Comments on Weekend Links: Take a gamble - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Tina

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:13:39 EDT

@Falls Church -what's ...filtering through traffic?
Thanks

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:42:49 EDT

"Also, putting up a sign that says, in essence, "wear a helmet or you're an idiot" is not particularly clever. As David C pointed out, if I posted signs everywhere saying "If you don't wear a helmet while driving, you're a brainless moron" most people would ponder why I was so unhinged about the issue. Same applies to the helmet-obsessed."

If it were a little bit more socially acceptable to wear a helmet while driving a car, I would do it (I guess I would use my bike helmet). I suppose I could when I'm not with family and not likely to be seen by anyone I know, but that would take too much planning.

Comment by oboe

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:12:26 EDT

when I didn't wear a helmet, I was an 11 year old bicycling in a relatively quiet suburb, and now I am an older guy dodging DC traffic.

Actually, one could make the argument (based on statistics) that riding as an 11 year old in a suburb is more dangerous than riding as an adult in traffic. The fact that many people don't understand this, and think that riding in traffic is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, is just an example of "common sense" overriding the facts.

Also, putting up a sign that says, in essence, "wear a helmet or you're an idiot" is not particularly clever. As David C pointed out, if I posted signs everywhere saying "If you don't wear a helmet while driving, you're a brainless moron" most people would ponder why I was so unhinged about the issue. Same applies to the helmet-obsessed.

Perhaps you should start hanging around in restaurants badgering folks who order their eggs over-easy, or who eat oysters. After all, it's very important that you make your feelings known on the matter of other folks' minuscule risk-taking.

How else will they know what a fine, upstanding individual you are?

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:39:48 EDT

"Wearing a helmet may be a slight net positive (I wear one on that basis) but it's more beneficial (from a public health standpoint) for 1 person to be visible riding at night than for multiple people to be riding with helmets."

and if there were a way to have a sign seen mostly by folks who ride at night, that would be good. The question initially was why a sign about helmets, and not night riding - I think the universality of the relevance of helmets answers that, in a place where theres no particular concentration of night cyclists.

As for the appropriateness of any kind of sign or poster on a trail, thats another matter. Some trails are more natural, and some are more transportationy. I dont know the trail in question.

BTW, as far as I can tell the frequency of head related bike injuries is higher than that for shootings. Not that anecdotes are data, but I have one friend who had a fall, a couple of years ago, and was (he beleives) protected by his helmet. I only know personally one person who was shot - and that was about 25 years ago.

Certainly I think we should avoid having kids around guns. My wife wouldnt send our kid on a play date to a home where she knew there was a gun.

Comment by David C

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:51:03 EDT

Most recreational bikers, at least, never ride at night.

True, but half of all bike fatalities occur at night, even though night biking makes up far less than half of all cycling.

Tyro, I understood the joke, but perhaps you missed my point. My point is that if you think everyone should wear a bike helmet on the off chance that they'll be in a crash and hit their head, then you also must think that everyone should wear a bulletproof vest on the off chance that they'll be shot. And what could be more heartless than letting your children become orphans because of your selfish desire to not wear a bulletproof vest?

Comment by renegade09

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:26:05 EDT

Tyro, you're just trolling now. I'm done.

Comment by Tyro

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:00:06 EDT

I am absolutely at greater risk from getting into a bike accident now that I am wearing a helmet. But that is because when I didn't wear a helmet, I was an 11 year old bicycling in a relatively quiet suburb, and now I am an older guy dodging DC traffic. The obvious conclusion I'm sure, if I get into an accident will be bike helmets = accident!

renegade09, I am sorry that a clever sign asking you to take safety precautions made you cry. I invite you to buck up.

Comment by Ms. D

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:54:31 EDT

I do think there is some merit to the argument that people might bike less safely if they're wearing a helmet and feel a little more protected, or drivers might be more careless around bikers they see as "protected." The same effect was seen with seatbelt laws, so it's not a big stretch. But an all-around biking safety awareness campaign, encouraging drivers and riders to take a range of safety precautions, including wearing helmets, is still not a bad idea. I happened to see a lot of really bad biking, pedestrian, and driving behavior this weekend (mostly as a driver and pedestrian), a beautiful weekend for people to get out and about, so some education is really, really important, particularly for what I can only assume are people who only drive or bike recreationally/intermittently (I see much better behavior on my commute rides).

