Helmet......the cool factor

[Donald1800]

Being a 78yr.old bicycle rider that has completely outgrown the need for "Cool", and looking forward to buying my first EU (KS 18) next year, I have added  'skate board' elbow, wrist and knee guards to my 'Pro Hockey' bike Helmet and visor, with a future Hockey 'full body armor' suit planned.  Body flesh & bone flexibility is not what it used to be and "Cool" is not spending time in a hospital.

[Mono]

14 hours ago, Aaron Corsi said:

I think @Jurgen was pretty reasonable in his assessment of the state of EUCs. I would like it to be the case that EUCs all had redundant protections built in like true Segways, but that is not the world we live in. Even my relatively mainstream Ninebot has dozens of components that would cause an instant faceplant if even one of them fails. Being realistic about the state of EUC safety is good to help prevent injuries and deaths until a serious company comes along and makes an EUC with enough redundant safety to be viable as mainstream product.

I have never fallen on my own EUC and I trust it to be reliable when riding hard

It seems to me that these two paragraphs contradict each other. Or you suggest that only your personal EUC is reliably and trust worthy, but not the one of others (to whom, as I understand, you would suggest to use a helmet for this reason).

Quote

 but I did test a friend's EUC that he suspected was defective (it was) and when it shut off on me I was on the ground instantly. 

Using a crash with a somewhat known defective device as argument looks to me as a little bit of fear mongering as well. 

Quote

I'm in my 20s and was wearing wrist guards so I was able to walk away with just a scraped knee but that is not ever an acceptable situation for a mainstream transportation solution. If it was a known issue that cars randomly shut off the steering and brakes when you were driving then somebody encouraging extra protection would not be fear mongering, and I think @Jurgen's position is similar.

Suggesting additional passive protection for the passengers of cars which suffer from random shut offs of the steering or braking is pretty absurd. I can't imagine you would actually consider such a suggestion seriously (and I believe we had a similar case in the news a few years ago, where, to my knowledge, nobody suggested to add passive protections in the cars under suspicion). If the car analogy would be valid, it would rather precisely make my point of how to approach unsafe devices. 

Generally, the rational consequence of having an device considered as "unsafe" is to either make it "safe", or not use it, not to use it only with a helmet. 

Quote

Really though, anything that discourages helmets in dangerous situations is a bad idea in my opinion. Helmets aren't cool, but protecting the brain is enormously important, people adding to the negative stigma of helmets aren't helping anybody. (I'm not saying you are doing this @Niko, there's nothing negative in your post about helmets) I think the right way to go is to promote the idea of wearing a helmet being the default for more dangerous activities and not something where you spend much time wagering whether it's really worth it for a given dangerous activity.

Yes and no. If you want to use a helmet, by all means do so. But nevertheless, I'd prefer if you don't suggest to others to change their behavior (directly or indirectly) without sufficient evidence that this will make the world a better place.

Now what's the harm of (aggressively) recommending helmet use? What's the harm of the fear mongering to support this recommendation? For one, it will give the activity a bad reputation as being dangerous (here without sufficient evidence that it actually is dangerous, of course always compared to other activities), it will deter people from the activity, it will thereby preclude people enjoying the positive aspects of this activity in their lives. Also, it will distract the focus from a more important point: to aggressively advocate for a careful evaluation of the risks and safety concerns and for improving the devices based on this evaluation and to outlaw unnecessary unsafe designs. 

When it comes to an argument, all this seems to be a rather a unpopular position in this forum, but when it comes to "voting with their feet", the majority of EUCers seem yet to have concluded that EUCing without helmet is preferable. 

 

[dmethvin]

2 hours ago, Niko said:

Using a crash with a somewhat known defective device as argument looks to me as a little bit of fear mongering as well. 

Suggesting additional passive protection for the passengers of cars which suffer from random shut offs of the steering or braking is pretty absurd. I can't imagine you would actually consider such a suggestion seriously (and I believe we had a similar case in the news a few years ago, where, to my knowledge, nobody suggested to add passive protections in the cars under suspicion). If the car analogy would be valid, it would rather precisely make my point of how to approach unsafe devices. 

Generally, the rational consequence of having an device considered as "unsafe" is to either make it "safe", or not use it, not to use it only with a helmet. 

