When do you gear up Casual vs Full Gear?

[Dzlchef]

20 hours ago, LanghamP said:

A helmet is the final "last gasp" defense, when the collision has already occured. Its purpose is to reduce the injury by distributing the energy over a larger area and over longer times.

It's akin to wearing metal mesh while swimming in a shark tank; one would be far better off not being in the water with a shark in the first place.

Your argument is that I only need the helmet if I’m falling or after I have an impact, which is exactly why I wear it.  I know that I’m going to fall, just don’t know when.  I think to not protect myself because of how a driver might react misses the entire reason for having it in the first place.

[Darrell Wesh]

34 minutes ago, Dzlchef said:

Your argument is that I only need the helmet if I’m falling or after I have an impact, which is exactly why I wear it.  I know that I’m going to fall, just don’t know when.  I think to not protect myself because of how a driver might react misses the entire reason for having it in the first place.

I think you’re missing the point of our debate. And you still haven’t answered my direct question to you. What happens when you fall and the car behind you, as you yourself suggest most people do, is unprepared to stop in time due to playing with their phone/lack of attention ? Will your helmet protect you then?

Now the data from the study points towards this: drivers give you more following distance which extrapolates to inattentive, texting drivers will have more time to react if you fall which decreases your chances of getting run over. 

For someone like yourself who is always on the roads with cars, would you rather have a lower chance of getting run over by a car but risk injuring your head/ face if you fall wrong, or a zero chance of injuring your face, lower possibility of injuring your head, but a higher chance of getting run over by a car? That is essentially what the debate is. 

We know what happens to people who get run over by cars. If you hit your head you could range from no damage to concussions with loss of consciousness but at these speeds usually no long term effects.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Darrell Wesh

[Nic]

18 minutes ago, Darrell Wesh said:

Now the data from the study points towards this: drivers give you more following distance which extrapolates to inattentive, texting drivers will have more time to react if you fall which decreases your chances of getting run over.

Its always safer to wear a helmet because accidents don't always involve close passes by other vehicles. Even if a driver passes closer to you if you are wearing a helmet, you could easily have an accident due to a different cause (pot hole on road, pedestrian steps out, car pull out from junction, etc.) so wearing a helmet is definitely recommended. I don't know what proportion of accidents involve close passes, but this isn't one of the more common causes of accidents, so it shouldn't stop you from wearing a helmet.

https://www.missourilawyers.com/bicycle-accident-lawyer/five-common-causes/

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Nic

[Darrell Wesh]

7 minutes ago, Nic said:

 

https://www.missourilawyers.com/bicycle-accident-lawyer/five-common-causes/

 

Useful article! Thanks. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Darrell Wesh

[Darrell Wesh]

13 minutes ago, Nic said:

Its always safer to wear a helmet because accidents don't always involve close passes by other vehicles. Even if a driver passes closer to you if you are wearing a helmet, you could easily have an accident due to a different cause (pot hole on road, pedestrian steps out, car pull out from junction, etc.) so wearing a helmet is definitely recommended. I don't know what proportion of accidents involve close passes, but this isn't one of the more common causes of accidents, so it shouldn't stop you from wearing a helmet

It is always safer in what context though? To avoid brain damage sure. But to avoid getting hit by a car the data points to it not being safer to wear a helmet. And this is the most important reason because it is the accident that is the most lethal.

Lets use one of your examples. Pothole on road causes you to fall and your CE certified helmet does the job and you feel nothing as your head bounces off the asphalt. You skid to a stop only to hear screeching tires as the car that followed too closely can’t stop in time and runs you over, dragging your body along. You’re likely dead or going to need limbs amputated that were crushed by thousands of pounds of metal. 

As @LanghamP already said, a helmet is a defense after the accident has already occurred. I would rather the accident not happen at all. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Darrell Wesh

[yourtoys7]

2 things: Short rides and under 25 km/h speed I will only wear gloves (local store, in the park, evening rides etc.).  Longer rider and 45-50 km/h I wear full gear (knee/ sheen pads, bike mesh jacket, full face helmet and gloves), (to work around 15km, group rides, fun fast rides etc.).

