BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
126

Helmet Law for Everybody (in NYC)

Reposting at woohoo speed from teh bike snawb is a WSJ article about a new helmet law introduced to NYC council.


For ensuing discussion: I often do and do not wear helmets.


sloaps
2012-06-02 12:41:37

I love that Greenfield wants a mandatory helmet law, but is against the soda ban.




rsprake
2012-06-02 13:40:05

Well, it's easy to get a flame war started, but let me say this. I always wear a helmet and think everyone should wear one. It is quite possible to endure life-ending injuries without one, with a simple fall from a bike, not even going that fast, and without a car involved. I myself missed a turn, hit a curb, and woke up in the ER -- my helmet cracked absorbing the impact which would have certainly caused serious brain damage.

But (as a result of previous discussion) I do not think mandatory laws are a good idea. Basically, mandatory laws discourage riding bikes and, on the whole, there is probably a greater health benefit to helmetless people riding bikes and getting exercise than people driving cars because they don't own a helmet or don't like how it makes them look or messes up their hair.


jonawebb
2012-06-02 23:53:22

I wear a helmet too but honestly it is only a tiny exaggeration to say no one in the Netherlands wears one. People out riding recreationally on road bikes do generally wear helmets but in the cities people don't ride road bikes and helmet use is under 1% in my estimation. Seeing that changed my mind a lot.


salty
2012-06-03 00:42:53

+1 on European helmet use


They're not all brain damaged over there


sgtjonson
2012-06-03 15:18:31

my thoughts are:

1) European non helmet use is different due to lower overall travel speeds and more upright bicycles, where if you fall you would probably be more likely to jump off the bike than hit your head. Not to mention of course the general better car driver safety.


2)New York is testing legislating a lot of things that make it really interesting to watch what happens. I'm just enjoying seeing the results. Would be better to actually conduct research studies, but baring that it's fun to see what happens in the wild when you ban all sorts of foods and behaviors.


tabby
2012-06-03 20:12:24

Not a fan but this is typical NYC.


orionz06
2012-06-04 03:16:13

I'll offer the semi-obvious observation that this would make the new bike sharing system about to go live in New York City much less useful. I am very diligent about always wearing a helmet when riding my own bike in Pittsburgh, but I would be very inclined to go without on a short visit to New York while riding one of the Mike Bikes (à la Boris Bikes) for a few short, under-30-minute rides.


ieverhart
2012-06-04 12:14:36

one wonders if maybe that is the point.


hiddenvariable
2012-06-04 14:24:32

hmm... I could see a couple work-arounds for a bike share program to include an adjustable helmet with the rental, hygiene would take some thought but isn't impossible to maintain. I'm not sure I can attribute enough sneakiness to anti-bike people to really believe that the helmet rule is an attempt to kill bike share. I think it's just poor communication/coordination between groups trying to improve life in NYC.


I like the soda ban. Lots of people, myself included, are crappy at making good decisions about food (the bad decisions can be so delicious), and the FDA hasn't been terribly helpful in that particular area. But I'm not a big soda fan. If they banned something I'm particularly keen on, like riding my bike, I'd undoubtedly be comparably irked. But if they banned the never-ending bread sticks at Olive Garden, I'd almost be happy. Too yummy to be good.


ejwme
2012-06-04 19:08:37

@ieverhart & ejwme: There was another thread in which some lame-brained op-ed writer bemoaned how the DC bike share has supposedly been a complete bust. So I think it's reasonable that a NYC politician heard that sentiment, along with wealthy bike haters complaining about the bike lanes and decided the politically expedient thing to do would be the one thing that seems to universally create a barrier to casual cycling.


Ultimately, I don't see how we can reconcile calling this country "the land of the free" while simultaneously banning people from making such personal choices as what they eat and wear. But I'm going to stop myself before I get too political with this post.


TL;DR I think the promotion of an NYC mandatory helmet law is a political move against casual cycling, and therefore, against the bikeshare.


2012-06-04 19:32:49

> I'll offer the semi-obvious observation that this would make the new bike sharing system about to go live in New York City much less useful.


> one wonders if maybe that is the point.


That was my thought as well.


Another story I saw about this had a line from some deputy mayor or other mentioning that Greenfield has fought against bike lanes and assorted other things Bloomberg's done that "actually help bikers" (or something to that effect) and making just about this same suggestion...


epanastrophe
2012-06-04 19:36:06

awe, man. I was just hoping I was not jaded. Well, poop on them, then.


I'm still not sure what harm a ban on sodas larger than the human stomach (intended for a single human in a single sitting) would do, but I'm sure someone will think of something that freedom is necessary for.


ejwme
2012-06-04 19:47:00

@ejwme I like the soda ban. Lots of people, myself included, are crappy at making good decisions about food


How we can let people to vote? :) Are they going to do better decisions about politicians? Should we ban people from voting too many times?