Can you list one EUC being sold today that is "safe"? I think we've seen mechanical or firmware problems from all of them including big brands like Ninebot. Comparing with cars, there are plenty of safety devices like seat belts, airbags, and crumple zones that protect against mistakes by the operator, mistakes by other drivers, road conditions, or defects in the car itself. For cars we have the luxury of being in a box we can reinforce. On the EUC it makes more sense to reinforce the rider, there's nothing else around us! It's not that different from motorcycles really.

2 hours ago, Niko said:

If you want to use a helmet, by all means do so. But nevertheless, I'd prefer if you don't suggest to others to change their behavior (directly or indirectly) without sufficient evidence that this will make the world a better place.

All I have is anecdotal evidence from my own falls. My head has hit the ground twice in 600 miles of riding, and both times I am sure the helmet helped. I would prefer to let others avoid serious injury. Everyone here is free to decide whether my advice or yours is what they want to follow. I won't get aggressive about your point of view, please don't be aggressive about mine.

2 hours ago, Niko said:

When it comes to an argument, all this seems to be a rather a unpopular position in this forum, but when it comes to "voting with their feet", the majority of EUCers seem yet to have concluded that EUCing without helmet is preferable. 

Please qualify that as "the majority of Paris EUCers in this video" and not try to extrapolate that to the world. Perhaps your point of view is due to the relative safety of riding conditions in your area? Take a look at this video about cycling in less cycle-friendly countries. Amsterdam cyclists are traveling together at relatively low speeds, separated from cars. Cyclists in many other countries are mixed in with cars and often hit by inattentive drivers. In my area, pedestrians and EUCs have legal right of way but in reality many drivers are inattentive and would mow you down if you're not careful. Safety equipment isn't necessarily about a lack of confidence in your own abilities, but concern about the behavior of the cars, bikes, and pedestrians around you. Those things vary a lot by region.

[MarkoMarjamaa]

dmethvin said:

"In my area, pedestrians and EUCs have legal right of way but in reality many drivers are inattentive and would mow you down if you're not careful. "

 

Are you suggesting pedestrians should have helmets?

[Mono]

17 hours ago, dmethvin said:

Can you list one EUC being sold today that is "safe"?

No.^1 And? 

Quote

I think we've seen mechanical or firmware problems from all of them including big brands like Ninebot. Comparing with cars, there are plenty of safety devices like seat belts, airbags, and crumple zones that protect against mistakes by the operator, mistakes by other drivers, road conditions, or defects in the car itself. For cars we have the luxury of being in a box we can reinforce.

I didn't make the analogy with cars and I also don't think it is a valid one in this context. 

Quote

On the EUC it makes more sense to reinforce the rider, there's nothing else around us! It's not that different from motorcycles really.

It's very different from a motorcycle for many reasons, which should go without saying. It is much closer to bicycles with electric support.

Quote

All I have is anecdotal evidence from my own falls. My head has hit the ground twice in 600 miles of riding, and both times I am sure the helmet helped.

May I asked whether you bought a new helmet after your crashes? 

Quote

I would prefer to let others avoid serious injury. Everyone here is free to decide whether my advice or yours is what they want to follow. I won't get aggressive about your point of view, please don't be aggressive about mine.

Please qualify that as "the majority of Paris EUCers in this video" and not try to extrapolate that to the world.

Well, I did a quick search for vids on Youtube with pretty much the same result. For the first 20-or-so I clicked, in more than 80% riders did't wear a helmet. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are invited to present it here. 

Quote

Perhaps your point of view is due to the relative safety of riding conditions in your area? Take a look at this video about cycling in less cycle-friendly countries. Amsterdam cyclists are traveling together at relatively low speeds, separated from cars. Cyclists in many other countries are mixed in with cars and often hit by inattentive drivers.

Right. Yet the numbers show that in each of these situations bicyclists are safer than pedestrians.^2 They even seem to suggest a negative correlation between helmet use and injury frequency, which I suspect is rather related to the behavior of car drivers than to helmet use itself.  

Quote

In my area, pedestrians and EUCs have legal right of way but in reality many drivers are inattentive and would mow you down if you're not careful.

Now, if you would make the case for pedestrians wearing helmets, your case for EUC riders wearing helmets would be a little more convincing to me.

