I called 911- tell me I wasn't being ridiculous. - Page 8

[thismama]

Yes that is true, I didn't think about that, yes there are often seatbelts in trailers, bakfiets and other bucket style bikes like the Madsen. And obviously on baby carriers that ride on the bicycle. But apart from that, I wouldn't want to be sitting on a bike and be strapped in. I think that would be less safe than just sitting freely.

[lovingmommyhood]

Originally Posted by thismama

The helmet thing is a worthwhile side conversation, on topic to this thread.

How the cyclist was driving - if what the OP reports is true, I agree that it is very dangerous. However, so often people find bicycles dangerous just for existing on the road, and this can prejudice how they view their actual behaviour, causing them to find or overdramatize fault. I said it is hard to tell without being there, because it is obvious from the OP that she was alarmed by basic things about the existence of the bicycle - helmets, calling the bench 'rickety' when I don't see how it would be possible to assess this quickly, with two children on the bench no less. And others have made many comments that are anti-cycling or that 'ignore the bull,' so to speak.

So I think the discussions have been relevant, and I think it is appropriate that some do not take the OP's assessment at exact face value, considering the alarmist sentiments in the OP and in the thread.

Yes to this.

[mammal_mama]

This is such a fascinating thread, especially because of all the information I've gained about bicycle cultures in places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen.

I wonder if anyone knows the statistics about head injuries -- namely, are there higher rates of bicycle-related head injuries in cities like Amsterdam where nobody wears helmets? Also, do most bike-related head injuries occurr because bicyclists were hit by cars, or because someone hit a rock or a bump the wrong way?

It does seem ultimately safer to begin to think of bicycling as a completely normal mode of transportation.

I'd also love to see statistics about the rates of children injured in bike versus car accidents. I mean, proportionately speaking. I understand that most children in the U.S. are going to spend a whopping amount of time in cars, so these are the kinds of accidents they're more likely to be in.

So maybe there could be some comparisons of transportation accident rates in Amsterdam, versus those in Chicago.

[alis]

I'm a mom and a 911 dispatcher.

Bottom line: If you are not sure - please call.

If it is not important, it will be given a low priority response. Police do not need to respond to every call - so if it really doesn't matter, nobody will be sent (this is particularly true of urban areas). Obviously it seemed to have some importance if they actually sent somebody.

911 is technically for emergencies, yes, but that is considered whenever you feel that somebody's safety is at risk. If someone is going into oncoming traffic - whether it be a vehicle, bicycle, or even a turtle (hehe), then yes, that poses a risk to safety.

I'm not sure if everyone here realizes what the vast majority of 911 calls are - they are random cell phone pocket dialing, accidental house calls from speed dial, and perhaps the occasional emergency. Believe me, no 911 dispatcher is offended if someone calls 911 because they really thought there was a safety risk - it is the ones who call about dumb questions (when are bylaw hours in effect?) that peeve.

It's sort of like why you never scold a child for accidentally calling 911 - because they might be scared to do it when there is a real problem.

And remember, things are not always as they seem. A lot of "drunks" reported are people in diabetic shock too. If you don't feel right - spidey sense or whatever - just call. It's not a problem.

[alis]

And yes, your original call would have constituted an acceptable report to 911. We do receive those reports occasionally. You did nothing wrong.

[WindyCityMom]

Originally Posted by thismama

The helmet thing is a worthwhile side conversation, on topic to this thread.

How the cyclist was driving - if what the OP reports is true, I agree that it is very dangerous. However, so often people find bicycles dangerous just for existing on the road, and this can prejudice how they view their actual behaviour, causing them to find or overdramatize fault. I said it is hard to tell without being there, because it is obvious from the OP that she was alarmed by basic things about the existence of the bicycle - helmets, calling the bench 'rickety' when I don't see how it would be possible to assess this quickly, with two children on the bench no less. And others have made many comments that are anti-cycling or that 'ignore the bull,' so to speak.

So I think the discussions have been relevant, and I think it is appropriate that some do not take the OP's assessment at exact face value, considering the alarmist sentiments in the OP and in the thread.

I don't find bicycles dangerous on the road. I find the particular bicycle riding of some cyclists to be dangerous. My DH rides one and I rode one for quite some time in grammar school (I don't own a bike at the moment, when I go out on my own it's usually the bus and I always have my two little ones alongside me).

