Protection for casual rider

Unicycles and Equipment
21

Additional points in favor of helmets

Helmets are good. Even if I don’t fall on my head in the next ride, I believe it makes me more visible on the road (helmet is white with reflective tape). It also makes for a good place to stick my rear view mirror, which I have found to be essential.

A helmet takes 2 seconds to put on, it’s comfortable enough that I don’t notice it after I’m up and riding, and I feel it shows the kids and other onlookers that it’s okay to take precautions.

How could there be any reason not to wear one?

22

Tom- There is no difference between the 2005 and 2006 models as far as i can tell from the site(www.sixsixone.com). Im rockin out the 2006 model and theyre great…But personally i like the look of the 2005 model better. If cost is an issue then get the 2006, if you want to look cool in my opinion get the 2005.

23

For casual riding, I wear 661 ankle biters, and 661 Knee\Shin guards. If I didnt do wear those, I would probably still have a constant cut on my ankles, and cuts on my legs, cause on my casual ride, I will always see a line and have to do it, even if its going to the store a block away, cause they built a starbucks that has a gap from the sidewalk, on a brik wall, then down into drivethough, on to a kinny cement thingy, onto a cement fancy block thing, to the other side of the fancy block, into the stores parking lot.

I tried gloves but it makes it hard for me to grip my handle or seat while jumping, and I really should wear a helmet.

24

Those look awesome, ive seen pictures of many people using them, i would really put my vote int this!

25

I have no problem with people placing ‘the line’ wherever they so wish, as long as, as in your case it would seem, they have considered the problem intelligently rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to head injury issues. Some bikers see me wearing leg gaurds, wirst gaurds etc. and think that I’m over the top, they drawn the line in a different place again.

My point about the car is that you can’t automatically take every available step to protect yourself, some of them simply aren’t worth it, you need to consider each case where risk is high in your life. Two cars I am in regularly don’t have airbags or indeed very much sheet metal. Because they are differnet to ‘normal’ cars I do reconsider the risks while in them, and do sometimes wear a racing helmet depending on circumstances.

Into the Blue - your experiences are those of a single person, riding a mountian bike. As stated prevously I do wear a helmet for trials, Muni, high speed/long distance and anythign else I do that feels risky, possibly including freestyle tricks. I do not wear one for uni hockey or low to medium speed riding on flat gound such as is required to get to the place where I Muni. You were presumably donig high speed mountian biking when you hurt your head, Im riding slowly on the pavement, big difference.

26

Are you suggesting that Tom has considered the issue intelligently, whereas I have had a kneejerk reaction? I don’t know what evidence you base that on, just because I summarised my arguement in a sentance or two.

Like many other people I regularly do risk assessments as part of my job and have considered many factors. For me, wearing a helmet is still the way to go. I’m not evangelical about it though.

Incidentally, I have also seen the products of car accidents and i think that wearing a helmet would be like putting a sticking plaster on a broken leg. There are so many more ways to die in a car crash that just a head injury. Also, statistically I am far less likely to be involved in a car accident than a young male.

Cathy

27

No I did not specifically mean any particular person, but I feel that alot of people less informed than yourself guess rather than think about whether they should wear a helmet. This applies the other way round too, to people who don’t wear a helmet in situations which I wouldn’t put myself in without one. Particular young men, who are well known for thinking themselves invincible.

Predicting the difference that wearing a car helmet in a crash is impossible by estimation. Without exstensive knowledge and experience in the field neither you nor I have any idea how much difference it would have made to a crash victim. However I take it as a sign from those in the know that as every single motor sport in the world (and other high speed sports aswell) mandates the wearing of a crash helmet there must be some use in it. Having personally landed head first on the floor at nearly 40 mph in an accident I can tell you that even cheap helmets can be capable of withstanding such blows with absaloutly no injuy to the wearer, had I not been wearing one im sure the outcome would have been rather different.

28

the only accident that sent me running to the bike shop for buying a helmet was while slowly riding in a gym: I still remember the noise that my skull made! (oh oh sounds empty down there :stuck_out_tongue: ).
for then on I never rode without a helmet (though I can get rid of other protections) -really the only thing that annoys me is when people poke fun at me for being overprotected!-
ah Yes: I have a Big scar on my scalp and I hope I won’t get bald too early but this is not a Uni-related thing.

29

i don’t really use protection for all types of riding. i sometimes wear a helmet and just a pair of light felxible shoes are good for me.

30

Sometimes working on a neuro-rehabilitation ward in the holidays, I have seen more of the long-term consequences of car accidents than most, probably even you. It’s rather narrow to look at the outcome of a crash in terms of life and death. There is more potential for life-long disability with an injury to the brain than any other part of the body.

In most western countries, head injury accounts for 250 hospital admissions per 100 000 population annually. Of these, 10 die and “100 have a major persisting handicap”. (Kumar & Clark. Clinical Medicine. 5th ed. Saunders; 2002.)