2012-06-04 19:52:50

"Well, poop on them, then." There's that scat talk again.


The soda ban, like any nanny-state law, is about restricting personal freedom. If someone wants to consume a literacola in one sitting, that should be their prerogative. It doesn't harm me or anyone else, so why should I care.


To poorly paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: what your neighbor does doesn't affect you, so shut up about it already.


Dammit, I went and got political. I was having such a productive day, too.


2012-06-04 19:56:51

I'm kind of on board with Sherman about the soda ban.

NYC banned trans-fats in foods some time ago, I can see the justification for that - it's an "invisible" ingredient that you can't identify once it's in the food, and the average person isn't aware of what the heck it is and the harmful effects, so an "expert" government agency needs to step in for the public good.

But if you're going to sit down and drink a bucket-o' soda, you pretty much know what you're doing.


edmonds59
2012-06-04 20:07:11

Right, and I think you know what you're doing when you hop on a bicycle without a helmet or drive a car without a seat belt.


rsprake
2012-06-04 20:10:23

You can't legislate against stupidity.


My opinion of helmet laws: If you don't have anything to protect, you don't need a helmet.


As for the soda size ban, see line 1. What's to stop someone from stopping at three or four different places and slamming smaller sizes?


That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!


pghdragonman
2012-06-04 20:10:28

If our rising obesity rate is any indication, it does harm them. If access to affordable health care is valuable to you, it harms you. I'm pretty sure obesity related illnesses like diabetes are the largest contributor to the increase health care costs


sgtjonson
2012-06-04 20:19:22

+lots to what Pierce said.


what other people do DOES affect me, and everybody who pays taxes or is part of society. as just one example, it costs more for a healthcare system (any system, current, proposed, old, any of them) to handle the poor health decisions with delayed consequences. It's those delayed consequences that make the better decisions so difficult AND affect everybody else.


We're wired to love sugars and fats, but we've managed to figure out a way to make available and affordable a harmful amount of them. Until we figure out a way to educate the populace effectively to regularly make better decisions than our obesity epidemic indicates we're making, banning the sale as a single serving more liquid than a human stomach can hold with more sugar than a healthy pancreas can sustainably process seems like a good idea to me.


There's a whole mess of things out there that are illegal that one could argue shouldn't be, and vice versa. Inconsistencies in political theory, practicality, science, and the laws of the land aren't a good argument for either side of the debate, so I'm not entertaining them. I'm just looking at the soda ban.


The helmet law, while it is likewise a restriction on personal freedoms (most laws are), I only object to the proposed motives, and am unsure where I stand on the law itself. Helmet law because helmets could save lives (note, didn't say would, not arguing that point) = admirable no matter how misplaced (goal is to save lives). Helmet law because somebody wants to kill a bike share program = horrid, even if they coincidentally could save lives (goal was to kill bikes/transit options).


ejwme
2012-06-04 20:45:40

@Pierce so we should ban TV, the Internet, airplanes, cars and make mandatory run/bike 2/20 miles for everybody exactly a 4:00 am every morning. :)


I think increased life expectancy has more to do with health care cost than obesity at the moment.


2012-06-04 20:52:38

I agree with Sherman, on a few accounts. If someone wants to ride without a helmet they will, if they want a gallon of pop they will get it. Fat people will be fat until they make the appropriate lifestyle changes. Making them less likely to exercise via the helmet thing is not gonna help.


orionz06
2012-06-04 20:56:17

Mikhail, reductio ad absurdum doesn't work.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum


And no, it's not due to increased life expectancy, though yes, most of an individuals' health costs are in the last six months of life or so.


ejwme
2012-06-04 20:56:26

ejwme yes, it works. It just shows that there is no objective line where to stop. Notice, that those laws were made by some individuals and not by voting. So it comes to the point that law could be imposed on people because someone (or group) just can do it.


About life expectancy. Cost of health care steadily increasing after 40. Look at life insurance rates. It just sky-rockets after 60-65.


2012-06-04 21:05:02

If my choice to drink a 5000 calorie milkshake for breakfast is affecting your access to affordable healthcare, then that's evidence that the healthcare system is broken, not the fast food menu system.


In regards to ANY nanny-state laws, I will always be on the side of personal freedom. As long as what I'm doing doesn't directly affect you, then I don't see much reason to legislate against my actions.


I also think the money and resources it will take to enforce freedom-restricting laws would be better spent on educating people about how and why to make better choices for their personal health. An informed public would, presumably, be a healthier public (though maybe not for some politicians).


2012-06-04 21:12:52

I find it impossible to believe that preventing vendors from selling 20 oz sodas will have any impact whatsoever on reducing obesity, diabetes, or health care costs in society.