I had 2 major falls, 1 at 32 km/h on mcm3 with nothing on at all (when I was just starting this hobby), 2nd. at around 48 km/h msuper v3s full gear.

it all depends on how aggressive you gonna ride and your speed...

 

[Darrell Wesh]

23 minutes ago, Nic said:

Its always safer to wear a helmet because accidents don't always involve close passes by other vehicles. Even if a driver passes closer to you if you are wearing a helmet, you could easily have an accident due to a different cause (pot hole on road, pedestrian steps out, car pull out from junction, etc.) so wearing a helmet is definitely recommended. I don't know what proportion of accidents involve close passes, but this isn't one of the more common causes of accidents, so it shouldn't stop you from wearing a helmet.

https://www.missourilawyers.com/bicycle-accident-lawyer/five-common-causes 

 

Just read the article. It’s Ironic that the very article you refer to disagrees with your own post. I quote:

Bicyclists are most concerned about rear end collisions and resulting injuries. It is not an uncommon situation. In fact, the rear end collision is the most common way that drunk drivers hurt or kill cyclists. St Charles Bike Accident Settled – “The Rear End”

[Nic]

2 hours ago, Darrell Wesh said:

Just read the article. It’s Ironic that the very article you refer to disagrees with your own post. I quote:

Bicyclists are most concerned about rear end collisions and resulting injuries. It is not an uncommon situation. In fact, the rear end collision is the most common way that drunk drivers hurt or kill cyclists. St Charles Bike Accident Settled – “The Rear End”

On the contrary, this supports my case ... a close pass is not the same as a rear end collision, so a driver giving more room when passing a cyclist that isn't wearing a helmet (the driver has seen the cyclist) has nothing to do with rear end collisions. A rear end collision occurs when the driver hasn't spotted the cyclist (or their judgement is affected by alcohol, etc.) as opposed to a driver spotting a cyclist wearing a helmet and not giving as much room when passing. So, always wear a helmet because it is most definitely safer to do so.

http://cycling.today/drivers-give-cyclists-wearing-helmets-less-room-on-the-road-study-shows/

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Nic

[Darrell Wesh]

1 hour ago, Nic said:

On the contrary, this supports my case ... a close pass is not the same as a rear end collision, so a driver giving more room when passing a cyclist that isn't wearing a helmet (the driver has seen the cyclist) has nothing to do with rear end collisions. A rear end collision occurs when the driver hasn't spotted the cyclist (or their judgement is affected by alcohol, etc.) as opposed to a driver spotting a cyclist wearing a helmet and not giving as much room when passing. So, always wear a helmet because it is most definitely safer to do so.

http://cycling.today/drivers-give-cyclists-wearing-helmets-less-room-on-the-road-study-shows/

 

?? Well then I’m at a loss as to why you even said close passes when you quoted me and knew I, and the data, was talking about rear end collisions. Obviously a car giving you less following distance means the car is behind you. 

 

[LanghamP]

Helmet usage is positively correlated with fatalities, that is, countries with higher helmet usage have higher fatality rates.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/06/02/why-helmets-arent-the-answer-to-bike-safety-in-one-chart/

Of these countries, the U.S. has the highest rate of helmet usage among cyclists — around 55 percent — but also the highest cyclist fatality rate per distance traveled. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, where helmet use is practically nil, cycling is much, much safer.

US statistics show about 9 of 10 bicycle fatalities are caused by being hit by a driver, that is, the driver hit the bicyclist and the bicyclist died.

Since EUCs behave quite close to bicycles, we can surmise your biggest danger is from being hit by a driver. Even from the small sample of people I personally know, being hit by a driver is the majority of injuries and a few fatalities.

There's no possibility of building a helmet that protects you from a car to rider collision.