^1 Neither did I any research on the relative safety of different EUCs, nor would I know what a reasonable definition of "safe" should be in this context out of my head. 

^2 http://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5621388/pedestrian-and-biker-deaths

[MarkoMarjamaa]

Maybe Niko and I should start promoting laws that it's illegal to wear helmets with EU, just to prove a point of freedom to choose.

[dpong]

Interesting.  One side is attempting to persuade others to voluntarily wear a helmet for their own safety.  The other side is against either direct or indirect persuasion to others to voluntarily wear a helmet.  That same side that is against persuasion, is in favor of authoritarian measures for safety, to outlaw all practices or models that are deemed by government panel to be unsafe.  Voluntary measures are dissuaded.  Only mandatory measures are recommended.  What is free about that?  

Weird.

[Mono]

@dpong AFAICS there is nothing "free" about making laws against unnecessarily unsafe devices being sold for regular use. It just makes this world a better place to live in.

[dmethvin]

1 hour ago, Niko said:

Right. Yet the numbers show that in each of these situations bicyclists are safer than pedestrians.^2 They even seem to suggest a negative correlation between helmet use and injury frequency, which I suspect is rather related to the behavior of car drivers than to helmet use itself.  

If you're referring to the bicycle high death rates in the US compared to the rest of the world, that is back to the lack of bicycle-specific infrastructure that is mentioned in the video. Wouldn't this data support an assertion that the increased use of helmets has reduced deaths? Some data from NYC shows that 97% of fatalities occurred with people not wearing helmets and 74% of fatal crashes involved a head injury.

1 hour ago, Niko said:

Now, if you would make the case for pedestrians wearing helmets, your case for EUC riders wearing helmets would be a little more convincing to me.

If pedestrians were traveling as fast as an EUC, a helmet might be a good idea. If I was traveling at no more than walking speed on my EUC I wouldn't be concerned about safety equipment either. I can just hop off at that speed. The problem at higher speeds is the lack of reaction time, both your own and the people around you.

BTW, I'm not trying to convince you to wear a helmet, you've clearly made up your mind. However, I think that your request that we all not advise people to wear helmets or other protective gear based on our own experience is going too far.

[Aaron Corsi]

6 hours ago, Niko said:

It seems to me that these two paragraphs contradict each other. Or you suggest that only your personal EUC is reliably and trust worthy, but not the one of others (to whom, as I understand, you would suggest to use a helmet for this reason).

I trust my own EUC within reason, but still with the knowledge that I am depending on a multitude of components to continue working flawlessly in order to enable my relatively safe riding. My EUC is no more reliable than any other non defective EUC, I mentioned my experience with a defective EUC as my singular experience of falling off an EUC and landing on the ground. If I had fallen off of my own EUC because a component failed when riding it normally (not expecting it to fail at any moment) I suspect I would have sustained greater injury if anything because I would not have been bracing for a fall and I would have been traveling faster. After experiencing my first fall I now wear my helmet at all times along with my wrist guards, before I only wore my helmet when conditions were bad or if I planned to ride off road.

6 hours ago, Niko said:

Suggesting additional passive protection for the passengers of cars which suffer from random shut offs of the steering or braking is pretty absurd. I can't imagine you would actually consider such a suggestion seriously (and I believe we had a similar case in the news a few years ago, where, to my knowledge, nobody suggested to add passive protections in the cars under suspicion). If the car analogy would be valid, it would rather precisely make my point of how to approach unsafe devices. 

Generally, the rational consequence of having an device considered as "unsafe" is to either make it "safe", or not use it, not to use it only with a helmet. 

Perhaps my analogy wasn't as direct as it could have been because cars have a roll cage, steel doors, air bags, etc. which would indeed make adding a helmet seem somewhat silly depending on the context. I think a better analogy would be suggesting somebody wear a helmet if they were riding a bicycle where the handlebars would occasionally fall off causing you to lose brakes and steering. Really this wouldn't even be as bad as an EUC failing at the same speed because one could be skilled enough to balance a bike with no handlebars or brakes to a safe coasting stop whereas no amount of skill can help you when an EUC fails. You've got about as much protection around you on a bike as an EUC and you're going about the same speed as a bicycle, if a bike fails on you as hard as an EUC can then yes it's reasonable to suggest someone wear a helmet for their own safety. 