It seems like a politically expedient and non-challenging throw-away move, as in "what rational person would feel it necesary to drink a 20 oz soda?" Who's going to argue that's necesary?


re: "An informed public would, presumably, be a healthier public..." The public has been battered by information regarding the hazards of smoking for 30+ some years, know how many morons I still see smoking? I have zero belief in the ability of an educated public to do what is in it's own best interest. Jefferson was just completely naive in that regard.


edmonds59
2012-06-04 21:21:15

There are lots of things in this world that are bad for us when over consumed. Red meat, alcohol, the sun. I am sure the mayor wouldn't want someone telling him what size steak he could order at dinner.


rsprake
2012-06-04 21:26:25

In the US the smoking rate today is half what it was in 1965. Efforts to curb smoking have been pretty effective. I've read that the most effective method has been taxing it. Making it more expensive reduces demand better than any other method.


Trying to get people to cut back on sugary drinks makes some sense, but banning Big Gulps may or may not be a good approach.


As to personal freedom, in a world of advertising, sometimes it works out to be the right of corporations to profit from peoples' weaknesses.


steven
2012-06-04 22:00:51

The other bit of info in this is that NYC was shelling out $4 billion a year on health care costs. Elsewhere I've read that 14% of all health care costs are due to Type II diabetes, much of which stems from obesity, most of which stems from caloric overconsumption, so, yeah, they have a reason to want to get to the root of the problem.


A few of us are old enough to remember when McD's ran an ad campaign touting a whole meal for $1: A burger was 40 cents, fries 25 cents, a drink was 35 cents. The size of that drink at the time was 8 oz. Drinks came in 8, 10, and 12 oz sizes, i.e., small, medium, and large.


We only got "super sized" drinks because fast food companies figured out they could sell double the quantities or better, and charge accordingly. Hence, we got fat because of their greed.


No, I don't have any problem at all of NYC controlling the max size of a drink. If you're all that thirsty, buy a second drink. Problem solved.


stuinmccandless
2012-06-04 22:06:20

"we got fat because of their greed."


No. Just no.


We got fat because of lack of self-control. You could make a reasonable argument that ignorance of the nutritional value of the food in question came into play, but you can't pass all of the blame onto "those evil corporations." A persons actions have consequences, no matter how much we try to forget that fact.


If NYC, or any government body, wants to improve the cost of and access to healthcare, they should be focused on why it's so expensive in the first place. Why does med school require an aspiring MD to mortgage 10-15 years of their life? Why are hospital stays so costly? Why are pharmaceutical companies charging so much for their products? These questions need to be addressed before we start spending more taxpayer money on the food police.


I have no problem spending money to try to promote a healthier society, but I have a major problem with using insurance costs to justify telling me what I can and can't buy at a restaurant. If I'm spending my own hard-earned money, what right does anyone have to tell me how I can or can't spend it? You can encourage me to make the "right" choice, but that choice should ultimately be mine.


And I've heard the argument that "the more people that have to be treated for ____ the higher everyone's insurance rates will be; so your choice does affect me" and that's why I think the healthcare system is broken. De-coupling my actions from the cost of your healthcare should be the first priority when it comes to healthcare reform, not enacting more restrictions to basic freedoms.


2012-06-04 22:31:26

I'm going to try and make this my last post on the topic.


What if, instead of spending money enforcing a new law, the NYC government tried to offer some incentive to restaurant owners to offer "healthier" sized drinks? Think about it: restaurants could increase profits by simply reducing the size of their beverages while leaving the prices the same. That should be incentive enough to sell smaller drinks, and it avoids enacting more pointless legislation. It's win-win.


2012-06-04 22:45:00

Really? Your personal freedoms are being infringed upon because of what size soda you can buy?


Nothing is preventing you from buying two sodas, three sodas or four sodas. There's something to be said about what is offered is what is bought. People are constantly offered unhealthy portions, is it a surprise they buy unhealthy portions?


What's so infringing about limiting access to harmful products? Perhaps we should put cigarette machines in high schools and allow cola companies to put vending machines at every playground.


To place responsibility solely on the consumer is to deny any responsibility on the companies that push this crap. If they had no influence on consumers, why do you think they spend billions on advertising?


sgtjonson
2012-06-04 22:57:21

Eliminate corn subsidies for corn syrup production and apply a fat tax to everything in the soda and snacks aisle - except tostidos scoops. Don't touch my scoops.


Isnt there a motorcycle helmet law in NY?


sloaps
2012-06-04 23:07:08

"I'm going to try and make this my last post on the topic."


I knew this wouldn't work.


Yes, personal choice and therefore freedom is absolutely infringed upon by the government when a law is passed that restricts what I can and can't buy. It's a pretty basic principle, and I'm surprised that you seem to be confused by it.


"What's so infringing about limiting access to harmful products? Perhaps we should put cigarette machines in high schools and allow cola companies to put vending machines at every playground."


That is an absurd twist into what was previously a rational argument. Minors, by definition, are not capable of deciding what's best for them. That's why they have guardians.