I was walking on the sidewalk- bike lane directly to my left, right alongside me. I got a good look at the seat- looked like it was thrown together.

[2timestrouble]

Originally Posted by rhiOrion

I probably wouldn't have called, but i would have felt guilty about it! I think you did the right thing.

I was going to say that too. I wouldn't have call but I would have feel guilty about it, and if something would have happen I would have feel responsible.
What is the name when somebody doesn't do a crime but knows about it and doesn't do nothing? I saw it in Law and Order but can't remember the name, lol.
Anyway, is not like you put your super hero suit and leave your house everyday to see who you can safe, but if you happen to be there and something like this happen, what you should do? I think you did right, it wasn't not only the guy but the kids and everybody around them that their lifes were in risk.

[Ceinwen]

Originally Posted by thismama

I don't get why the big fuss is being made about helmets in traffic here. Yes helmets can save your brain if you fall off your bike because you hit a rock. But they are not in any way designed to protect you if a car hits you. They will be useless. I see this misconception so much, that if riding on a busy road of course you must have your helmet on lest you get hit by a car.

Incorrect. It will/has/can/ and will continue to protect people on bicycles who have been hit by cars. In no way, shape or form is it a misconception - I've cared for people (more than a few) who were in an MVC on bike - and suffered much less severe injuries due to wearing a helmet.

This kind of misinformation is dangerous.

[WindyCityMom]

Yes to what Ceinwen said.

No, helmets don't make you invincible. Anyone who thinks they do surely needs a reality check. Helmets do, however, protect the brain from serious trauma. They may not protect limbs, internal organs, etc, from trauma, but hey.. if you can take one (serious) factor off of the table, it's something.

[pigpokey]

Originally Posted by scottishmommy

Why are some of you against wearing helmets? I'm not asking in a facetious way at all, I'm just wondering if there are safety concerns with wearing a helmet (ie it blocks your line of sight or something).

There are actually safety concerns to wearing bike helmets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet
This is a nice article.

My husband was hit by a car on his bike without wearing a helmet, and did a face plant. He had concussions and eventually needed surgery to drain a clot (subdural hematoma). The brain injury was caused by his head suddenly coming to a stop. I do not have any reason to think that a helmet would have prevented the injury he suffered. His brain was injured because it slammed into his skull. Helmets do not prevent that. He was injured because a driver did not look where she was going and ran into him. Not because he was responsibly biking to work.

See the wikipedia article paragraph on rotational injuries. He did not have any rotational injuries -- which apparently can be very severe and disabling and caused by current helmet design in the kind of accident he had.

I just don't believe that helmets do what people think they do, e.g., provide a dramatically safer cycling experience. I don't see that there's evidence for me to believe that.

As to the OP's situation, I would have been concerned about a potentially impaired driver in traffic, and might have called or gone over to find out more about what was going on. I mean, if the kids had on helmets and bubble-wrap and flashing lights clipped onto them, the guy was obviously having some issues.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by Ceinwen

Incorrect. It will/has/can/ and will continue to protect people on bicycles who have been hit by cars. In no way, shape or form is it a misconception - I've cared for people (more than a few) who were in an MVC on bike - and suffered much less severe injuries due to wearing a helmet.

This kind of misinformation is dangerous.

I'll lob the 'incorrect' ball back at you.

Under US standards bike helmets are tested in 2 meter drops that achieve about 14 miles per hour (22.5 kph) on the flat anvil. In Europe the drop height is only 1.5 meters.

and

If you have the misfortune to impact head first against a bridge abutment at the bottom of a screaming 55 mph downhill, your helmet will not prevent a head injury. That is not very important, since the rest of your body will be mush anyway. Fortunately that very seldom happens. Most of the cases where the helmet's limits are exceeded involve crashes with cars. Every rider understands that it is very important to avoid being hit by a car.

