some of the modern sylish helmets are full of holes and use a harder form of polystyrene which is less able to collapse to absorb an impact. I personally avoid these :)
Also, people that haven't fallen off their bike much as adults usually don't realise how easy it is for your head to hit the ground.
I am in favour of choice though. I just chose to wear a helmet and would advise others to do so. But if they don't want to, i won't push the subjuct.
vanity? that's odd how you can generalise and call almost 100 million daily cyclists in Europe for vain.
grow up? how about you actually reading the science instead of preaching fear-mongering? Here's a good start on your education
Hey, just look at all those posts from people who landed on their skull at 30 kph without a helmet and didn't get a scratch!
Oh wait, they're dead.
Hey look at the fundamentalist who can't understand science and chooses to quote propaganda! You are the Taliban Man.
The funny thing is that a helmet is only designed to protect the head from cuts, bruises and possible concussion in solo accidents under 20 kph.
So all the people who were going 30 WITH a helmet, as the Taliban mullah above refers to, are more than likely dead, too.
Interesting. You certainly seem to be hitting the nail on the head here. I'm glad those helmets aren't yet religious symbols here in Germany.
I must note however, that the people NOT wearing a helmet seem to be just as ideological as those who do. "I found the TRUTH".
What about the science, though? The data you present are only correlational. We don't know whether not wearing a helmet leads to more people cycling or whether it's the other way around. In any case, there seem to be large effects of the countries involved. And it seems logical that if you are the only person in your city riding a bike, you are in more danger than someone with a large number of cycling friends.
If I promise not to be evangelical, can I keep wearing my helmet?
While wearing a helmet may or may not save your life or prevent serious injury (which seeing as it's "just a lump or polystyrene" it may well not), here's a simple experiment to try.
Put on a helmet and bang your head against a wall lightly and then slowly increase the force with each hit until you consider the force hazardous. Then repeat the experiment without a helmet and compare the difference.
I'm not against people choosing not to wear helmets because they beleive that it won't save them from serious injury. I merely question this anti-helmet rhetoric that trys to convince people that helmets have the same protective qualities as a headscarf.
What anti and pro helmet zealots need to realise is that unless data is completely one sided, it can usually be manipulated to give whatever "conclusion" the analyst requires. This goes for both the companies that claim they work as well as those that claim otherwise.
helmet advocates sell helmets.
bicycle advocates sell cycling.
but yours is a good idea. let a swimmer swim out to sea wearing a lifevest for four hours.
then let them swim out to sea without a lifevest for four hours.
the conclusion, with your logic, will be that we should immediately start to advocate compulsory lifevests on all beaches and in all swimming pools.
In your haste to defend your anti-helmet sentiments you have missed the point of the experiment.
The point is that you only have to tap your head quite softly to feel the difference between knocking your head against the wall and knocking the helmet. This is somewhat different to suggesting that someone go and swim continuously for 4 hours.
I haven't said that helmets should be compulsory either, in fact quite the opposite. That was an assumption that you made. I only wish to say that wearing a helmet can provide some degree of protection when a head collides against something. Surely you're not going to argue that the helmets provide no protection at all?
But you said: "and then slowly increase the force with each hit until you consider the force hazardous".
i apologise for the assumption.
Regarding no safety benefits at all, here's a rather telling quote from a solicitor who has worked on over 2000 cases involving cycle helmets in the UK:
"What evidence does exist makes it clear that cycle helmets are only tested to offer protection in some pretty limited, low speed circumstances. Of course your helmet will be scratched and marked if it hits the deck – try dropping it from only a small height with a bag of flour in and you'll find it doesn't take much. And certainly, if your head does hit the deck (which is by no means certain in my experience), it will probably save you from some cuts and bruises. But please don't assume that this slight piece of coated polystyrene saved your life."
I don't really need to argue... it's easier to refer to people who have done the research and/or deal with the subject on a daily basis. It's quite telling that no British judge has ruled that helmets protect against serious injury and/or death. And this is in spite of an army of experts from both sides of the fence presenting their expertise in courts.
well spotted, cian.