As for buying multiple sodas, do you really think that loophole will stay open if the law goes through? What guarantee is there that it will? And then there's still the matter of paying to enforce this absurd law.


The bottom line here, is that it doesn't matter how minor the choice may seem, it should always be your choice to make. You should have access to the information you need to make an informed decision, but it should always be your decision.


2012-06-04 23:09:25

do an image search for 'canadian cigarette warning labels' (with safe search turned off). those pictures must cause some people to think twice about continuing to smoke.


so: put gruesome advisories on the side of soda cans, and add a tax that can be used to subsidize helmet prices. problems solved!


@sloaps: there is a mandatory motorcycle helmet law in ny. when i lived there, i saw plenty of people ignore that law, fwiw


melange396
2012-06-04 23:18:14

Eliminate corn subsidies for corn syrup production and apply a fat tax to everything in the soda and snacks aisle


+1


They can eliminate all of the subsidies while they're at it.


rsprake
2012-06-04 23:22:07

It really angered me when I worked in a children's hospital and the smallest soda available was a 20 oz.


I think there are some better ways to deal with this than making large sodas illegal, though.


One is just making sure that if they sell large sodas small ones are available. Another is to end government subsidies for corn, so the price of corn syrup will rise considerably.


mick
2012-06-04 23:52:15

@JaySherman


"Minors, by definition, are not capable of deciding what's best for them. That's why they have guardians."


Is this sarcasm? It seems to imply that A) adults do what's best for them (and their kids?) and B) that parents can somehow control what their kid does at school all day or has access too


Again, it's not limiting what you can buy, it's modifying how the item is bought


I guess you support everybody being able to buy extended magazines for automatic pistols, automatic rifles, etc. Wouldn't want old uncle sam infringing upon your rights to own weapons?


Sugar and soda are FUCKING ADDICTING. People can see their unhealthy, can hardly walk, and they can't stay away from it. It's a physical and physiological addiction.


All rationality and logic goes out the window. That food is designed to get people coming back, unfulfilled, etc


sgtjonson
2012-06-05 02:14:01

The magazines and weapons aren't doing anything... Neither is the pop. People with bad eating habits will have bad eating habits until they correct them. 64oz at a time or 20oz at a time is not the problem, it is the poor choice to begin with that is.


The real problem is what people view as healthy. This: MtDew.png

is not much different than this:

orange_juice.jpg


So why are we not banning large quantities of fruit juice?


What about pizza? Cheesecake? Before condiments the average hot dog and fries at Nathan's is almost 1000 calories. What about Starbucks? People have some grand illusions of what is healthy and myths about that is the problem.


Empty calories are too, but pop is not the sole source.


Hell, I saw a man the other day at Qdoba, larger guy, getting a burrito (800+ calories), a pop, and he had a protein shake (particular drink was 300 calories) and I am willing to bet he thought adding the protein was a good thing.


orionz06
2012-06-05 02:46:43

the commercial origins of soda (or 'pop' for the yinzers) can be found in beverages sold by pharmacists in drug stores with intentions of health benefits. in fact, [arguably] the most economically and culturally successful of these beverages initially included substantial quantities of *cocaine* in its ingredients, and its name still bears resemblance to this!


i hope this irony is not lost on all of us


melange396
2012-06-05 04:08:40

I guess it beats a helmet war.

Coincidentally the My Fitness Pal website that I've been using for some weight control now has a banner ad from the American Beverage council claiming that soda is not a major contributor to obesity and diabetes. Effing corporations are amazing.


edmonds59
2012-06-05 10:46:38

Why would they care? Their sales volume will not be impacted.


orionz06
2012-06-05 11:10:01

Apparently it has their attention.


edmonds59
2012-06-05 11:11:46

No doubt, as it should. Life is easier for them if this doesn't happen but it won't really change a damned thing if it does. No reason not to fight it.


And after all, pop is not inherently evil anyway. Over consumption is. The "diet industry" is what has really fucked us over. People eat and consume based on myths not facts and proven science. That is enough for a whole new thread.


orionz06
2012-06-05 11:36:56

Another topic for an entire thread - an advertising and media machine that for 70-80 years has disseminated propaganda that Americans should get absolutely "what we want, when we want it", no responsibility to others, to society, only to self. Completely juvenile. Part of the reason we think we "deserve" 100 oz sodas.


edmonds59
2012-06-05 11:57:21

When I was in high school back in the Paleolithic age, we would stop at a deli on the way home and get half gallon cartons of iced tea to drink on the way home. We definitely considered it a single serving container. Of course we WALKED to school, would play pick-up basketball for hours on end, and we didn’t think twice about walking a few miles to go see a movie. With very few exceptions we were all skinny too. So I don’t think the fatness issue is only about the food.


marko82
2012-06-05 12:51:54

Forgot about teas. Add that to the list of perceived to be healthy beverages that are empty calories. The problem is not the exercise, or lack of though. When you use a heart rate monitor and all the fancy equipment to determine the amount of calories burned you will see you need to work your ass off all day long to make an appreciable difference. Eating too many calories is *the* problem.


orionz06
2012-06-05 12:56:13

@orionz06: My understanding is that exercise does play a factor, but more in its effect on your baseline metabolic rate than via the direct caloric burn.


