Missed it last year, but rode it the year before. Its a noncompetitive, but fairly fast 60 miler sponsored by a local club.

The year before was a blast except for one huge stupid thing: bike helmets. It was all about making sure everybody had helmets. Helmet, helmet, helmet! Yet, there was no closing of streets, no sag wagons, and the vast majority of riders rode in a highly illegal fashion, running red lights by the dozens, and giggling about it. There were several crashes due to this idiocy.

Im tempted to ride without registering, and in my traditional Italian cap, as the course is on open public streets, but Im also weary of hearing all the Chicken Littles bitch at me for not wearing the magic yarmulke.

Its a risk thing. Helmets + lack of proper road skills = overconfidence and accidents. Who has the lowest rate of bike injury per mile traveled? No surprise, its the helmet eschewing Dutch.

Id not be in a lather about this if they promoted the foam beanies as a small part of bicycle risk reduction, of which they certainly are, and promoted riding habits that would keep folks from meeting the asphalt altogether.

Im very torn, as its a great ride, but I cant support an organization thats so bass-ackwards about bicycle safety.

I sent a letter to the organizers:

Quote from: meThis years Tour de Nash and bicycle safety.  
      

I rode it two years ago, though I missed it last year due to a broken
arm. It was much fun except for a glaring problem: bike safety.

Bike safety does not end with a bicycle helmet, yet that was the
mantra on everybodys lips. In fact, helmets without road skills,
increase rider confidence and chance of being in an accident.

Two years ago, I was appalled at the horrendous road skill of the
majority of the riders, but no respresentatives of any of the
sponsoring organizations said anything.

Requiring helmets for organized rides is fine if its part of a
grander scheme of risk reduction, but without a comprehensive plan for
rider safety, its a cop-out. One of these tours, a cyclist will die,
because they ran that red light "just like everybody else"--of course,
unless safety is taken more seriously than just the empty tokenism of
helmets.

If would be ideal if representatives of the sponsoring bike shops
would disperse themselves into the peloton this year, and encourage
lawful and safe riding.

Thanks,

Surely its at least a start?

Non closed roads, and no helmets is surely better than non closed roads and no helmets?

What I cant understand is the lack of requirement for motorcycle helmets over there, and the number of people that reckon they are UNsafe!!!

Quote from: BXGTi16VSurely its at least a start?

Non closed roads, and no helmets is surely better than non closed roads and no helmets?

Not necessarily.

Im not saying that they dont work, as they can keep you from getting a cut or minor concussion in moderate falls.

They do increase rider confidence and willingness to take risk, so statistically, helmeted riders get hurt more.

It wouldnt be so if they were approached rationally as one of many things that can reduce the risk of injury, but over here at least, theyre promoted as being the seat-belts of the bike world.

On a M/C Im sure youre familiar with a similar thing: idiots that wear $500 lids, then complete the outfit with jeans and running shoes. When they wreck at 80mph, itll be pretty cool seeing the gravel slide by the face shield, but bleeding out in the ambulance because their pants got removed in the first 10 meters of bouncing down the tarmac will sort of suck.

Just look at the statistics of road racing injury. Sure, helmets have saved a few people from getting stitches in their brow--a good thing to be sure--but the rate of serious injury or death hasnt changed much.

I would say that its more a case of riders with helmets tend to be injured more often but the injuries are less severe and there are fewer fatalities.

Having a helmet may increase confidence but it also refers to an instinct for safety somewhere.

Often head injuries are caused by impacts with cars and may not be the bikers fault, helmets certainly help prevent those and data collected in the UK points to fewer skull fractures.

Quote from: SeriousI would say that its more a case of riders with helmets tend to be injured more often but the injuries are less severe and there are fewer fatalities.

98% of internet stats are made up on the spot. Tell me in clear language how bike helmets save collarbones and femurs from being smashed. What youre saying is complete and utter horsesh*te.

Helmets are designed to save your head when you tip over, when you get hit by a car they do very little to save your ass.

Like I said, statistics from bicycle racing show no reduced injury rate.

Cycling, per hour, is as safe as showering. Now theres the chance that you might fall in the shower, and protection would be most welcome in such a situation, but nobodys pushing for bathing helmets.

Sadder even than all this, is the fact that a vast majority of people wearing helmets, wear them wrong or have the straps too loose. I rarely see a kid thats wearing one that doesnt have it on the back of his/er head, with the forehead ready for a concrete whacking.