 

[svenomous]

25 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

Helmet usage is positively correlated with fatalities

Wading fearlessly into the fray...

Correlation is not the same as causation, and must be treated with great care when trying to draw conclusions. I certainly don't know what factors distinguish the U.S. from Holland in terms of bicycle safety, but helmet usage is only one correlation out of probably many (culture, how drivers consciously and subconsciously regard bicyclists, road rules and enforcement practices, signage, lane markings, separation of motor vehicles from bicycles via dedicated lanes/paths, ...).

I don't EUC yet, but I do bicycle-commute at least 3 times a week, and I do it in traffic, so I've had my share of good and bad experiences with drivers, near-accidents, close calls with someone on their cell phone while turning left at an intersection, pedestrians who suddenly turn around or side-step just as I'm passing them, and so on. As I've said before, to each his own, but my philosophy aligns with that of e.g. @Nic or @Scatcat in that I believe one should wear as much safety equipment as one is comfortable with from a style/comfort/situation perspective.  An attentive driver passes closer to a helmeted bike rider than an un-helmeted one, as proved by the cited study, but I don't worry much about attentive drivers or whether they pass me at 12 inches or 18 inches (OK, I worry a little that they might misjudge the width of their car or how much their side-view mirror sticks out).  I worry far more about inattentive drivers who didn't see me at all, helmet or no helmet.  If I fall because of my own inattentiveness, or a mechanical failure, or an unforeseen road hazard, or an unpredictable pedestrian, the helmet protects me (probably...depends on how I fall).  If I fall while on a bike lane next to traffic, the helmet again probably protects me, and yes, maybe I fall into the traffic lane, and maybe a car happens to be too close to be able to stop in time, and maybe I get run over and maimed or killed, but what does that have to do with whether the helmet protected me from the fall itself?  In some side-swipe or collision situations, the helmet might even provide some protection against a motor vehicle, certainly more than my bare head.  It is not an automatic given that riding in traffic and falling means you get run over, which means the conclusion that helmets make no sense...makes no sense to me.

OK, now back to dreaming about how quickly and easily I will learn to ride an EUC, faster than anyone else ever has.  Irrational exuberance!

[svenomous]

7 hours ago, Smoother said:

I'm not sure a leash is a good idea on a big heavy wheel.

Thanks for the advice, @Smoother.  I think I will do some initial careful testing, similar to what you describe, to see if the leash thing works for me or not.  If not, I'll abandon the leash right at the start, before too much ankle damage has been done.  Someone in another thread called his EUC the "ankle monster," which I love and your message reminded me of.

@NylahTay, thanks, yes, looking forward to my 18XL, hope you enjoy yours as well!

Edited April 11, 2019 by svenomous
Double-post, deleting duplication.

[seage]

58 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, where helmet use is practically nil, cycling is much, much safer.

To be fair though, the netherlands has the greatest cycling infrastructure in the world. They have miles upon miles of dedicated cycle lanes away from traffic. So unless a car need for speeds over into the dedicated cycle lanes then no ones gonna die from being hit by a car. Its a bit different than riding in the states where you need to dodge cars just to get to your mailbox. Sure wearing a helmet may not matter in either situation, but they're still different and would explain why people feel safer and the fatality rate is lower. With that many cyclists over there, if they were all on the road, well...actually cars would get used to not killing them eventually, but bring that to the states and people would be getting hit on the daily, helmet or not. 

[seage]

11 minutes ago, svenomous said:

Thanks for the advice, @Smoother.  I think I will do some initial careful testing, similar to what you describe, to see if the leash thing works for me or not.  If not, I'll abandon the leash right at the start, before too much ankle damage has been done.  Someone in another thread called his EUC the "ankle monster," which I love and your message reminded me of.

@NylahTay, thanks, yes, looking forward to my 18XL, hope you enjoy yours as well!

I just received my 18XL 2 days ago and have been loving it to death. That extra speed helps, but oh my god, its heavy, lmao. Gotta wait for the new bruising to go away before I can handle it nicely. Its like my 16 all over again. Gotta condition my legs. 

