Did you wear a......

[Jim Kyle]

Well, we have to differ. You seem to be saying that if it's a choice between a 10% benefit and a 70% benefit it's better to choose the 10%. I disagree. Of course these are fictitious figures I pulled out of the air to make my point, but the studies do seem to show that the ACTUAL number of lives saved by mandatory use is less than the number saved when it's voluntary, once adjusted to a per capita count....

[SoonerDave]

That would then imply that there is not a net benefit to requiring helmets.. as in a significant saving of lives. Cause surely there's not a level of "participation" which outweighs a serious health/life issue. If so, there's lots of stuff we can look back on and make changes to.

There are multiple alternatives to bicycling which could replace any so called participation benefit, that I think even looking at that is silly.

Nonsense. Think about what you just said - the obvious implication is that we can save a life *theoretically*, we should *always* pass a law mandating something. So why aren't there laws against, say, using box knives in the rain because if you're cut on a rusty blade you might die from blood poisoning....because the participation level is non-existent. The whole *point* of legislating behavior is because a "critical mass" of people are supposedly *engaged* in the behavior in the first place.

[jerrywall]

Nonsense. Think about what you just said - the obvious implication is that we can save a life *theoretically*, we should *always* pass a law mandating something. So why aren't there laws against, say, using box knives in the rain because if you're cut on a rusty blade you might die from blood poisoning....because the participation level is non-existent. The whole *point* of legislating behavior is because a "critical mass" of people are supposedly *engaged* in the behavior in the first place.

You went off a whole line/tangent that is way off what I'm saying. My point is that, if there is a serious (as in realistic) enough risk to justify a law/regulation, how that law affects participation shouldn't be the deciding factor. Either there is enough of a risk in bicycling to warrant a helmet law or there isn't (IMO there's not). How that law affects participation shouldn't be a deciding factor.

[SoonerDave]

You went off a whole line/tangent that is way off what I'm saying. My point is that, if there is a serious (as in realistic) enough risk to justify a law/regulation, how that law affects participation shouldn't be the deciding factor. Either there is enough of a risk in bicycling to warrant a helmet law or there isn't (IMO there's not). How that law affects participation shouldn't be a deciding factor.

Well, no disrespect, but my point is that the tangent *isn't* off what you're saying. If a law stops people from doing something largely beneficial because of the issue catalyzing the law, then whom does the law serve? The law becomes vacuous.

Mind you, I'm not sure of the causal relationship that's implied with the earlier posts (as I mentioned), but you can't create laws in a vacuum. If the law is (right or wrong) destructive to a broader purpose, you *have* to consider that in the overall value of the law.

[Bill Robertson]

As a kid, in the 60s when there weren't bicycle helmets, not only did I never have a helmet but rarely wore shoes. Often it was a pair of cut-off jean shorts and nothing else. I had LOTS of road rash and stitches. Ran an approximately 1/8 inch square by 6 inch long sliver of wood completely trough my foot once. Also ran my foot into the front spokes once showing off for a cute neighborhood girl.

Then in the early 70s I started racing. We had to wear "hairnet" helmets. If you don't know what I mean watch "Breaking Away". Through the 80s, 90s and 00s I rode around 6 to 8,000 miles per year. I saw helmets evolve to into what we have now. Todays helmets give little reason not to wear them. They're light, comfortable look great and in some cases create airflow that make it cooler than without.

That being said. I know what the statistics say. But I, in all the thousands of rides I've been a part of, have never personally seen an incident where a helmet would have made a difference between injury and no or lessened injury. I've seen, actually been in sight of, riders who have died from heart attacks or similar on two different occasions. And once saw one rider hit by a truck while crossing a two lane highway. That one is etched in my memory forever. I'm sure helmets are a savior to many riders. I've just never been in the right place at the right time to see it.

I'm not sure I really added to the discussion much but I felt inclined to give my observations on the subject since I think I qualify as a "former anyway " avid cyclist.

[David]

I think the real question is, was the cute neighborhood girl impressed?

[jerrywall]

Well, no disrespect, but my point is that the tangent *isn't* off what you're saying. If a law stops people from doing something largely beneficial because of the issue catalyzing the law, then whom does the law serve? The law becomes vacuous.

If the activity was too dangerous to do without safety measures, then it's too dangerous period. I'm sure safety measures and laws make sky diving more expensive and reduce participation. Ignoring safety to increase participation is absurd. Now, if the improvement to safety by those laws is negligible or arguable, then the necessity of those laws would be questionable regardless of it's effect on participation.