So, regular exercise causes your body, even resting, to burn X*1.25 calories per hour, as opposed to burning merely X calories per hour when regular exercise is not part of your life. That doesn't count whatever additional calories are burned as part of the activity itself, of course.


This also explains why people who cycle daily for 10-15 miles are often thinner than those who ride 100+ miles once a week...


[Note that I am pulling this info from memory and all numbers are fictitious, as I'm too lazy to find references.]


reddan
2012-06-05 13:06:17

In tracking my food intake over the last 4+- months I have discovered that the amount of food people are "supposed" to eat is ridiculously tiny. Like cups tiny, as opposed to plates.

If there was some way to get the amount of food people eat above what they are supposed to eat, to people who don't have food, there would be no hunger anywhere in this country.


edmonds59
2012-06-05 13:12:11

Yes, it can increase the BMR as well, but there are other factors at play. The only way to lose weight is to create a caloric deficit. This requires that you know your real BMR and you stick to the deficit. Increasing the BMR and adding in exercise is exceedingly difficult relative to how easy it is to just consume less food.


The problem enters when people try to do the 6 small meals a day, have fruit, have nuts, and avoid foods that are not bad for you. All of those things screw people over. Just eat less. It is really that simple. Food is energy, add what you need and nothing more. Add less to use existing stored energy.


orionz06
2012-06-05 13:13:27

If it were simply things like too much food, too little exercise, lack of education, lack of self control we would not have the problems that we do with obesity and diabetes and other chronic diseases. There's a lot of factors working together here.


You know the childhood obesity epidemic that we keep hearing about? It's not just children, it's infants too. Infants are being lazy and playing video games and falling prey to fast food advertising. We're talking about changes that are occurring in the womb during pregnancy due to Mom's diet, and maybe Dad's too that are creating epigenetic predispositions to disease.


Also, remember that this is not just an issue for the overweight. There is a rise in thin people getting diabetes and chronic diseases too. Some are skinny-fat in that they look lean, but actually have a high percentage of unhealthy body fat. So we can't assume that we can gauge a person's health and fitness just by glancing at them.


Sure, some cases are pretty easy. As a dietitian, I love easy cases, like the young woman who was having a hard time losing pregnancy weight but at only 5 feet tall she was drinking 1600 calories a day of sweet ice tea. Easy peasy. But as a whole the situation is more complex.


tabby
2012-06-05 13:33:39

Promoting Nutrition, Disney to Restrict Junk-Food Ads


The Walt Disney Company, in an effort to address concerns about entertainment’s role in childhood obesity, plans to announce on Tuesday that all products advertised on its child-focused television channels, radio stations and Web sites must comply with a strict new set of nutritional standards.


rsprake
2012-06-05 13:38:02

It *is* too much food. How that happens might be harder to control but show me someone who has eaten their BMR-500kcal for a period of time and not lost fat.


If you live beside a Wendy's and work at McDonald's of course the odds are stacked against you but fat is fat is fat and is the result of stored energy, not a billboard.


orionz06
2012-06-05 13:41:34

@orionz- what about after that period of time? How sustainable will it be? One of the major problems we see in the research literature is that the body adapts and fights to keep it's body fat. Even at the expense of BMR and lean tissue.


For example, Biggest Loser contestants by the end have a much lower BMR than people their size who have not been obese. Part of why it's so hard to maintain weight loss is because the now lean body must continue to eat smaller than expected portions AND exercise much more than expected for a person of that size. Addressing the metabolic issues is more meaningful than just doing the math.


tabby
2012-06-05 13:55:41

In the 18th century it was commonly thought there was a relationship between excessive amounts of blood and fever. The cure was bloodletting, which actually worked, sometimes. But it turned out that the actual physiological process underlying fever had nothing to do with the amount of blood in the body, and bloodletting was generally a really bad idea.

The relationship between overeating and being overweight seems more soundly based than 18th century theories, but consider that reducing caloric intake rarely works to reduce weight when tested over a long period, say five years. For one thing, the body seems to adjust (reduce its metabolic level) to get the weight back up to where it "thinks" it should be. For another, all the shaming in the world doesn't seem to work well enough.

Some other treatments, especially gastric bypass, do seem to work well, and have passed in scientific tests. But advocating simply eating less as a cure for overweight, while obviously "right", is not a scientifically supported treatment.


jonawebb
2012-06-05 14:01:04

"...adding in exercise is exceedingly difficult relative to how easy it is to just consume less food."