[Nic]

2 hours ago, Darrell Wesh said:

?? Well then I’m at a loss as to why you even said close passes when you quoted me and knew I, and the data, was talking about rear end collisions. Obviously a car giving you less following distance means the car is behind you. 

 

My apologies Darrell ... I hadn't read the earlier posts and assumed we were talking about the well known statistic of close passes of cyclists that don't wear helmets.

[Darrell Wesh]

3 hours ago, svenomous said:

Wading fearlessly into the fray...

Correlation is not the same as causation, and must be treated with great care when trying to draw conclusions. I certainly don't know what factors distinguish the U.S. from Holland in terms of bicycle safety, but helmet usage is only one correlation out of probably many (culture, how drivers consciously and subconsciously regard bicyclists, road rules and enforcement practices, signage, lane markings, separation of motor vehicles from bicycles via dedicated lanes/paths, ...).

I don't EUC yet, but I do bicycle-commute at least 3 times a week, and I do it in traffic, so I've had my share of good and bad experiences with drivers, near-accidents, close calls with someone on their cell phone while turning left at an intersection, pedestrians who suddenly turn around or side-step just as I'm passing them, and so on. As I've said before, to each his own, but my philosophy aligns with that of e.g. @Nic or @Scatcat in that I believe one should wear as much safety equipment as one is comfortable with from a style/comfort/situation perspective.  An attentive driver passes closer to a helmeted bike rider than an un-helmeted one, as proved by the cited study, but I don't worry much about attentive drivers or whether they pass me at 12 inches or 18 inches (OK, I worry a little that they might misjudge the width of their car or how much their side-view mirror sticks out).  I worry far more about inattentive drivers who didn't see me at all, helmet or no helmet.  If I fall because of my own inattentiveness, or a mechanical failure, or an unforeseen road hazard, or an unpredictable pedestrian, the helmet protects me (probably...depends on how I fall).  If I fall while on a bike lane next to traffic, the helmet again probably protects me, and yes, maybe I fall into the traffic lane, and maybe a car happens to be too close to be able to stop in time, and maybe I get run over and maimed or killed, but what does that have to do with whether the helmet protected me from the fall itself?  In some side-swipe or collision situations, the helmet might even provide some protection against a motor vehicle, certainly more than my bare head.  It is not an automatic given that riding in traffic and falling means you get run over, which means the conclusion that helmets make no sense...makes no sense to me.

OK, now back to dreaming about how quickly and easily I will learn to ride an EUC, faster than anyone else ever has.  Irrational exuberance!

That is true and I was thinking of that as I read @LanghamP post. There are too many other factors that cause the USA to have the highest bicyclist death rates and the helmetless Netherlands lowest. 

I do think we are comparing EUC’s far too closely to bikes. On an EUC, everyone will notice you. You are taller, usually taller than most sedans and coupes while standing on the EUC so you are quite visible unlike the hunched over bicyclist. You shouldn’t worry about someone not seeing you on the road(crosswalks is a different story). On the flip side, Your chances of falling from a pothole, bump, or vehicle failure are considerably higher on an EUC than a bike which is why the simple act of being in front of a car at high speeds is exceedingly dangerous. This is why the fear of getting run over is much much more pervasive on an EUC than on a bike. I would never imagine falling in traffic while on a bike, no matter the road conditions. On an EUC, that’s either at the back of your mind or the front depending on the road conditions.

Being electrical, with only one wheel that could go flat and throw us off, unlike a bike, we are really kissing the machines ass as we ride hoping nothing goes wrong. If I ever fell, I’d hope I did everything I could actively and passively to have a large following distance from the car behind me. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Darrell Wesh

[LanghamP]

1 hour ago, Darrell Wesh said:

On an EUC, everyone will notice you. 