[ctchandler]

As a kid, in the 60s when there weren't bicycle helmets, not only did I never have a helmet but rarely wore shoes. Often it was a pair of cut-off jean shorts and nothing else. I had LOTS of road rash and stitches. Ran an approximately 1/8 inch square by 6 inch long sliver of wood completely trough my foot once. Also ran my foot into the front spokes once showing off for a cute neighborhood girl.

Then in the early 70s I started racing. We had to wear "hairnet" helmets. If you don't know what I mean watch "Breaking Away". Through the 80s, 90s and 00s I rode around 6 to 8,000 miles per year. I saw helmets evolve to into what we have now. Todays helmets give little reason not to wear them. They're light, comfortable look great and in some cases create airflow that make it cooler than without.

That being said. I know what the statistics say. But I, in all the thousands of rides I've been a part of, have never personally seen an incident where a helmet would have made a difference between injury and no or lessened injury. I've seen, actually been in sight of, riders who have died from heart attacks or similar on two different occasions. And once saw one rider hit by a truck while crossing a two lane highway. That one is etched in my memory forever. I'm sure helmets are a savior to many riders. I've just never been in the right place at the right time to see it.

I'm not sure I really added to the discussion much but I felt inclined to give my observations on the subject since I think I qualify as a "former anyway " avid cyclist.

SoonerSoftail,
Wow, so many things I can think of where I agree and disagree. First, when I was very young and my brother even younger, he was riding on the back of my bike and we were both barefooted and in shorts. Somehow, he got his toes caught between the fender guard and the spokes and almost lost his big toe. All of them were damaged, but to a lesser extent than the big toe. As for helmets today, I have heard arguments both ways, but my daughter-in-law's brother is forever 14 (years of age mentally) due to riding his Harley without a helmet and he somehow lost control and planted his head into those metal road guards while entering I-44 from N. W. 10th. The odd thing is, he was a professional motocross rider (went by the name "Big Daddy Owens") and of course, wore all of the appropriate equipment. I don't know why he chose not to wear a helmet on the streets and highways. As a Harley rider, you might even have known him or been involved in the fund raising the HOG group (or some other Harley club, not sure it was "HOG") so kindly organized.
C. T.

[Tundra]

Facts About Ski Deaths & Injuries

The average skier death in CO is a thirty-seven years old experienced male skier wearing a helmet who loses control on an intermediate, groomed run and hits a tree.

The majority of deaths — 54 percent — occurred on blue, groomed runs, while 31 percent were on expert trails.

The increase in the number of people who wear helmets hasn’t resulted in fewer fatalities. Helmets are designed to protect riders at about 12 mph, while a skier or snowboarder who collides with a tree or another rider is typically going 25 to 40 mph.

More than 80 percent of ski deaths in Colorado are men.

Last season, 54 skiers and snowboarders died at ski areas within the U.S., which saw a total of 51 million ski visits, according to the National Ski Areas Association.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins recently estimated that about 600,000 people nationally are injured each year as a result of skiing and snowboarding.
Estimates are that about two injuries occur per 1,000 skier visits — a decrease of 50 percent since the mid-1970s.

[Tundra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sp...-injuries.html

[turnpup]

Wow, I haven't been snow skiing in probably 25 years. Had no idea they wore helmets for that nowadays!

[Tritone]

Cut offs and MAYBE shoes but never a helmet, not even when we rocketed our home-modified contraptions down "dead man's hill." Shot each other with slingshots and BB guns, too. Thankfully I lived long enough to grow a bit wiser.

[Bill Robertson]

I think the real question is, was the cute neighborhood girl impressed?

She didn't even notice. That was typical of my luck with girls.

[Bill Robertson]

SoonerSoftail,
Wow, so many things I can think of where I agree and disagree. First, when I was very young and my brother even younger, he was riding on the back of my bike and we were both barefooted and in shorts. Somehow, he got his toes caught between the fender guard and the spokes and almost lost his big toe. All of them were damaged, but to a lesser extent than the big toe. As for helmets today, I have heard arguments both ways, but my daughter-in-law's brother is forever 14 (years of age mentally) due to riding his Harley without a helmet and he somehow lost control and planted his head into those metal road guards while entering I-44 from N. W. 10th. The odd thing is, he was a professional motocross rider (went by the name "Big Daddy Owens") and of course, wore all of the appropriate equipment. I don't know why he chose not to wear a helmet on the streets and highways. As a Harley rider, you might even have known him or been involved in the fund raising the HOG group (or some other Harley club, not sure it was "HOG") so kindly organized.
C. T.

I do remember that fund raiser. It was Downed Bikers Association that did it. I don't do many of their rides but I did that one because I rode some motocross in the 70s myself. Wearing, actually not wearing, a helmet on the Harley is a whole story of its own.