Full disclosure, I do not wear a helmet when I bike, and I know the risk I'm taking doing that. The one major bike accident I've had (partially my fault for riding too fast for my abilities (I was probably doing almost 30 MPH on a steep downhill), partially uncontrollable circumstances, no cars or pedestrians involved) would not have been improved much by wearing a helmet. I *may* not have been knocked unconscious (given the way I hit the pavement - chin first - I may still have lost consciousness), but then the other injuries that the helmet could not possibly have prevented would have hurt a lot more (unconsciousness does serve a purpose, as dangerous and undesirable as it is). I'm hyper vigilant about everything on a bike, particularly about being doored since I normally ride on routes with bike lanes. A helmet wouldn't change that for me, but I can see how others might feel safer with the protection/around protected riders and become more careless.

But I still find it clever when my SIL (an ER nurse) looks at motorcycle riders acting a fool without helmets and mutters "organ donor." Grow a few more layers of skin if you're going to do something you know is somewhat less than perfectly safe. Yes, she also gets on my case for riding helmet-free, and I just chuckle when she tells me I should drink less so that my organs are in top condition when they're harvested.

Comment by renegade09

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:34:58 EDT

Falls Church and I presented evidence why it might not be better to wear a cycle helmet. I respect anyone's right to wear a helmet and it would be nice if people could respect my choice, based on my interpretation of the data, to skip the helmet. But if anyone feels the need to lecture or belittle me because of my choice, please do it on the blog boards. PLEASE do not vandalize the trail! This issue is not that important! The trail is a sanctuary from the snark and snipe of the city. Please leave it intact. (even if you think you have a 'clever joke' or 'play on words'-save it for your SNL audition!)

Comment by Falls Church

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:21:18 EDT

AWITC,

I can think of no reason why a well fitted helmet could cause more accidents

It's counterintuitive but there are possible reasons why a well fitted helmet would be more dangerous than no helmet:

Cycle helmets and rotational injuries

Minor head injuries are usually as a result of linear acceleration of the skull by impact with another object. Cycle helmets may produce benefit by reducing and spreading this force.

More serious injuries, on the other hand, are often as a result of angular or rotational acceleration, which leads to diffuse axonal injury (DAI) and subdural haematoma (SDH). These are the most common brain injuries sustained by road crash victims that result in death or chronic intellectual disablement.

Cycle helmets are not designed to mitigate rotational injuries, and research has not shown them to be effective in doing so.

To the contrary, some doctors have expressed concern that cycle helmets might make some injuries worse by converting direct (linear) forces to rotational ones. These injuries will normally form a very small proportion of the injuries suffered by cyclists, but they are likely to form a large proportion of the injuries with serious long-term consequences. In this way helmets may be harmful in a crash, but this harm may not be detected by small-scale research studies.

Thorough treatment of this subject, with comprehensive references, is to be found in the following article:

Curnow WJ. The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2003,35:287-292.
See also

Assessment of current bicycle helmets for the potential to cause rotational injury

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1039.html

****

Most recreational bikers, at least, never ride at night. The range of conditions and types of bikers for whom helmet use is a net positive is undoubtedly broader than the advice to get a light

If you're riding in the daytime, you don't need a light. But, you don't necessarily need a helmet either. Wearing a helmet may be a slight net positive (I wear one on that basis) but it's more beneficial (from a public health standpoint) for 1 person to be visible riding at night than for multiple people to be riding with helmets.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 18:29:48 EDT

" Instead of "no helmet = no brain to protect" how about "no lights = 'dim' witted"?"

Most recreational bikers, at least, never ride at night. The range of conditions and types of bikers for whom helmet use is a net positive is undoubtedly broader than the advice to get a light, and even more so than for not using a sidewalk (as for the latter I was riding today on streets (in fairfax cty BTW) where heavy traffic was moving at over 35 MPH in narrow lanes on roads with no shoulders and where the sidewalks were free of pedestrians and of driveways)

I can think of no reason why a well fitted helmet could cause more accidents.as fort that "study" what you linked to was no study (no analysis of time series variation year by year, for example) but simply pointing out two trends over time. We might as well conclude that growing income inequality causes more bike head injuries (and given the folks I see biking without helmets, wrong way, at night without reflecting clothing, and all kinds of other bad habits, and what I think there econonomic status is,I think as good a case could be made for real causality there)

Also of course we need to look at not just the number of head injuries, but severity.

I can understand cyclist reticence about mandatory helmet laws. Getting bent out of shape, so to speak, about a poster someone puts up, is something else.