Interestingly, getting off the EUC and walking it (legally) might be more dangerous than simply floating on it through traffic, as I've been hit about half a dozen times from either a right on red driver or a left turning driver on red. Being a pedestrian is surely the worst situation; no live from cars, bikes, nor EUCs.

I think an 18 incher is very comparable to a fast bicycle, and the apparent crash rate of 18 inchers seems the lowest of all EUCs. I've only dropped my 18 incher once, at a zero speed knock-over, and how often do you hear of an 18 inch rider crashing especially compared to the 16 inchers? That's why I recommend new riders should just always get an 18 incher, because it handles and is about as safe as a bicycle. 14 and 16 inchers are quite a bit slower than a bicycle, and pushing them to be as fast is looking for a crash.

[erk1024]

Speaking of helmets, I'm trying to decide between a full-face mountain biking helmet and a carbon motocross helmet. I live in Florida these days, so it's an effort not to overheat when you're doing activities outside. Chooch uses a motocross helmet, but he's also going 35mph+ and mixing it up with traffic. So a light helmet/cool would be good. But the extra protection of a motocross helmet maybe is also good. I'm not sure how fast I'll end up going once I get some miles of experience. I'll probably ride mostly on bike paths / bike lanes.

I think @Marty Backe recently switched to a motorcycle helmet, the Scorpion.

Edited April 12, 2019 by erk1024
added text

[meepmeepmayer]

1 hour ago, erk1024 said:

I live in Florida these days, so it's an effort not to overheat when you're doing activities outside.

The Fox Proframe is a very light and airy full face mountainbike helmet. I explicitly got it so it would be as unproblematic in the summer heat as possible. It's been very nice so far.

Safety wise, I believe a mountainbike helmet is enough. Not sure what more a motocross helmet would do But I'm certainly no expert.

Quick googling shows this, maybe a motocross helmet might even be a disadvantage: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/DH-Helmets-vs-Motocross-Helmets-Which-Is-Safer.html

I agree with the sentiment in the article that theoretical worst case crash scenarios are less important than everyday light and medium crash behavior.

[Dave U]

1 hour ago, erk1024 said:

I live in Florida these days, so it's an effort not to overheat when you're doing activities outside.

I wear the Bell Super DH (Down Hill) with Mips Mountainbike Helmet when on my KS18L. It also gets kinda hot here in Los Angeles Ca.

[stephenbadger]

l wear a $25 K-Mart bicycle helmet that l spray-painted "primer grey" 

[Scatcat]

18 hours ago, LanghamP said:

Helmet usage is positively correlated with fatalities, that is, countries with higher helmet usage have higher fatality rates.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/06/02/why-helmets-arent-the-answer-to-bike-safety-in-one-chart/

Of these countries, the U.S. has the highest rate of helmet usage among cyclists — around 55 percent — but also the highest cyclist fatality rate per distance traveled. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, where helmet use is practically nil, cycling is much, much safer.

US statistics show about 9 of 10 bicycle fatalities are caused by being hit by a driver, that is, the driver hit the bicyclist and the bicyclist died.

Since EUCs behave quite close to bicycles, we can surmise your biggest danger is from being hit by a driver. Even from the small sample of people I personally know, being hit by a driver is the majority of injuries and a few fatalities.

There's no possibility of building a helmet that protects you from a car to rider collision.

 

Sorry, but no! That is correlation, not causation. You can't compare with Netherlands that probably has the best and safest bicycle infrastructure in the world. Also, it is a matter of culture, where the bicycle is a lot more respected in places like the Netherlands or Denmark than in other places. It is about how car oriented the society in question is. And there probably is a lot of other parameters that has nothing to do with a helmet that affects the correlation.

Looking at the graph:

You may note that Sweden and Denmark have just about the same fatality rates with quite some difference in helmet use. Denmark overall is a more bike friendly country than Sweden (I say overall, there are of course local variations). So basically there should be less fatalities in Denmark, than in Sweden per mile. Also look at UK and France, where UK leads in fatalities if only marginally, and France in helmet use. Or compare Finland and the US and think a while how the difference in fatalities can be so large, if the difference in hemet use aren't?

