7 ms·

The guy sounds insane. Simple physics indicates that the longer the collision the less force applied will be. The only reason that the individual states that w

by monksy 11y ago

The guy sounds insane. Simple physics indicates that the longer the collision the less force applied will be. The only reason that the individual states that wearing a helmet is a hinderence is: 1. You don't look as fashionable (the words are "less human") 2. Drivers see you more as a human when you're not wearing one. I would venture to say that if a driver notices you not wearing a helmet, the assumption is that the biker is an idiot and they would be more cautious around them. (No one really wants to hit a biker) Additionally this doesn't really fix the problem. Many bikers get into an incident with cars for reasons such as: 1. The biker was not seen by the driver until it was too late. (Lack of awareness/being used to them on the road) 2. Biker cutting off the driver 3. Road rage (on the car's side): It happens but I would suggest it less common than claimed. 4. Biker not following the rules of the road. (Biking up the wrong way, ignoring stoplights/stopsigns etc)

ch4s3 11y ago
I think the key points are: >and increase the likelihood of other injuries (those to the neck). >There is some evidence[1] that cars may pass cyclists closer if they are wearing a helmet. [1]http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf *edit for formatting
- beat 11y ago
  Accidents don't happen when cars are passing cyclists, though. Drivers notice this because they're inconvenienced, but it's actually pretty safe. Accidents happen at intersections, due to cars turning in front of bikes, or not being aware of bikes that are turning. As for neck injuries... if a helmet increases my chance of a neck injury because it decreased my chance of a fractured skull, i'll take the trade.
  - jokr004 11y ago
    That was my thought too when I read the claim about neck injuries. Does a helmet really increase the risk of neck injury, or does it just increase the likelihood of surviving the blow to the head that caused the neck injury? Wearing a helmet should have no way of affecting your neck unless you're being stuck in the head, in which case I would definitely prefer to be wearing one.
    - beat 11y ago
      The author didn't provide any references for his assertion, so we won't know.
rjsw 11y ago
5. Biker not using lights at night "because they are in a bike lane".
- monksy 11y ago
  I never considered the usage of lights, because I've never seen them used in Chicago.
  - strictnein 11y ago
    Really? That's surprising. They're widely used in Minneapolis.
    - monksy 11y ago
      My suspicion is that its due to all of the streetlights in Chicago.
- panglott 11y ago
  Bike lights are far more important safety gear than a helmet is. But not having a helmet attracts more negative attention than not having lights does.
  - maccard 11y ago
    That depends on where you are. I was stopped at 5am one morning cycling across Dublin city (my light died on the way) by the police.
  - Eric_WVGG 11y ago
    I used to consider lights “optional,” but since bicycling has grown in popularity, I have observed more lightless riders — or failed to observe, rather — and now quite agree. I’m amazed that I got away with riding effectively invisible, with no incidents, for as long as I did. Now I’m baffled by the fact that lights aren’t built into the frames of all non-competitive road bikes…
panglott 11y ago
The simple fact is that bicycle helmets are not designed to withstand an auto collision. If you are relying on them to protect you in an auto collision, you're doing it wrong. Get a motorcycle helmet instead.
- monksy 11y ago
  I approve of that! (That and requiring training/license for bikers)
  - morsch 11y ago
    Yes, we should all armor up before leaving the house. Or maybe just get rid of the thousand-pound blocks of steel and plastic hurtling around, barely controlled, in close vicinity to our mushy bodies.
    - JadeNB 11y ago
      > Yes, we should all armor up before leaving the house. Or maybe just get rid of the thousand-pound blocks of steel and plastic hurtling around, barely controlled, in close vicinity to our mushy bodies. I would love a world where we—well, maybe not got rid of cars, but at least changed our cities so that they were not the dominant and motivating force; but between accomplishing that, and wearing as much protection as possible, I know that there's only one that I can do today (or, I suspect, in my lifetime).
    - monksy 11y ago
      I also approve of protected bike lanes. [Putting bikers on sidewalks is stupid] Yes you should armor up. After all, those in cars are already heavily armored up with more than 50 years of safety equipment.
      - Mithaldu 11y ago
        > I also approve of protected bike lanes. [Putting bikers on sidewalks is stupid] Do both. Have a bike lane on the side walk, with some separation provided by rails near crossings, or trees and such on longer stretches. Consider this for example: https://goo.gl/maps/6PRpg https://goo.gl/maps/6PRpg There are many small details that that keep the bikers away from the pedestrians, but it also serves the bikers (and the car drivers) by putting the curb between the two.
drcode 11y ago
Yeah, I'm all for the idea of riding without a helmet when I'm commuting in downtown Chicago... but I already have two nasty gashes in my favorite helment that make it clear this would be a very bad idea.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- vvvv 11y ago
  Replace it.
  - lorenzhs 11y ago
    Yup, replace it. A helmet is a shock absorber, the styrofoam is compressed during the collision. Once it's compressed, it can no longer absorb shocks. A helmet needs to be replaced after a crash. The damage is not even necessarily visible on the outside.