[SoonerDave]

If the activity was too dangerous to do without safety measures, then it's too dangerous period. I'm sure safety measures and laws make sky diving more expensive and reduce participation. Ignoring safety to increase participation is absurd. Now, if the improvement to safety by those laws is negligible or arguable, then the necessity of those laws would be questionable regardless of it's effect on participation.

I can't believe you mean this literally. Every human activity carries risk, and therefore implies the existence of measures to mitigate that risk. Before I cross the street, I look both ways. That's a safety measure. If I *never* look across the street, and get hit by a bus, your statement above carries the natural implication "it's too dangerous period."

That bridges to a different discussion - in general, I hold to the notion that it's not for Person "X" to say unilaterally Activity "Y" is "too dangerous" for Person "Z." If Person "Z" knows the risks (heck, even if he doesn't), part of being in a free society implies the ability to let Person "Z" *take* that risk, and the requirement that Person "X" doesn't have the ability to prevent it.

And, for me, the standard at which the government should be able to criminalize the failure to exercise a "known risk mitigation" behavior, be it the wearing of bike helmets or operating a nail gun, has to be exceptionally high. If it can be demonstrated more conclusively that bike helmet laws truly depress participation in bike riding, then the succesful presence of the "safety" law is perhaps the very essence of a Pyrrhic victory.

[jerrywall]

You're basically saying the same things I am. Read the first sentence you quoted again. I'm not saying any risk has to be negated. I'm saying if the risk is so high that it warrants mandatory safety measures (or in your words, "exceptionally high") then affects on participation level doesn't change that risk assessment.

Without getting too detailed... I used to work for a medical device company. There was a process we had to use for regulated medical devices for risk assessment. We had to identify all potential risks for any specific medical device, and rate it on both severity and likelyhood of occurrence. There was then a formula that we used to calculate if it was over an acceptable level, and if so, we had to take steps to mitigate those risks. Some of those mitigations might be labeling. Some might be controls on administration or use. It depends on the device. It's a little more complicated than this, but the point is, if we determined that the risk was unacceptable without mitigation, then the mitigation is non-acceptable, no matter how it might affect use/participation. And we're talking about devices here that might save or at the least seriously improve someone's quality of life. So there's a downside to folks not using them.

[stile99]

And another 'innocent', quasi-political thread started by Tundra results in people fighting.

[jerrywall]

fighting?

[stile99]

Perhaps the word choice is incorrect. Fighting/arguing/debating. I just find it interesting that the helmet issue is known to be a political hot button, and here we are, another political thread. I wouldn't really say you're 'fighting' per se, but saying the same thing in different ways. In both your points, it looks like you both favor certain safety measures being in place for a given activity. You both agree, yet posts with *bolded text* are being shot at each other.

I could be wrong, but this isn't the first time I've seen Tundra post a politically charged thread 'innocently' in the wrong forum, with similar results.

[jerrywall]

Meh, I think folks are just interested in the discussion. I know there's nothing heated from my side, and I don't see anything political about it.

It's sort of like helmet laws on motorcycles. You'll never reach a consensus. I ride my Harley daily to work and home, and almost never wear a helmet, and I'm sure there are plenty of folks here with colorful words like "stupid, suicidal, and organ donor" to describe me. They'll not change my minds, and I'll not change theirs. But the discussions can be interesting regardless.

[SoonerDave]

FWIW, the only reason I ever highlight or bold words in someone else's post is to emphasize an area to which I am specifically responding, purely for clarity. Sometimes I can snip down a post, but that often takes what the other person said out of context, so it's a matter of balance.

Yeah, no fight here, just think each person should have very broad latitude to engage in the risk they choose for themselves without being criminalized for failing to engage in someone else's standard of personal safety. If a safety law is driving a non-trivial number people out of a worthwhile activity, it's time to revisit the safety law. That's all. You could apply it to seat belts, football, food consumption, or even smoking. Any time you approve the idea of criminalizing a failure to act as safely as someone else thinks you should act, you set what is to me an uneasy precedent.

I just get itchy when I hear absolutes, and I (unsuccessfully) try not to use them myself, because reality is...in most cases...in the middle.

[ctchandler]

I do remember that fund raiser. It was Downed Bikers Association that did it. I don't do many of their rides but I did that one because I rode some motocross in the 70s myself. Wearing, actually not wearing, a helmet on the Harley is a whole story of its own.

That's right! I had forgotten about that group. My former boss at Hertz was/is a member of the DBA and told me about the fundraising. You might know him too, he owned Bricktown Charley's (formerly Bricktown Harley's) and Charley's Last Stand.
C. T.