Of course just accepting that sometimes cars or bikes will lose their brakes and steering is ludicrous because we have a minimum expectation of reliability from those vehicles, right now EUCs don't live up to a similar expectation of reliability. I think that EUCs need to get to a similar level of reliability and until we get there I do think that it makes EUCs unsuitable as a mass market form of transportation even with safety gear, and for those brave enough to live on the bleeding edge like ourselves wearing some safety equipment is the responsible choice. Even with equal reliability to a bicycle if you're commuting in traffic like myself and not just riding on a closed path then it's still a good idea to wear safety gear to protect yourself from those around you.

6 hours ago, Niko said:

If you want to use a helmet, by all means do so. But nevertheless, I'd prefer if you don't suggest to others to change their behavior (directly or indirectly) without sufficient evidence that this will make the world a better place.

 

1 hour ago, dmethvin said:

Some data from NYC shows that 97% of fatalities occurred with people not wearing helmets and 74% of fatal crashes involved a head injury.

Even if I lived in a vacuum with none of my own anecdotal life experience, @dmethvin's linked example alone would be enough to convince me that it's worth erring on the side of wearing safety protection. It's easy to put on before each ride and could save your life. I will continue to suggest to others to wear safety gear because while hopefully they may never need it, in one unfortunate moment it could be the difference between life and death. As motorcyclists say, you "dress for the slide, not the ride" meaning no matter how confident you are that the next ride is going to be uneventful and safe you never know if it's the one where your safety gear is going to save your life.

 

6 hours ago, Niko said:

What's the harm of the fear mongering to support this recommendation? For one, it will give the activity a bad reputation as being dangerous (here without sufficient evidence that it actually is dangerous, of course always compared to other activities), it will deter people from the activity, it will thereby preclude people enjoying the positive aspects of this activity in their lives.

Perhaps this is the reputation EUCs deserve. I love my EUC and I agree that it has positive aspects in my life, but to pretend that those positive aspects don't come with inherent danger tradeoffs is foolish and it's irresponsible to diminish the very real risks inherent to EUCs to potential riders. If they don't want to ride on an EUC because of the risk then that's their choice, I would rather EUC manufacturers notice potential sales they're missing out on and improve reliability to capture that market rather than waiting until the injury/death toll rises high enough that it can no longer be ignored to get the same result. If your concern is bad publicity for EUCs then I would be more worried about someone with an EUC to thank for a broken limb or brain damage than the person who doesn't want to ride an EUC because they need to wear a helmet.

6 hours ago, Niko said:

when it comes to "voting with their feet", the majority of EUCers seem yet to have concluded that EUCing without helmet is preferable. 

All the more reason to promote the regular use of safety gear. If it was already the norm then I wouldn't feel the need to advocate for it, but hopefully advocating for safety gear can get some people to start wearing it before they experience a painful crash where safety gear could have helped them.

[MetricUSA]

Besides the awesome horny helmet, you need this for ultimate protection...

http://www.amazon.com/Buddy-Bounce-Outdoor-Play-Inflatable/dp/B009E8LPDK/ref=pd_sim_200_8?ie=UTF8&dpID=61MvObRMn5L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR145%2C160_&refRID=12ASYP2HTSTJ3H462QYJ

[SuperSport]

Yeah, I want one of those personal Air Bags for when I ride.  Seriously, if price was not an issue, I would use one every ride.

And for those days that Alcohol just MUST be used:

[Mono]

@dmethvin, "Wouldn't this data support an assertion that the increased use of helmets has reduced deaths?"

I don't see how it could. Both, absolute and relative numbers of fatalities are considerably larger in the group where more helmets are used. The only possible implication from these data would be that helmets increase death rates. Yes. And that pedestrians would be the more appropriate target of the next helmet wearing campaign. And that there must be (much) more important factors to safety than helmets. 

"Some data from NYC shows that 97% of fatalities occurred with people not wearing helmets and 74% of fatal crashes involved a head injury."