- umanwizard 11y ago
  Dude, you know you're not supposed to keep using the same helmet after you get in a crash, right?
msandford 11y ago
> The guy sounds insane. Simple physics indicates that the longer the collision the less force applied will be. The problem is that helmets are only designed (and tested!) to cover one very specific type of crash. The head smashing into the ground directly and at high speed one. And all it does is turn a potentially very severe injury into a less severe one. It shifts the risk-profile from maybe dying, maybe breaking bones in your head and definitely having a concussion to less risk of dying, less risk of breaking bones and definitely having a concussion. It doesn't do anything when you get in a low speed crash because the compressive strength of the foam inside helmets is actually very high. Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is the crushable material inside bicycle helmets. Here you can see that 10psi is a very reasonable number and that 25psi plus isn't unreasonable. http://www.epsindustry.org/building-construction/compressive-strength http://www.epsindustry.org/building-construction/compressive... Let's suppose that 10psi is the number and that you manage to crush a substantial portion of the helmet. Maybe that's 20 square inches. That means it took 200lbs ( 10psi * 20sqin ) of force to do that. If the average head weighs 11lbs it must have experienced something like 18 Gs to make that happen. Sure 18 G is better than 60 G (or whatever if you didn't have a helmet) but it's not as though wearing a helmet turns any crash into something very survivable and with very little consequence. Anecdotally I went over the handlebars once at 22mph. Another cyclist popped out of stopped traffic (not at a crosswalk) and I had about 10 feet to react. I hit her back tire and knocker her over, but I went over the bars and pivoted around my front wheel right into the ground. Headfirst. I was wearing a helmet and very glad to have been but my helmet only had about a 3" diameter flat spot on the top. Personally I would have preferred that the foam had only been 5psi (instead of 10psi) and that the crush zone had been larger and it would have slowed things down more. But helmets have to pass a CSPC test and it's a 6 foot drop, which means that it doesn't do much unless it's a very, very bad fall. Personally I thought my fall was pretty horrible and that the helmet should have used up the majority of the crush zone, but while the flat spot was 3" in diameter it was only about 1/4" deep out of the 1" or so of total foam depth. http://gearfinder.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html http://gearfinder.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html I get that you understand the simple physics, but as it turns out, real life is substantially more complicated than JUST simple physics most of the time.
- monksy 11y ago
CWuestefeld 11y ago
The only reason that the individual states that wearing a helmet is a hinderence... You missed one important point from the OP: One well-done study that evaluated all the current studies out there (called a meta-analysis), found there to be no benefit to helmet use when you take into account all types of injuries. Helmets protect against certain kinds of injuries (those to the head) and increase the likelihood of other injuries (those to the neck). That last sentence there is important, so I'll call it out again: "Helmets protect against certain kinds of injuries and increase the likelihood of other injuries."
mcv 11y ago
Insane? Because of a very reasonable line of reasoning? I think that's mostly your perspective. There is data about what helmets and other safety measures do to bike safety. It's worth noting that the Dutch bike association is not a fan of helmet laws. Although of course Netherland has already implemented a lot more effective measures to improve bicycle safety.
jdietrich 11y ago
>The guy sounds insane. Simple physics indicates that the longer the collision the less force applied will be. The physics involved are a lot more complicated than you think. To give one of many relevant examples: Bicycle helmets are tested purely against linear impacts, where the head hits squarely against a flat surface. This turns out to be completely unrepresentative of real head impacts, which usually occur at an oblique angle[1]. Injuries caused by rotation of the head are by far the most dangerous type, as substantial shear forces can occur within the brain tissue and high torsional forces can be applied to the spinal cord and brain stem. Motorcycle helmets offer reasonable protection against rotational head injuries, because they have a smooth, round outer surface that is highly resistant to abrasion. Unlike motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets are covered in ventilation slots, are rarely spherical, often feature rigid visors or other protrusions, and have only a very thin outer shell. Because of the shortcomings of standardised testing procedures, a helmet purchaser has no idea if their helmet will offer any useful protection against the most common and most dangerous type of head injury; There is good evidence that many common bicycle helmet designs will exacerbate rotational forces in oblique head impacts[2], leading to the likelihood of no net improvement in safety compared to a bare head over a realistic sample of crash types[3]. [1]http://papers.sae.org/892425/ http://papers.sae.org/892425/ [2]http://www.bhsi.org/chinstrp.pdf http://www.bhsi.org/chinstrp.pdf [3]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145750200012X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502...