Perhaps easy for you. That is an extremely blithe statement and not at all true. I am finding it extremely hard to live within the 4 tablespoons of food I am "supposed" to eat every day. I can't even imagine how difficult it must be for people with severe issues.

It is simple for me to hop on a bike and ride for 3 hours, but you are correct in saying that even that will not control weight.


edmonds59
2012-06-05 14:06:59

@reddan 10-15 miles is about 40-60 minutes of riding time. And just out of 40 minutes range when you burn all you "spare" carbs. Cycling is an aerobic activity. So after ride you burning your callories for about a couple hours. The same is true for 100 miles. may be a little bit longer. But getting out 5 times a week you are getting 5 hours of ride and about 10 hours of post ride, total 15 hours. If you ride on a weekend 50 miles you will get the same 5 hours and 2 extra, total 7 hours.


BTW weight lifting (and any anaerobic workout)) speeds up you BMR much faster and you have post burning from 24 hours and up to 48 hours. And this is why you never do anaerobic workout two consecutive days. :) In terms of cycling -- no interval training two days in a raw.


MrM could tell us a lot about it. :)


2012-06-05 14:35:06

@Tabby: Correct. Their BMR will be lower after a significant loss. The calculations are just estimates anyway. At that point the people should track their intake, exercise, and weight response and adjust accordingly.


@Edmonds: How much are you supposed to eat? How much are you eating? How much are you riding?


My point was that if we take the standard 500 calorie deficit that is almost universally accepted for weight loss it is more often than not easier for people to eat 500 less calories than to burn it off. This might only mean one less iced tea and having something other than a bagel and cream cheese for breakfast. That doesn't mean do not exercise. If one can sustain that deficit and eat more because of exercise that is obviously better, but does everyone have 3 hours? Can everyone sustain the needed intensity? No matter the free time we all eat.


orionz06
2012-06-05 14:37:14

@Tabby From what I've read and I've been told is that if you start to lose weight too aggressively then it's a trigger point for your body to lower MBR. And this is a reason why doctors/dieticians recommend to lose no more than 2 pounds per week.


2012-06-05 14:54:27

@Mikhail, yes that is one of the reasons why I don't recommend fast weight loss. However, slow weight loss is not a guarantee that it won't happen and that the metabolism will return to a normal state.


tabby
2012-06-05 15:02:54

Just getting people to consume water instead of pop, iced tea, whatever, is often half the battle. "I don't like just water." "I don't trust the water." Not available without asking. Can't find water fountains. No water fountains to find. People aghast at the idea of re-using a plastic bottle to *gasp* carry water around. People eating when they're only thirsty (and then going to a fast-food joint and dropping $7.50 on garbage).


There is no profit motive in getting people to drink water.


stuinmccandless
2012-06-05 15:17:39

Slow weight loss is ideal but any significant weight loss needs to be accompanied by a lifestyle change. Your example of a Biggest Loser contestant. Once they lose 200# they need to keep eating like they are light. Their old habits got them where they were in the first place. In the spirit of the thread for some people this is just no more pop or beverages with calories.


orionz06
2012-06-05 15:20:17

@onrionz, actually my point was that the biggest loser contestants need to keep eating and exercising like they are losing weight just in order to maintain their weight loss. like 1500 cals and 4 hours of exercise per day kind of a thing.


I'm all for lifestyle changes and people taking control and making the best decisions they can for themselves every day. I just think that it's worth understanding that it isn't always simple and that you can't necessarily make judgments about a person's life based on how they look or how you think they live.


tabby
2012-06-05 15:30:16

I agree. Weight loss does not stop once the scale says so. A significant loss like that needs a period of time where you need to learn what your body can and cannot do in order to maintain the losses. The Biggest Loser people would of course need to keep their plan that got them down in weight and slowly adjust to a more "normal" lifestyle.


My implications were not that it is easy but it *is* simple. Eat less, do more. There are other factors involved but none as important as the energy in-energy out. Stored energy, fat, is the problem. The solution will always be related to it.


I do not recall making any judgments on someones life based on how they look and I cannot begin to guess how anyone lives. Not sure where that comment was directed.


orionz06
2012-06-05 15:41:15

@ Tabby Part of why it's so hard to maintain weight loss is because the now lean body must continue to eat smaller than expected portions AND exercise much more than expected for a person of that size.


+1


Losing weight is hard. Most people that try are fairly successful at that though.


The seriously obese people I know well enough to know their history have all lost weight down to roughly normal at some point.


The hard part is keeping weight off.


Compared with that, losing weight is really fast and trivially easy. Measured in weeks and months. Not years and decades. Punk stuff.


Don't make the hard part more difficult (and probably a struggle for a longer time) by making the quick, easy part faster and easier.


I recommend seriously slow weight loss. 1/2 lbs per week for most men with no history of rebound. Less for people under 5'5" or for people who previously lost and regained.