I have not much of a doubt that a helmet helps to survive a crash when it happens. The more important (and slightly but yet decisively different) question is however whether recommending helmets is a viable path to the largest decrease of fatality rates. The data from different countries suggest that it is not. The likely path to most effectively decrease fatality rates is (a) achieving a more considerate behavior by other road users (b) an improved infrastructure, and (c) a largely increased number of users, though not necessarily in this order (it might well be that (c) must come first to achieve the others). They probably all go together and promoting helmet use is likely to be rather counter productive to achieve any of these. 

"BTW, I'm not trying to convince you to wear a helmet, you've clearly made up your mind." 

That's kind-of funny and amazing, as I seem to be the (only?) one not having made up his mind. My point is that we do not have enough evidence to know whether recommending or discouraging helmet use is the right policy to improve this world. Therefore we should not do either. Meanwhile, we should understand that it is possible, maybe even probable, that recommending helmets could be overall harmful and that it might even lead to more fatalities rather than fewer in the long run.

[Jurgen]

I've heard the same arguments against seat belts, family planning education, airbags, condoms for STDs,  vaccines, Anti-braking systems, BP lowering drugs,... you name it.

Maybe we could agree on the fact that there will always be a small minority with a strong aversion to protecting themselves when engaging in high-risk activities?

[Mono]

@Aaron Corsi, "Perhaps my analogy wasn't as direct as it could have been because cars have a roll cage, steel doors, air bags, etc. which would indeed make adding a helmet seem somewhat silly depending on the context."

Well, isn't the point whether it would be effective, not whether it seems silly? Indeed, a helmet for car passenger would also be effective, as it is for pedestrian, as it is for bicyclists, as it is for EUCists. Yet, nobody suggests helmet use for car passengers or pedestrians. This bias poses a problem when it comes to make informed choices. 

"I think a better analogy would be suggesting somebody wear a helmet if they were riding a bicycle where the handlebars would occasionally fall off causing you to lose brakes and steering."

Which actually does happen once in a while. And when it happens while driving I am pretty sure it does cause a crash more often than not (I personally know of two such incidents). 

"Of course just accepting that sometimes cars or bikes will lose their brakes and steering is ludicrous because we have a minimum expectation of reliability from those vehicles,"

I would say it's ludicrous to assume that this is never ever happening. I agree that with cars the probability to loose both, brakes and steering, at the same time is negligible. However, a flat tire doesn't have a negligible probability while it has a somewhat similar effect. 

"Perhaps this is the reputation EUCs deserve."

Perhaps, but perhaps not. I am however not all too happy that you seem to be happy to destroy a reputation by fear-mongering without sufficient (i.e. only anecdotal) evidence in your hands.

[Mono]

@Jurgen, assuming you were addressing me, I don't see how any of my argument(s) would hold for any of these: "seat belts, family planning education, airbags, condoms for STDs,  vaccines". For any of these, AFAIK, evidence is plenty that they produce little harm, most of them are known to be quite effective and they overall improve the world we live in.

"Maybe we could agree on the fact that there will always be a small minority with a strong aversion to protecting themselves when engaging in high-risk activities?"

Sure, but that is somewhat besides the point. One problem is that we have no evidence to actually know whether EUCing is a "high-risk" activity. The other problem is that we don't know whether a helmet recommendation is particularly effective to get fatality rates down (which is not a no-brainer, as for cycling this policy seems not to be particularly effective). 

Of course you would also need to define the term "high-risk" to make the discussion meaningful. How many fatalities per 1 billion km would you consider as "high-risk"?

[Mono]

@dmethvin"If pedestrians were traveling as fast as an EUC, a helmet might be a good idea. If I was traveling at no more than walking speed on my EUC I wouldn't be concerned about safety equipment either."

Putting the polemics aside, there is no way I could disagree with the idea behind this thought. Whether the typical travel speed of an EUC is 20km/h or 30km/h, or, similarly but even more importantly, the typical impact speed is 15km/h or 25km/h might well be decisive for the right policy, in particular, as impact goes with speed squared. 

On the other hand, the data (still) suggest that the travel speed difference between pedestrians and cyclists is not a decisive factor for their death rates. Well, let's have Richard Feynman the last word then: "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. And that simple statement is the key of science. It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess [i.e. theory/model] is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is; if it disagrees with experiment: wrong. That's all there is to it."