Quote from: maximusotter

Quote from: SeriousI would say that its more a case of riders with helmets tend to be injured more often but the injuries are less severe and there are fewer fatalities.

98% of internet stats are made up on the spot. Tell me in clear language how bike helmets save collarbones and femurs from being smashed. What youre saying is complete and utter horsesh*te.

You aint seen and had to treat a schoolkid with a skull fracture then and you obviously never worked on ambulances either. People with helmets tend to be more informed about the risks rather than less and if they arent then a good pep talk should be enough.

A broken collarbone or femur wont kill you, a smashed head will give you far more lasting problems.

As for statistics I didnt give any but heres some I didnt look up earlier, I just knew they would be there - 40% drop in head injuries.

http://www.safetyrules.health.wa.gov.au/kids/factsheets/bikehelmets.htm

maxi you are sounding like the idiots who dont want to wear seatbelts because its safer not to.


[Edit] what Im saying applies to UK helmets only and may not to ones used in the US or other countries...[/edit]

The 40% figure is absolutely without merit.

 Do helmets reduce injury? Sure they do, but the stats are bent to favor the helmet makers. In most cases if you werent wearing a lid, youd get a few stitchs and a minor concussion. No big deal. Been there. Ive had over a hundred stitches to my face from bike related accidents and quite a bit of dental work, nothing that a helmet could have prevented. As far as serious brain damage goes, a bike lid takes it off a few degrees is all, if you find it comfortable, by all means, wear it. It offers pretty little protection in serious acccidents, so be careful.

Bike helmets can prevent minor concussions and some injury in minor crashes. Great. Big deal. If youre an experienced rider like myself, those crashes are rare. Yeah, Ive had a couple, but I used to ride over 10K per year. Its all about culmative mileage.

At any rate, rider training and discipline about road safety just walk all over zombie helmetism when it comes to actual safety.

The stats are in my favor.

I good helmet worn properly will reduce the rate of serious headinjuries but not reduce the total amount of injuries more then by a fraction, it is like with roundabouts, they even increase the amount of accidents but reduces the count of serious injuries. I personally think it is smarter to reduce the amount of serious damage.

Helmets suck, unless your DHing and wearing a full face.
Dasmn,  thems rocks be sharp!

I usually wore one when I mtbd back in the day of thumbshifters and the virgin birth of the Specialized Ground Control. Its about risk management. On the singletrack I rode, you were a heck of a lot more likely to go down than on the road, and indeed, it wasnt about tumbling on smooth road and getting rashed, it was a jumble of rock. Due to the statistical risk of such terrain, I wore a thick hardshell bike helmet.

Helmets are good for beginning cyclists that tend to randomly fall over, racers who take risks that lead to more crashes, and persons doing rough stuff off road. I also wore one when I messengered, as squeezing through Michigan Avenue traffic for 8 hours per day raises your risk of falling. For regular road riding and commuting, the risk is tiny and comfort is far more important.

Again, my point is that helmetsf are treated as a panacea over here, while rider skills and traffic discipline are abyssmal. When I rode the last tour, I led a moderate sized peloton on a moderately busy stretch of 6 lane road for a couple miles before we turned onto the usual two lane route. My god were these folks terrified, riding invisibly in the six inches to the right of the white line. I got them to work with me in a safe tight pack in the rightmost two lanes, with cars passing easily in the uncongested third lane. "Arent you scared of traffic", some yuppie on a $3K plastic bike asked me. "Nope" I said, "I am traffic." :mrgreen:

my brother in law was going round a corner on his motorbike, 1/2 round the corner the road changed from tarmac to dirt track, he slid off and hit his head on a fence post, putting i hole in his (good/expensive) helmet and giving him one hell of a concusion (he was found sitting on someones door stop not knowing who he was)

his helmet defenatly saved his life
and heis leathers saved him a fair bit of damage too

(not really relevent to this convo. but intresting non the less!)

Youre right, it has nothing to do with this thread. Thats the problem, people equate bicycle helmets with motorbike helmets, and its no contest. Bike helmets are meant to survive and protect from a six foot fall, whereas a good full face m/c helmet will happily skid down the tarmac at 70mph without disintegrating.

i wish i could skid at 70 miles per gallon.