Sound tortuously slow - and it is. But, aside from the health benefits of slow weight loss, it's good training for maintaining low weight.


Far better for a morbidly obese person to lose 10 pounds a year than for them to yo-yo an extra 50 lbs on (again).


Note: I've had a few of my freinds tell me "I'm only losing a pound or two a week." They are ALL over 350 lbs, now.


mick
2012-06-05 15:56:29

@orionz, the comment about judgment is a general one, not at you specifically.


tabby
2012-06-05 16:06:40

So I'm supposed to have 1,690 cal/day, and 60 min exercise/day. That is not easy, that's like eating like a freaking bird for me. I haven't had more than about 1 soda/month for 20 or so years, not a soda drinker, so I didn't have that to cut. Haven't have any alcohol for 6 weeks. There's no way that's sustainable. I have been riding to work 3 or so days/week and something on weekends, but havent' been able to ride due to family/work/other circumstances for 10 days, so that's out.

I have lost 12-14 lbs since January, so I guess I'm on a slow loss track. But assuming I get down to a target weight, I don't see it being sustainable, I see no way I can live like an ascetic monk for the rest of my life. The human body is a crappy piece of equipment as far as I'm concerned.


edmonds59
2012-06-05 17:05:59

I've lost weight due to extreme stress, but that isn't sustainable. Mainly because I have a huge goal of eliminating a lot of that stress. I guess I'm somewhat lucky though, that stress causes me to not eat rather than overeat....Of course, once I realized that I lost 10 pounds last month, I was in a better mood and started eating somewhat normally again and have probably gained a bit of it back.


I can say for sure though, that biking, and starting to attempt more difficult hills, has kept me feeling healthy despite how I feel about my looks. And yes, it definitely helps that I don't get free soda at the bakery like I used to when I was a line cook.


rubberfactory
2012-06-05 17:15:04

Thank you Tabby and edmonds. I had a post half typed up, but realized you guys both said what I was trying to agree with much better than I could second.


We're complicated creatures. The ban is neither a complete solution nor likely the most effective solution. But it is not an orwellian gateway freedom restriction (seriously?).


ejwme
2012-06-05 17:17:30

@edmunds59 But assuming I get down to a target weight, I don't see it being sustainable,


Your mission, should you accept it, is to find a goal/target wieght/lifestyle that IS sustainable.


It doesn't matter what you weight 3 months from now, it matters what you weigh three years from now.


If that is your current weight, that might be a little hard to swallow. But WAY better than 5 lbs heavier than you were when you started.


It's silly to go through the painful sacrifice you have for the last 5 months, if it only leads you to be heavier a year from now than when you started. (With more intractable weight than before.)


I know.


I got my weight down to about 5 to 10 lbs overweight and kept it down there for almost a decade. Then I tried to lose those 5 more pounds - and ended up gaining 25 - which I am glacially slowly losing now. (4 fewer lbs between now and October, then 4 fewer in 2013)


mick
2012-06-05 17:27:41

@Edmonds... How are you getting those numbers? What kinds of foods are you eating that makes you feel like you are eating like a bird?


I am currently eating 1500 calories a day without issue, 200-300 increase for days I ride. I often have a hard time getting to my goal. I have a big chicken breast, greek yogurt, fibrous fruit, veggies, shrimp/salmon/tilapia, dinner is normally another meat and veggie, and normally have room to spare. Learning what is hunger and what is not is the big trick.


orionz06
2012-06-05 17:34:32

I give props to whoever is trying to manage their diet and health


Between being a vegan that eats homemade whole foods, cycling 30 miles a day and having a naturally lean body, I'm fortunate enough not to have to put too much thought into it


sgtjonson
2012-06-05 20:34:30

Orionz - I think it's more learning what foods and what quantities of foods provide adequate fuel for one's own body is the trick, not learning what hunger is and is not. (studies have also shown that some people have permanently broken their hunger reflex through long term obesity anyway, so even that may be impossible)


Your food list doesn't include grains. Pierce's doesn't include animal products. My husband was on no grains, no dairy, until recently when he decided he just wasn't gaining the weight he wanted to and felt less than great more often than not. I've tried lacto-ovo-veg, outright vegan, paleo, low carb, raw, raw with raw meats and sashimi, and weight watchers. Turns out the best diet for me, for sustained healthy weight management and general health, is to exercise an hour a day and then eat only what I crave (mostly super healthy lean meats, veggies, and fruits with a couple whole grains and dairy every once in a while). When I do that, it works. When I try to eat by someone else's numbers or any numbers at all, I fail. But that's me. My mom works WW numbers like a fiend and has sustained her loss for over 10 years. Everybody is different.


Lots of people claim that diets have "adjustment periods", anywhere from a month to six months, but I also believe that some diets won't mix well with some people's biology (ignoring culture, which can have an equally huge role in dieting success). Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.