[Rick McWilliams]

I wear a bicycle helmet and wrist protectors every time I ride my EUC. I have only two significant falls, neither had head impact. The wrist protector was well used once.  I have used helmets for bicycling and retired two helmets after crashes. I have used helmets for motorcycle riding and have retired two after crashes. A helmet is not a style statement for me. Maybe it is... I wear a helmet because I think that my brain is worth saving.

The energy absorbing padding in a Euc helmet might need to be different than that of a bicycle helmet.  The coverage might need to be different due to the types of falls. It would be really nice if it has bluetooth headset. I am looking forward to a specific Euc helmet.

[Colestien]

I'm setting here reading and wondering....  Is the talk about "helmets they don't help", or "Helmets nobody as the right to tell me I have to wear them"?  For me, I'll wear a helmet. For everyone else, wear one if you want, don't if you don't want to.  If I thought some one else not wearing a helmet could hurt me or my kids, I might feel different.  I feel you all have a God given right to hurt yourselves any way you would want.  Just my two cents

[Neale Gray]

Milbay Australia publish safety recommendations for electric unicycles, link here http://www.milbay.com.au/ESWAY/Safety

[Colestien]

@Neale Gray It is good to put that out there.  I feel you are not showing enough time for learning.  When stated they will learn in an hour, they will be picturing true riding.  No stress, going where they want all relaxed and enjoying the ride.  I'm sure almost everyone will learn given time.  It is also true a lot of people learn fast.  But if they are told they will be riding in an hour and it takes days if not weeks..... They will feel they have been lied to.  

[Neale Gray]

@Colestien Hi I totally stand by the learning times quoted, we have reduced these in line with real results achieved by the Milbay training methods. Before developing our training methods we quoted up to three weeks, but now we talk in minutes

 

[Colestien]

It would be really great if you would share those training methods with us.  I would really like to be able to share my new hobby with a LOT of people.

[Tatertot]

I ride max speed almost all the time on my nb1e+, which is <=16mph. The two times I've fallen and hurt myself have been when I was trying to go backwards and ended up going too fast and fell on my bum. The second time was when the control board malfunctioned. I didn't really hurt myself, I ran that one off. However, on my FIRST unicycle, the huanxi, my goodness I fell so many times on that I really should've worn protection. But I think that me falling and hurting myself made me learn how to treat the device better and avoid things like that in the future. It also helped me learn to tumble and roll better, which has been really useful :D.

Other things that have helped are longboarding, skateboarding, Ripstiks, and riding a non-electric unicycle. All of these things and the experiences had with them have helped me learn to tuck and roll with the fall.

I'm 19, the roads around here aren't the greatest, and I've had some close calls with my 9b1 but at 16mph, I feel like I can slow myself down and run it off if I don't go flying head first-- I'm speedy so it works out nicely :-). If I do go flying head first, then I tuck and roll with it, as I've done many times before.

[Mono]

1 hour ago, Colestien said:

I'm setting here reading and wondering....  Is the talk about "helmets they don't help", or "Helmets nobody as the right to tell me I have to wear them"?

For me the question was whether recommending using a helmet for EUCing (a) can be based on rational arguments with a valid empirical basis^1 and (b) is a good policy to make EUCing safer and, more generally, the world a better place in the long run^2.

Quote

For me, I'll wear a helmet. For everyone else, wear one if you want, don't if you don't want to.  If I thought some one else not wearing a helmet could hurt me or my kids, I might feel different.

The "funny" (because somewhat counter intuitive) thing is that others wearing a helmet is what actually could hurt your kids, not only by the simple mechanisms that wearing a helmet let us feel safer and consequently go faster and consequently hit your kids harder in case of an accident, or that it will deter people from using EUCs in place of cars and consequently hit your kids much harder with their cars in case of an accident. A hint that a culture of helmet use could hurt your kids on a larger scale gives the comparison of bicycling death rates and helmet wear in different countries. That doesn't however mean you should be able to infringe on someone else's right to wear a helmet, even if you are fully convinced that all this is 100% to the point.

^1 say, as minimum requirement for "rational", it should undoubtedly have a larger effect compared to helmet use for pedestrians, which nobody seriously considers. 

^2 for example, I would believe that replacing traveled car miles with EUC miles is likely to make the world a better place.