by monksy 11y ago

ch4s3 11y ago

I think the key points are: >and increase the likelihood of other injuries (those to the neck). >There is some evidence[1] that cars may pass cyclists closer if they are wearing a helmet. [1]http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf *edit for formatting

beat 11y ago
Accidents don't happen when cars are passing cyclists, though. Drivers notice this because they're inconvenienced, but it's actually pretty safe. Accidents happen at intersections, due to cars turning in front of bikes, or not being aware of bikes that are turning. As for neck injuries... if a helmet increases my chance of a neck injury because it decreased my chance of a fractured skull, i'll take the trade.
- jokr004 11y ago
  That was my thought too when I read the claim about neck injuries. Does a helmet really increase the risk of neck injury, or does it just increase the likelihood of surviving the blow to the head that caused the neck injury? Wearing a helmet should have no way of affecting your neck unless you're being stuck in the head, in which case I would definitely prefer to be wearing one.
  - beat 11y ago
    The author didn't provide any references for his assertion, so we won't know.

rjsw 11y ago

5. Biker not using lights at night "because they are in a bike lane".

monksy 11y ago
I never considered the usage of lights, because I've never seen them used in Chicago.
- strictnein 11y ago
  Really? That's surprising. They're widely used in Minneapolis.
  - monksy 11y ago
    My suspicion is that its due to all of the streetlights in Chicago.
panglott 11y ago
Bike lights are far more important safety gear than a helmet is. But not having a helmet attracts more negative attention than not having lights does.
- maccard 11y ago
  That depends on where you are. I was stopped at 5am one morning cycling across Dublin city (my light died on the way) by the police.
- Eric_WVGG 11y ago
  I used to consider lights “optional,” but since bicycling has grown in popularity, I have observed more lightless riders — or failed to observe, rather — and now quite agree. I’m amazed that I got away with riding effectively invisible, with no incidents, for as long as I did. Now I’m baffled by the fact that lights aren’t built into the frames of all non-competitive road bikes…

panglott 11y ago

The simple fact is that bicycle helmets are not designed to withstand an auto collision. If you are relying on them to protect you in an auto collision, you're doing it wrong. Get a motorcycle helmet instead.

monksy 11y ago
I approve of that! (That and requiring training/license for bikers)
- morsch 11y ago
  Yes, we should all armor up before leaving the house. Or maybe just get rid of the thousand-pound blocks of steel and plastic hurtling around, barely controlled, in close vicinity to our mushy bodies.
  - JadeNB 11y ago
    > Yes, we should all armor up before leaving the house. Or maybe just get rid of the thousand-pound blocks of steel and plastic hurtling around, barely controlled, in close vicinity to our mushy bodies. I would love a world where we—well, maybe not got rid of cars, but at least changed our cities so that they were not the dominant and motivating force; but between accomplishing that, and wearing as much protection as possible, I know that there's only one that I can do today (or, I suspect, in my lifetime).
  - monksy 11y ago
    I also approve of protected bike lanes. [Putting bikers on sidewalks is stupid] Yes you should armor up. After all, those in cars are already heavily armored up with more than 50 years of safety equipment.
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      > I also approve of protected bike lanes. [Putting bikers on sidewalks is stupid] Do both. Have a bike lane on the side walk, with some separation provided by rails near crossings, or trees and such on longer stretches. Consider this for example: https://goo.gl/maps/6PRpg https://goo.gl/maps/6PRpg There are many small details that that keep the bikers away from the pedestrians, but it also serves the bikers (and the car drivers) by putting the curb between the two.

drcode 11y ago

Yeah, I'm all for the idea of riding without a helmet when I'm commuting in downtown Chicago... but I already have two nasty gashes in my favorite helment that make it clear this would be a very bad idea.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vvvv 11y ago
Replace it.
- lorenzhs 11y ago
  Yup, replace it. A helmet is a shock absorber, the styrofoam is compressed during the collision. Once it's compressed, it can no longer absorb shocks. A helmet needs to be replaced after a crash. The damage is not even necessarily visible on the outside.
umanwizard 11y ago
Dude, you know you're not supposed to keep using the same helmet after you get in a crash, right?