The severity of a persisting impairment is going to be related to the magnitude of the original insult to the brain, so any reduction in that by the helmet is going to produce a commensurate decrease in disability. Even if wearing a helmet in a car doesn’t save anyone who would have died anyway, the reduction in disability merits its requirement in motorsport, for example.

31

You’re probably right. In my job I have resisted strongly going to work in any neuropsychological placment because I do not want to work with people who have had head injuries - I am afraid that I would never get in a car again.

It’s interesting in this case then that cycle helmets are advocated (or even cumpulsory) for bikes and motorbikes but not for cars. I wonder how that works then?

Cathy

32

Re: Protection for casual rider

On Tue, 13 Jun, cathwood <> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, tomkarches <> wrote:[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > cathwood wrote:
> > > > Well I always wear a helmet (having been a nurse and seen the
> > > > consequences of when people don’t)
> >
> > Bad logic.
> >
> > > Helmet is a must. I have a cousin who sustained a closed head injury
> > > in an accident after not wearing a helmet.:frowning:
> >
> > Bad logic.
> >
> >
> > Personally, for casual riding, I don’t wear anything (well, maybe I
> > should rephrase that as I don’t wear anything other than what I would
> > wear for casual walking).
>
> Nothing to do with logic. To do with being able to easily do something
> to stop being brain damaged in a nasty fall.[/color]

No, it was very, very bad logic:
You said that because you’ve seen some head injuries, wearing a
helmet while unicycling will make a difference.

Your errors:

1: Assuming that you can extrapolate from whatever those people were
doing to casual unicycle riding.

2: Assuming that a helmet would have made a difference to those
people. You don’t know.

3: Assuming that a helmet will have only beneficial effects. The
population evidence does not support this.

If that’s actually your reason for wearing a helmet, you would wear
one whenever going up and down stairs (lots of head injuries doing
that), or walking along teh road (ditto). If you don’t do that, your
stated ‘reason’ is clearly invalid.

By all means wear a helmet, but don’t pretend there’s a good reason -
you may as well say “because I was a soldier and have seen teh damage
that can occur when you’re hit by a bomb, always carry a lucky rabbits
foot when unicycling”.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |

33

Re: Protection for casual rider

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, abridged <> wrote:
>
> A helmet takes 2 seconds to put on, it’s comfortable enough that I
> don’t notice it after I’m up and riding, and I feel it shows the kids
> and other onlookers that it’s okay to take precautions.
>
> How could there be any reason not to wear one?

It could make it more likely that you suffer a serious brain injury
(the population level statistics for bicycle helmet wearing tend to
show this, for example).

Just because you think something will help, it does not mean it
actually will help - do you always carry your lucky rabbits foot when
unicycling?

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |

34

Due to having seen some nasty injuries incurred by people cycling without helmets, it makes me feel ‘safer’ when I wear a helmet when unicycling, however irrational that might be. I’m an irrational, emotional human being.

(Is that better?)

Cathy

PS, just wondering why you have suddenly decided to criticize my ‘logic’. What purpose does it serve?

35

It’s certainly sobering work.

Motorsport has a lot more crashes than normal driving, which makes the extra precaution worthwhile. To understand why you have to consider the difference between absolute & relative risk.

For the sake of argument the chance of having a TBI in a year of participating in motorsport is 1 in 400 (as it may be, for all I know) and 1 in 4000 in normal driving. Now let’s say that the chance of getting a traumatic brain injury is halved by wearing a helmet. That is the relative risk. In absolute terms though, the chances decrease to 1 in 800 and 1 in 8000 respectively. So the absolute reduction in risk is 1 in 800 and 1 in 8000 respectively. A big difference for motorsport, but a smaller one for normal driving.

So feel free to wear a helmet for driving if you want to, but I’m not going to because I don’t think it’s a big risk.

It wouldn’t be sensible to impose helmets on drivers without first increasing seatbelt use and decreasing drink-driving. Also, helmets might make drivers feel like the Stig and take more risks driving! Seriously, that’s a good reason to not compel cyclists to wear helmets.

36

Unnecessarily vicious, IMO.

The reason why population level statistics show that countries with higher rates of helmet use have higher rates of cyclist head injury probably has nothing to do with the helmets causing injuries. In countries where cycling is safer, a smaller proportion of cyclists wear helmets. It’s as simple as that.

The major effect is that cycling is safer in countries where more people do it. This is because those countries’ governments are more cyclist friendly and because motorists are more aware of cyclists.

This is why forcing every cyclist in Britain to wear a helmet is not going to make cycling any safer.

37

Re: Protection for casual rider

On Wed, 14 Jun, cathwood <> wrote:
>
> Ian Smith wrote:
> >
> > By all means wear a helmet, but don’t pretend there’s a good reason -
> > you may as well say “because I was a soldier and have seen teh damage
> > that can occur when you’re hit by a bomb, always carry a lucky rabbits
> > foot when unicycling”.
>
> Due to having seen some nasty injuries incurred by people cycling
> without helmets, it makes me feel ‘safer’ when I wear a helmet when
> unicycling, however irrational that might be. I’m an irrational,
> emotional human being.
>
> (Is that better?)