Comment by Falls Church

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:05:01 EDT

Tyro,

While I agree there are potentially reasons why the study is flawed (as with any study) it is a legitimate analysis of data conducted by scientists at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. One study does not make it a fact but its fair to say that the evidence supporting helmet use is mixed. Personally, I usually wear a helmet but there is clearly a scientific basis for choosing not to wear a helmet.

The biggest problem with all the pro-helmet information is that it drowns out the far more important information about safe biking habits and purchasing/using more effective bike safety gear (visibility gear like lights are far more important than helmets but how often do you see people campaigning for public awareness on light usage?). Instead of "no helmet = no brain to protect" how about "no lights = 'dim' witted"?

If there was only one piece of safety advice I was going to provide someone, it would not be "wear a helmet" or even "never go through a red light". It would be "bike in a way that it's easy for cars to see you". That means using lights, biking on the road (as opposed to the sidewalk), and not filtering through traffic. Personally, I break all of those rules at times but at least I know to be hyper-cautious/aware when I break them because I know their importance.

Comment by Gray

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:30:06 EDT

@Jazzy:

2) what is 'incorrect helmet use?'

The most common example I see is that many people wear their helmets too loose or just too high up, leaving their foreheads exposed. I'm not sure how they expect a helmet positioned like that to protect them if they fall forward, but I see this all the time.

Comment by Tyro

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:06:36 EDT

David C, the humor might be obscure to you, but the sign is actually a clever joke involving a play on words. The joke is that if you're not wearing a helmet, you are acting stupidly. Metaphorically speaking, one might say that when someone is being stupid, he "has no brain."

The joke doesn't really work with the bullet proof vest thing because there aren't many situations I can think of where not wearing one would out you as being "heartless."

Comment by David C

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 15:39:46 EDT

'"No helmet = no brain to protect"

"No bulletproof vest = no heart to protect"

Comment by Tyro

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:08:39 EDT

Falls Church, since it looks at data since 1991, but assumption is that childhood/recreational biking has declined while commuter-bicycling has increased. Since the latter type of biking is the sort associated with dodging traffic, it's inherently more dangerous. The early 90s were also the era of increased mountain biking.

Correlation != causation. "Helmet awareness" campaigns coincided with an era of increased mountain biking and commuter biking. The two phenomena are not connected, except temporally.

Comment by Jazzy

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:40:05 EDT

1) Why is helmet wearing better?
2) what is 'incorrect helmet use?'

Comment by H Street Landlord

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:58:08 EDT

Tax break for a casino at National Harbor is BS. The whole point of the casino is to raise revenue!

Comment by Falls Church

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:27:01 EDT

@Tyro

While theoretically wearing a helmet sounds like commin sense, empirically injury rates go up as more people wear helmets. This is likely caused by a combo of helmets not being very effective at protecting you, incorrect helmet use, morr risk taking by helmeted riders, and car drivers perceiving less of a need to drive safely near helmeted bikers.

Evidence of injury rates going up as helmet use increases:

http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html

Comment by Tyro

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 07:50:50 EDT

"No helmet = no brain to protect" . That's how ideological some helmet-pushers get

They're not being "ideological", they're merely hurting your very sensitive feelings.

Wearing a helmet is just good sense, though I admit it is fairly impractical when it comes to wearing them on bikeshare systems.

Comment by renegade09

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:14:59 EDT

Kyle, just go to www.cyclehelmet.org. The case for helmets is not clear. In at least one study, absolute number of injuries went up after a helmet law was passed. Wear a helmet if you want, it's a free country, but stop pushing the idea that it is fundamentally a good thing. We've been through this a thousand times. On the trail where I bike to work, some joker has even posted signs saying '"No helmet = no brain to protect" . That's how ideological some helmet-pushers get...so sure they're right that they actually go around posting signs insulting cyclists who don't wear helmets.

Comment by Kyle-w

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:48:46 EDT

@renegade

I don't see any mixed evidence. You are always safer if you are wearing a helmet. No gray area there..

Comment by MM

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:42:36 EDT

Wearing a helmet is always better...except when it discourages a person from even getting on a bike to begin with. See: Melbourne Bikeshare.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:40:22 EDT

MGM at Nat'l Harbor will stop DC from ever having a similar casino in SE where we need development.

Comment by renegade09

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:12:46 EDT

Thanks for the links, however, evidence about cycle helmet use is pretty mixed so *please* can we hold off with editorializing like "It's always better to wear a helmet!".