I suppose i could have chosen a better word, but personally it doesn't take very much head hitting for me to consider it "hazardous". As soon as it starts to hurt, i'd say that was at least a little hazardous. Really, i'm serious, go and try it later on. You'll find it only takes quite a light tap to cause quite some discomfort.
I have read some of the cyclehelmets.org site and to be very frank, i was not that impressed. Maybe it's the very obvious intention of the site to dismiss the use of helmets, that makes it hard for me to read the articles as impartial (even if they are actually impartial)
There are also instances of the same sensationalism as in the pro-helmet literature. For example the site proclaims that "TRL confirms helmets may increase severity of injuries", where in fact the paper's abstract says that their own conclusion was "Overall, it was concluded that for the majority of cases considered, the helmet can provide life saving protection during typical linear impacts and, in addition, the typical level of rotational acceleration observed using a helmeted headform would generally be no more injurious than expected for a bare human head. However, in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases, linear and rotational accelerations may increase to levels corresponding to injury severities as high as AIS 2 or 3, at which a marginal increase (up to 1 AIS interval) in injury outcome may be expected for a helmeted head."
I will read on with interest, and as ever I am open to having my opinions changed if i am convinced to do so. As i am yet to see conclusive evidence either way, I will go on with my particular version of "common sense" :)
what is important to remember is who is doing what and why.
the bike helmet industry and the sports gear industry would like you to wear a helmet, for obvious reasons. the automobile industry is active in helmet promotion, namely FIA. it is in their interest that you wear a helmet. branding of cycling as dangerous is good for sales.
almost all helmet promotion has, at its root, financial interests.
what possible financial interest is there to be against bike helmets? the bicycle helmet research foundation consists of a dull, dry panel of dull, dry doctors, scientists and researchers.
they have nothing to gain from their conclusions. no multinational corp finances their efforts or lines their pockets.
is it possible that instead of 'bias' their conclusions are close to the truth? merely because the science they analyse that promotes helmets is faulty and unreliable?
hmm.
PaulD
Having just visited Copenhagen, and I have been visiting for the last 20 years, I too fear helmets may be taking off their. What a shame.Dayglo jackets could be next.
In general the Danes do have a tendecy to follow fads an fashions. I have seen many over the years. I paticulary dislike the Cycle Helmut which makes everyone look like a Nazi Storm Trooper
I think all these people that are always falling and are saved by their helmets have a few things in common. They ride road bikes with very narrow tires. They ride as fast as they can. They are clipped to their pedals. The people that aren't always falling off their bikes ride with wider tires, ride slower, and aren't attached to their pedals.
Why is no one here talking about saving their heads by using safe bicycling practices? Emergency stopping, bunny hopping out of pot holes, recognizing and avoiding blind spots in cars, keeping out of the door zone, having working brakes (!!!!!!) and using them...
I have witnessed 3 accidents involving cars and bikes in the last 4 months. Every one of them involved a car driving reasonably being impacted by an out of control rider on a 'fixie' with no brakes. All of these accidents were avoidable and none of them would have ended better with a helmet.
Bike riders have to take responsibility for themselves and stop using cars as the reason that they suspend the use of reason and skill in exchange for the 'protection' of a helmet. Using the argument that the U.S. does not have good infrastructure does not hold up- as riders we can choose our routes, when we ride them and how much attention we pay to the rules of the road (this is how I get through 12 miles of heavy urban commuting every day, without a helmet).
We all need to grow up about this. Wear one or don't, just learn how to ride your bike and let others do the same.
Riding Miss Daisy: In Copenhagen they know how to ride without hitting their heads on things. You might try drinking some of that juice.
Grimp: Bless you, Sir.
Anon: I actually tried your test against a rough hewn stone wall (using a helmet about to be retired anyway). Overall comfort was greatest with a bare head until impact levels got high. Really. Injury level was the same in both cases. None.
Quite frankly I'm not sure you know what helmets are for or how they go about trying to do that. They're about brain damage, not pain, bumps or abrasions.
Greatest comfort and least "injury" in this test was obtained, however, with a simple knit wool beanie.
In my opinion a high quality felted wool hat (such as a Stetson or Akubra) sized to fit a wool beanie under it and adequately secured will provide just as much protection as a bicycle specific helmet.