There is no "all else being equal" in this graph. If you don't believe me, visit the Netherlands and look at their bike culture. There's a lot of bikes, they generally don't behave like they're racing, and the bike roads are magnificent.

 

[Marty Backe]

11 hours ago, erk1024 said:

Speaking of helmets, I'm trying to decide between a full-face mountain biking helmet and a carbon motocross helmet. I live in Florida these days, so it's an effort not to overheat when you're doing activities outside. Chooch uses a motocross helmet, but he's also going 35mph+ and mixing it up with traffic. So a light helmet/cool would be good. But the extra protection of a motocross helmet maybe is also good. I'm not sure how fast I'll end up going once I get some miles of experience. I'll probably ride mostly on bike paths / bike lanes.

I think @Marty Backe recently switched to a motorcycle helmet, the Scorpion.

I feel like I'm starting to collect helmets. I still use my skate helmet when in the mountains but now use a Scorpion modular for my full-up rides. I can't speak to high humidity regions, but the full-face enclosed helmets don't seem too hot even in the summer. I will say that they start feeling heavy after about 3-hours of riding.

Now I'm looking for a nice minimalist helmet with good protection that I can use for around town riding.

So bottom line; different helmets for different styles of riding. 

[erk1024]

26 minutes ago, Marty Backe said:

So bottom line; different helmets for different styles of riding.

Thanks Marty! That makes sense. I'm kind of thinking along the same lines:

* Bike helmet for low speeds (less than 15mph) doing photography, mixing in with pedestrians, traveling light.
* Full face for high speed, long cruising rides, offroad

I got a white and black Icon mesh jacket which I think offers good visibility--better than all black. But it doesn't match my bright orange helmet (okay I messed up). White and orange, not a great color combination unless I want to look like a sailing buoy. So now I gotta find an excuse to get a matching helmet. LOL.

Edited April 12, 2019 by erk1024
added text

[Scatcat]

I'm going to pull out of this discussion now. This "should we wear a helmet when riding our EUC" thingie, is far too much like the discussion that has gone on and on and on and on and on in the bicycle community for decades. I find that just like in that discussion, it will not be possible to convince anyone that are not already convinced.

I remember about two decades ago, that I actually belonged to "the other side" in this discussion. The reports of brain damage because of rotational forces, that allegedly were aggravated by the helmet. Especially the canoe type bike helmets that sticks out front and back. That eventually got us MIPS and equivalent tech. Already then there were these reports of cars coming too close to bicyclists that wore protection. Here in Sweden we even had something called the "sting stick", a  foot and a half long stick with a cat's eye reflector mounted on the back of the bike sticking out into the traffic. The theory being that even the most nonchalant car driver would like to keep their pristine finish on their car, rather than risk scratches from the stick. Mostly psychological of course, but it was a known problem.

So on one side all those who theorize about car driver behavior and pedestrian intimidation factors, social stuff and illusory safety.
On the other side just about every ER-personell that has ever taken care of the aftermath of a crash.

Somewhere there is a small mountain of scrap plastic helmets from bicyclists, skaters, mc-riders. All of which swear that their money was well spent, since they're moving on with their lives without lasting detriments. Are they correct, or would they be fine even without leaving pulverized plastic on the tarmac? Who knows?

What I know is that as I post this, i will go pick up my five year old at the nursery school, and probably meet with the mother of one of his friends. She still wears sound dampening headphones, after a bike crash without helmet at close to walking speed. That crash was two years ago this summer, and the first six months it was touch an go if she would recover to a reasonable degree. The headphones are still necessary since she still gets tired in noisy environments, but other than that she is mostly fine now. Had she had a helmet on at that time, it is pretty damn likely the recovery would have taken days, or at most weeks, rather than months and years. That is anecdotal as hell, but it is also in my face and not something I can ignore.

Sorry for the wall of text. Make your own decisions, and make sure they're not something you will regret later.