msandford 11y ago

> The guy sounds insane. Simple physics indicates that the longer the collision the less force applied will be. The problem is that helmets are only designed (and tested!) to cover one very specific type of crash. The head smashing into the ground directly and at high speed one. And all it does is turn a potentially very severe injury into a less severe one. It shifts the risk-profile from maybe dying, maybe breaking bones in your head and definitely having a concussion to less risk of dying, less risk of breaking bones and definitely having a concussion. It doesn't do anything when you get in a low speed crash because the compressive strength of the foam inside helmets is actually very high. Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is the crushable material inside bicycle helmets. Here you can see that 10psi is a very reasonable number and that 25psi plus isn't unreasonable. http://www.epsindustry.org/building-construction/compressive-strength http://www.epsindustry.org/building-construction/compressive... Let's suppose that 10psi is the number and that you manage to crush a substantial portion of the helmet. Maybe that's 20 square inches. That means it took 200lbs ( 10psi * 20sqin ) of force to do that. If the average head weighs 11lbs it must have experienced something like 18 Gs to make that happen. Sure 18 G is better than 60 G (or whatever if you didn't have a helmet) but it's not as though wearing a helmet turns any crash into something very survivable and with very little consequence. Anecdotally I went over the handlebars once at 22mph. Another cyclist popped out of stopped traffic (not at a crosswalk) and I had about 10 feet to react. I hit her back tire and knocker her over, but I went over the bars and pivoted around my front wheel right into the ground. Headfirst. I was wearing a helmet and very glad to have been but my helmet only had about a 3" diameter flat spot on the top. Personally I would have preferred that the foam had only been 5psi (instead of 10psi) and that the crush zone had been larger and it would have slowed things down more. But helmets have to pass a CSPC test and it's a 6 foot drop, which means that it doesn't do much unless it's a very, very bad fall. Personally I thought my fall was pretty horrible and that the helmet should have used up the majority of the crush zone, but while the flat spot was 3" in diameter it was only about 1/4" deep out of the 1" or so of total foam depth. http://gearfinder.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html http://gearfinder.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html I get that you understand the simple physics, but as it turns out, real life is substantially more complicated than JUST simple physics most of the time.

monksy 11y ago

CWuestefeld 11y ago

The only reason that the individual states that wearing a helmet is a hinderence... You missed one important point from the OP: One well-done study that evaluated all the current studies out there (called a meta-analysis), found there to be no benefit to helmet use when you take into account all types of injuries. Helmets protect against certain kinds of injuries (those to the head) and increase the likelihood of other injuries (those to the neck). That last sentence there is important, so I'll call it out again: "Helmets protect against certain kinds of injuries and increase the likelihood of other injuries."

mcv 11y ago

Insane? Because of a very reasonable line of reasoning? I think that's mostly your perspective. There is data about what helmets and other safety measures do to bike safety. It's worth noting that the Dutch bike association is not a fan of helmet laws. Although of course Netherland has already implemented a lot more effective measures to improve bicycle safety.

jdietrich 11y ago

>The guy sounds insane. Simple physics indicates that the longer the collision the less force applied will be. The physics involved are a lot more complicated than you think. To give one of many relevant examples: Bicycle helmets are tested purely against linear impacts, where the head hits squarely against a flat surface. This turns out to be completely unrepresentative of real head impacts, which usually occur at an oblique angle[1]. Injuries caused by rotation of the head are by far the most dangerous type, as substantial shear forces can occur within the brain tissue and high torsional forces can be applied to the spinal cord and brain stem. Motorcycle helmets offer reasonable protection against rotational head injuries, because they have a smooth, round outer surface that is highly resistant to abrasion. Unlike motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets are covered in ventilation slots, are rarely spherical, often feature rigid visors or other protrusions, and have only a very thin outer shell. Because of the shortcomings of standardised testing procedures, a helmet purchaser has no idea if their helmet will offer any useful protection against the most common and most dangerous type of head injury; There is good evidence that many common bicycle helmet designs will exacerbate rotational forces in oblique head impacts[2], leading to the likelihood of no net improvement in safety compared to a bare head over a realistic sample of crash types[3]. [1]http://papers.sae.org/892425/ http://papers.sae.org/892425/ [2]http://www.bhsi.org/chinstrp.pdf http://www.bhsi.org/chinstrp.pdf [3]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145750200012X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502...