Disclaimer: I have been wearing a hardshell bicycle helmets since before there even was such a thing and was the first licensed racer in NYS to roll up to the line wearing the first hardshell Bell helmet: and got shit for it at that (funny how religious fundamentalism is so changeable).
I am anything but anti-helmet; but I am anti-religious fervor. I'm not terribly fond of Nerf(tm) wrapped society either. For most people, most of the time, a helmet provides no safty advantage - and there are other means of achieving the same or very similar levels of protection than a helmet.
The people who seem to feel that "OMG! You're going to die!" about non-helmet wearing aren't "safety conscious," they are obsessive neurotics.
And quite possibly witch hunting little fascists as well.
Begone, the lot of you. The rest of us have lives to lead.
what a great comment... :-)
It is perfectly possible to believe in God and to believe in science.
Dr. Katherine Jefferts-Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church/USA, for example, also has a Ph.D. in Marine Biology; she is far from the only religious scientist on the planet.
But, to get back to the topic at hand, look at this article:
http://www.palmbeachbiketours.com/2008/07/09/do-bike-helmets-really-save-your-life/
Now, do I believe that a helmet will make a cyclist invincible? Of course not!
Do I believe that wearing a helmet is the be-all and end-all of safe cycling? Of course not!
But wearing one's helmet is an important part of safe cycling; I, for one, don't like the idea of my skull or little niece's skull bouncing on the pavement without some sort of protection.
So if you follow your own logic, do you wear face protection gear, too? your face is part of your head.
Do you wear protective gear on your arms and legs?
Do you wear your helmet when walking or driving? Pedestrians and motorists are far more vulnerable to head injury.
Most importantly, do you wear a lifevest when in a swimming pool or just hanging on the beach? Just in case?
Just looking for the logic.
Zak : You're a man of science? You're a nitwit with a lot of time on your hands. You need to go to school.
ah, the sad little internet troll raises his petite tête once again. you're so cute.
anonymous's true self?: he/she finally got to the barbwire...
"Zak : You're a man of science? You're a nitwit with a lot of time on your hands. You need to go to school."...
anonymous is the peep w/alot of
time on their hands... many comments were left by anonymous, which took alot of time on their hands... unless they had a stenographer... did anonymous have a stenographer or did they happen to have alot of time on their hands... time, time, time, is on my side
anonymous should be thankful Zak has "a lot of time on your hands"... using his time dueling your DA comments
all have their outlook and that's it... none is going to 'change' their view of whatever they view...
society, keep your view out of my view... but you won't... the West has become a nanny state since socialism has been
giving 'something for nothing'...
if laws indeed are enacted, like some places and if you really want to protect your head, you can choose to bypass the bicycle helmet industry by using a motorcycle helmet, full-face, half-face, half-helmet(like HD bikers use)... it's ok with bicyclists if motorcyclists are required to wear those big 'ole helmets and not bicyclists?... all depends on who's ox is being gored...
the object is to protect the head?... a moto helmet protects the head way better than a bicycle helmet... watch they
don't mandate using a moto type helmet anyway...the sky is not the limit as to what laws can/will be enacted upon us...
and if you can, dump the four wheels, get a moto... then, you'll have a vehicle that uses no fossil fuel, one that uses small amounts of it and a one helmet for both... but you won't, you'll think a moto helmet would look funny on a bicycle...
tkx... have a good day
Fascinating post, thank you for point me to it. Obviously your encounters with helmet-zealot conformists has shaped your opinion in a very interesting way. But might I suggest that your own evangelism is as dogmatic as that which you purport to combat? As Mark Twain once proclaimed, "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." And just what is the source for your statistics? And did you cross-reference the number of motor vehicles to the number of cyclists? Or the availability of bicycle lanes in the countries used in your dataset?
I don't like being nagged any more than you do. People need to mind their own business. But I think you're being a bit myopic in your assessment that helmets are simply an artifact of a fear-mongering military-industrial complex.
amigosito, you're correct.
Helmet use and promotion is not simply an artefact of a fear-mongering industrial.
Use and promotion also depends on unquestioning people and government. People who are unwilling and/or unable to question anything in the name of safety.
Post a Comment