It is at least coherent, yes.

There’s a good chance that you’re wrong, though it would be even
harder to prove (either way) for unicycling than it is for cycling.

> PS, just wondering why you have suddenly decided to criticize my
> ‘logic’. What purpose does it serve?

There’s a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about cycle
helmets. People make statements that demonstrate that they blindly
assume helmets must be a good thing, when there is a lot of evidence
that they at best make no net contribution to safety, and at worst
positively harmful. I consider it expedient to highlight when people
claim they are doing something for a good reason, but the reasoning is
bogus.

My underlying concern is that various people want the UK to pass a
mandatory cycling helmet law. That would certainly be a bad thing.
The Department for Transport says it will not support a mandatory law,
until a large proportion of cyclists wear helmets voluntarily. Thus,
encouraging people to actually think about whether wearing a helmet is
a good thing, and countering the common-sense blind assumption that
they must be a good thing, may help to prevent a mandatory helmet law.

It is a matter of common principle that you don’t impose obligations
on people unless there is a positive benefit. We would (or should)
not, for example, pass a law that makes it illegal to drive a blue car

  • it inconveniences all owners of blue cars who must now buy a new
    car, for no good reason.

We should not pass a law that says it is illegal to ride a cycle
(irrespective of number of wheels) unless you are wearing a
particular style of hat, unless it is clear that doing so has a
significant benefit. So far, the evidence of everywhere that has
passed such a law is that it has a significant disbenefit (since it
reduces activity levels, and increases head injury rates).

In the specific case of application to unicycling, were such a law
passed in the UK, it would mandate the use of a cycle helmet when
cycling. Which means that the various people that have a good and
rational reason for favouring wearing skate helmets when doing their
street unicycling or trials riding, would be acting illegally. Such a
law would mean one class of people (those that believe it’s fine to
ride without any helmet) would be obliged to go to the inconvenience
of obtaining a helmet and always wearing it, and another class (those
that wear skate helmets) would be obliged not only to obtain another
helmet, but a helmet that’s actually less suited to protecting their
head from the hazards they encounter. All for no provable (or even
demonstrable) benefit.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |

38

Re: Protection for casual rider

On Wed, 14 Jun, rupert <> wrote:
>
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > No, it was very, very bad logic:
>
> Unnecessarily vicious, IMO.

but accurate and not remotely vicious in mine.

>
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > It could make it more likely that you suffer a serious brain injury (the
> > population level statistics for bicycle helmet wearing tend to show
> > this…
>
> The reason why population level statistics show that countries with
> higher rates of helmet use have higher rates of cyclist head injury
> -probably -has nothing to do with the helmets causing injuries. In
> countries where cycling is safer, a smaller proportion of cyclists wear
> helmets. It’s as simple as that.

Well, that would be a nice explanation if it fit all the facts.
Sadly, it doesn’t explain the observations in places that have
mandated helmet use (unless these places suddenly, overnight became
more dangerous), nor the divergence between pedestrian and cyclist
rates as helmet rates have changed.

Also, you are begging the question - it could equally be true that in
countries where a smaller proportion of people wear helmets, cycling
is consequently safer.

What is more likely, is that in countries where a large proportion of
people cycle, cycling is safer, and a smaller proportion wear
helmets. That is, the ‘safeness’ and the helmet proportion could well
be mutually independent functions of the frequency or acceptability
of cycling. This looks very plausible - if everyone cycled, motorists
would be looking out for cyclists. Also, if everyone cycled, it would
be obvious that actually it’s a very safe activity (even with the UKs
dismal cycling levels, cycling is safer per mile than walking).

Besides, it is bogus to claim “The reason why…”. You could suggest
that it is a possible factor that might explain part of the
observation, but there is not a single agreed reason why, and implying
that there is a reason is simply not true. (I note you eventually say
‘probably’ - but the sentence looks to be written to encourage the
reader to skip right past your admission that actually this is just
one opinion out of many).

> The major effect is that cycling is safer in countries where more
> people do it. This is because those countries’ governments are more
> cyclist friendly and because motorists are more aware of cyclists.

This is very possible - and it’s one of the reasons why it’s a good
idea to oppose mandatory helmets. Mandatory helmets will reduce the
number of cyclists (it has done so in every jurisdiction that has done
so), and that is very likely to make cycling more dangerous for the
people that remain (as you indicate).

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |

39

Ian Smith, why are you so forthright with your views on wearing helmets, but silent on all other subjects? I don’t believe I have ever seen you post on another subject, nor indeed do i believe that I have ever read a thread concerning whether we should wear helmets or not without you voicing your point of view. It has actually got to the point that when I see someone post something along the lines of ‘everyone should wear a helmet, it saved my life’ i wonder how long it will be until you post, and it’s usually not long.

40

Ian Smith wrote:

scratches chin
I’d like to see that evidence if it’s okay with you Ian.