This is sorta a bit long vid. Basically, he seems to be saying that bike helmets, and the laws or fears requiring them, reduce ridership. Thus turning more people into car riding fat asses who then fall over dead with heart disease. Or something.
I’m still gonna keep wearing my polished foam chip when I ride the 36. It’s only slightly heavier than a baseball cap, and since I’m over 30, I don’t have to wear it backwards, so it keeps sun out of my eyes.
So what’s your point then? I too am over 30, and have decided my brain is worth protecting.
There’s a lot of politics in the world of helmet laws (I guess that goes without saying). It’s good for helmet makers, it’s good for anyone who crashes and hits their head, but it may also be a deterrent to some people riding.
I don’t really have an opinion on the validity of bike helmet laws for general ridership. For unicycle competition it’s mostly a non-issue (it’s to protect the event hosts). For extreme riders making videos, I’ll always give them a hard time if they don’t protect their brains for two reasons:
[LIST=1]
If I like their videos I'll want to see more of them
Other unicyclists will look up to them, and follow their example
I'd rather not be chipping in on your medical bills for the rest of your life just because you were stupid
[/LIST]
Okay, three reasons. :)
Now that I’ve watched the video…
It’s a very well-produced video and the guy is a great speaker, making many valid points. Having been to Copenhagen and seen lots of people using bikes instead of cars in the city center, I can see how that type of riding, even when it’s in the vicinity of cars, probably doesn’t warrant helmet use. If we don’t have to wear them in the tub or in the car, must we wear them to ride a slow bike (the commuters I saw were on city bikes, going slow), in a bike-friendly city? I guess that’s the question.
And I was curious about the helmet testing. I don’t think that’s the only test being done, but if it’s the “main” test done by the “main” agency that certifies these things, it’s pretty lame. I know Snell does numerous types of destructive testing, but I had trouble figuring out which tests were done on bike helmets and not just motorcycle helmets.
None of this changes my recommendation for wearing a helmet any time you’re going to share the road (in the USA at least) with cars, ride near rocks or cliffs (MUni), or ride on obstacles (Trials, Street), or ride fast (racing). I don’t wear one for just riding around, Freestyle, basketball or most other unicycle activities I may do.
I enjoyed watching this video. I like the speaker, even if he couldn’t get the clicker to work.
If we take his cause / effect hypothesis as a given, meaning that helmet campaigns and laws reduce ridership and therefore lower the overall public health level, then we still have the question of what’s best for the individual rider.
What’s good for a group is not necessarily good for the individual. What does increased ridership matter to the guy who split his head open in an accident because he didn’t wear a helmet?
Helmet campaigns and laws are the instruments of the fear mongering profiteers, so he says, because it highlights and causes us to think about the danger (and thus we buy helmets and other safety gear). Does it highlight a very real danger? Or does it paint the activity as more dangerous than it actually is? I don’t know. But thinking about and preparing for a very real danger is a good thing.
He says that helmets are not designed or tested for side impact and that we are more likely to get into an accident if wearing a helmet. But are we more likely to survive an accident if wearing a helmet? I tend to think so.
Back in the 90s when I rode motorcycles, I was under the impression – right or wrong doesn’t matter – that full-face helmets were NOT a good thing, that they were a neck injury waiting to happen. I only bring this up to say that I can’t imagine how a bicycle helmet could cause more harm than good in an actual accident situation.
So what’s the verdict? What’s good for the group is not necessarily good for the individual.
Jason, I didn’t even want to get into evaluating whether that aspect of his presentation was true. He seemed to have some statistics (yeah, I know) and whatever… I couldn’t be bothered chasing down the truth. So I just assumed it away because it didn’t matter with regard to an individual’s decision to wear a helmet. What is good for the group is not necessarily good for the individual.
I know his core message, which I seemed to dismiss for more practical concerns, was that helmet laws and campaigns reduce ridership. But that’s of practical value only to public policy makers, manufacturers, lobbyists, and activists. At the end of the day, should I wear a helmet? He lists two reasons why I shouldn’t. He is anti-helmet at the group AND the individual level. I think this is ONLY because he needs a consistent message. He doesn’t go as far as saying that you’ll be worse off wearing a helmet, but he does say they are not designed for the typical crash scenario and that you are more likely to get into an accident wearing a helmet. He cannot say that helmets are wonderful and will save your life and then go on to say that helmet laws are bad – unless he is campaigning solely from a libertarian position, which unfortunately he is not.
The laws are there because the perks are there.
I wouldn’t have much objection to people not wearing helmets (not that I would object anyway, leave that to John!) if I wasn’t going to be liable for avoidable or otherwise injuries. If you have a national accident insurance scheme funded by taxpayers (or the Chinese if you are in the US) then the taxpayer (me) has a right to demand that you minimise risks.
I had a prang in a bike race years ago, and it cost me nothing, good old NZ ACC. Actually the only thing that didn’t hit the deck and came out unmarked was my helmet But I always wear one when outside, I think I have a brain to protect… perhaps
This is a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? Only ride in a car when absolutely necessary? Outlaw hang gliding? Outlaw mountain climbing? Outlaw eating trans fat? Oh, wait! The U.S. government used to recommend eating trans fat! Never mind.
Which is a great argument against such systems. They give legislators/taxpayers grounds to intrude into your life and make decisions for you, assess risk for you. Personal decisions ought to be left up to the individual, not the government/society. Sure, people make ignorant, stupid decisions every day, but to make that decision for them is to treat people like children and remove part of what it means to be an individual.
Uni57 is right, it’s a very slippery slope…what other activities are too risky for society to endorse?
For most people, a helmet will neither help nor hurt them regarding injury; the more important thing is that they were able to choose for themselves whether or not to wear it.
I remember those arguments at the time. Possibly some truth in them as some of the full face helmets then were heavy. Modern design and materials has, I suspect, made the risk of neck injury much reduced.
Even so, I still choose to wear an open face helmet because I prefer the better peripheral vision, which may reduce the chance of having an accident in the first place. Most importantly, I ride a motorbike because I like being out in the open!
Horses for courses, I came close to hurting myself this week because I got a tree branch caught in one of the vents of my helmet when riding the 29".
Oh, and I’ll stop doing (perceived) dangerous activities when the rest of the UK population stop eating, drinking, smoking and not exercising themselves to death
Gary
I’m a fan of universal health care, paid for with taxes and freely available to everyone. I would like a system where helmet use and seat belt use is optional, but if you’re in an accident (and you survive to require medical care) you would be on the hook for the full amount (or less if you had secondary insurance or something) if you were found to be not wearing a seat belt or helmet (novelty helmets do not count), regardless if wearing one would have prevented your injuries or not.
I always wear a seat belt, but I haven’t worn a helmet in a few years. I may start though (biking, not unicycling)
the remark is itself slipperry and we need to balance things.
I agree with nick above but now if there are laws against reckless driving it is not that driving recklessly is a problem of self-responsibilty: you may kill someone else and , frankly, I prefer to be alive than winning my case and be dead!
again it is hard to balance things about personnal and social responsability: if some drugs are forbidden it is not only to protect drug-takers it is also to protect their social surroundings (this said drugs prohibition creates also social ills oh no: simple principles just do not make it )
I explained in a previous post that a long time ago I was in charge of applying building regulations: so if someone wanted to build something with a roof that was not conformant to snow charge regulations I made them sign a special document: no help from government if the roof went down in an exceptional snow fall. Now if the house did not apply the rules for earthquakes then “no way!” … bizarre differences?
But I always wear one when outside, I think I have a brain to protect… perhaps
oh no: simple principles just do not make it 
)