Obviously a helmet covers only your head, leaving the rest of your body unprotected.

from http://www.helmets.org/limits.htm, along with

If more people knew and understood these results, were aware that the vast majority of seriously debilitating head injuries are caused by bike/motor vehicle collisions often involving forces outside the design limit for bike helmets, and knew about the Dutch research showing that a reduction in vehicle impact speed from 40 to 30 km/hr halves maximum head acceleration [2], there might be more emphasis on measures to prevent high impact car/bike crashes (e.g. by education, enforcement of traffic laws and random breath tests) rather than on secondary measures such as cycle helmets, for which the benefits are much less certain.

from http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html, discuss that bicycle helmets are wholly inadequate to protect in collision with cars. I don't doubt that anecdotally they may help lessen some severe brain trauma, but the second study discusses the problem of rotational injuries in severe crashes, for which there is evidence that the presence of a helmet can worsen such injury.

So the idea that if we all wear our helmets we will be much safer on the road, is false and IMO this is the ideology that is dangerously misleading. Because it places blame for collisions and injury on cyclists, instead of addressing the real issue, which is designing towns and cities with decent cycling infrastructure. This is where the real protection lies.

[Ceinwen]

All your stats aside - I've actually, physically cared for children and adults who have had reduced head injuries from wearing a helmet.



There's not really an argument against that. I work in trauma, I've cared for traumatic head injuries (some survive, some don't) A helmet will at least reduce the risk of serious injury - I've seen it. First hand.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by Ceinwen

All your stats aside - I've actually, physically cared for children and adults who have had reduced head injuries from wearing a helmet.



There's not really an argument against that. I work in trauma, I've cared for traumatic head injuries (some survive, some don't) A helmet will at least reduce the risk of serious injury - I've seen it. First hand.

Well as they say, the plural of anecdote is not data. And obviously it is impossible for you to have the victims relive their accidents without a helmet, so there is no way to make a conclusion that the same accident would have had xyz different result with a helmet on. The actual studies come to different conclusions than you have.

[pigpokey]

Originally Posted by Ceinwen

All your stats aside - I've actually, physically cared for children and adults who have had reduced head injuries from wearing a helmet.



There's not really an argument against that. I work in trauma, I've cared for traumatic head injuries (some survive, some don't) A helmet will at least reduce the risk of serious injury - I've seen it. First hand.

Is it possible to see this first hand? Because you can't replay the accident, switching the helmet variable.

[Ceinwen]

Originally Posted by pigpokey

Is it possible to see this first hand? Because you can't replay the accident, switching the helmet variable.

I'm not sure what you're asking.

My statement (while purported to be 'anecdotal') is this - I work in a level one trauma centre/hospital in Ontario.

My personal experience is such that in cars vs. humans - humans wearing helmets have better outcomes.

You can be hit by a car (at variable speeds) being thrown (for example) into the curb. You fall off, tumble, whatever - your head hits the ground.

Wearing a helmet has provided these trauma patients with an automatic better chance of surviving their head injury.

Patients I've had with no helmet (who survived) - had much worse injuries. Facial traumas, severe brain injuries, higher rates of intubation, etc.

So yes, my experience is not data. I still believe it to be relevant.

I've seen both sides - patients who live w/wo helmets, and patients who don't live w/wo helmets.

All I know is, I'll be wearing a helmet. The facial injuries alone on non-helmet patients makes me shudder.

ETA - I will be bowing out of the conversation because we could go around and around this. Also, we're pretty far off the OP now

[WindyCityMom]

Yeah, I think we should open the helmet/no helmet topic in the Family Safety forum. I'm going to be checking out of this thread because I feel that I've rec'd adequate responses and the topic has strayed too far from my intended post

[gcgirl]

Originally Posted by Ceinwen

All your stats aside - I've actually, physically cared for children and adults who have had reduced head injuries from wearing a helmet.



There's not really an argument against that. I work in trauma, I've cared for traumatic head injuries (some survive, some don't) A helmet will at least reduce the risk of serious injury - I've seen it. First hand.

The article isn't an argument against helmets either. Just an argument that PREVENTING accidents in the first place is EVEN SAFER than wearing a helmet. Well, duh.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by gcgirl

The article isn't an argument against helmets either. Just an argument that PREVENTING accidents in the first place is EVEN SAFER than wearing a helmet. Well, duh.

No, the articles are definitely not against helmets, nor is anyone on this thread *against* helmets that I have seen.

It is not just saying tho that 'preventing accidents is even safer than wearing a helmet.' The articles back up the point that helmets are seriously inadequate protection in the event of being hit by a car.

I wear my helmet on my bicycle, but it's in case I hit a rock. Not in case I have an accident with a 2000 lb vehicle.