Edmonds, I'm barely educated on the topic, but I firmly believe that if you think something is unsustainable, it likely is. You've got a decent amount of self awareness, and you know how your body works (and not). I think you've got the gumption and stubbornness to figure it out for yourself. Don't give up on your goal, even if you have to give up on a method that won't get you there. Find a different one that will.


If the journey sucks, the destination will likely not be magically better.


ejwme
2012-06-05 21:02:10

If the journey sucks, the destination will likely not be magically better.


I may get a plaque made of that.


stuinmccandless
2012-06-05 21:21:19

@ejwme


Yes, what each of us needs to eat to have life not suck and sustain the diet will be different but those differences do not allow us to stray from a caloric deficit to lose weight. Composition of the calories is very different but energy is energy. I eat grains, not all the time, I just listed my average workday foods. People need to figure out *how* to eat less than they currently are if they are overweight and their goal is to lose weight (or exercise). Regardless the deficit needs to be there.


We are both doing the same thing.


orionz06
2012-06-05 21:43:53

Ever see the South Park episode with the Toilet Safety Administration?


How much longer before I am required to have safety rails on my toilet and have some child molester give me a cavity search before I can drop a deuce in my own pot?


Let's ban pizza, pop, candy, make everyone wear bike helmets, seat belts, etc. Maybe we should start making people wear helmets when they go for a walk, and knee pads since people CAN FALL when they go out for a walk.


While we're at it, why don't we have a national calorie law which requires you to report to the IRS how many calories you eat each day — and if you eat too many then they can garnish 75% of your paycheck, fine you, and throw you in jail.


We can make a law that requires all beds to have a safety rail installed so that nobody ever gets up on the wrong side of bed in the morning.


Why don't we ALSO report to the IRS how many calories you burn exercising every day, (to be filed quarterly) then we can arrest people for Calorie evasion.


Anyone who wants the government to run every aspect of your life, please move to China already.


adam
2012-06-06 18:21:33

I'm still stickin' to my original two premises: 1) You can't legislate against stupidity and 2) If you don't have anything to protect, you don't need a helmet.


I recently had to replace a helmet that "died" for me. I was chugging uphill, on a wet grassy slope, and went over when I lost all traction. When I got home, I found a piece of tree branch embedded in the foam liner of my helmet. It was large enough and firmly embedded enough that I could not remove it. I cut the piece out and it was long enough to have done serious damage to me if it had struck my unprotected temple or other softer area of my head. I'll gladly spend the price of a helmet to keep from becoming a piece of broccoli on a ventilator.


pghdragonman
2012-06-06 20:08:31

Oh yeah, despite the tag under my name that says "newbie", I bought my first helmet some time around 1978. I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've ridden without a helmet since then.


pghdragonman
2012-06-06 20:11:33

"Anyone who wants the government to run every aspect of your life, please move to China already."


We covered reductio ad absurdum on the previous page.


To reiterate, I think the proposed soda-ban is an unnecessary and absurd law. If we want businesses to stop selling large sodas, there are better ways to go about it than wasting time and resources on new legislation and enforcement. Furthermore, the principle of the proposed law is one that restricts individual liberty while also taking away personal responsibility and accountability. None of those things are in the best interest of our people.


2012-06-06 20:31:11

So I don't think anyone here is in disagreement right?


Saying soda makes people fat is like saying guns kill people and pencils mis-spell words.


It is people's personal choices that result in all of those consequences.


Do I ride without a helmet sometimes, yup! Not very often though.


I've been in crashes with stones embedded into my helmet that I just left there for 3 years until they fell out, just because it looked cool (and showed that had I not been wearing a helmet those would be embedded in my skull).


I was in a mountain bike crash in high school that broke my helmet in half! We had it on display at the bike shop I worked at to entice people to buy helmets when they purchased a bike.


But then again, I was in a head-on collision with an automobile in high school where I was going about 45mph downhill and an 80 year old grandma swerved across the road so badly I hit the PASSENGER side fender and flew over the top of the car, landing about 20 feet from where I collided on my back, sliding another 10 feet or so in the grass (just happened to land on the soft shoulder instead of the road).


I wasn't wearing a helmet THAT TIME and well — the people across the street called 911 because they thought a bicyclist had just been killed in front of their eyes, but then were saying "OH MAN YOU BETTER GET HERE QUICK!" when I jumped to my feet and full of adrenaline rushed to the woman's car and started pounding on her window screaming all kinds of obscenities.


The woman lost her license for good over the event and was almost legally blind!


So it is a risk you take. I probably should have been laid to rest for good with that one, the point is you take a risk every time you wake up in the morning and go about your day. Trying to legislate everyone into being safe?


Well just look at how they need to fondle your dingleberries and take naked pictures of everyone to hop on a flying Greyhound bus now — all to keep us "safe"


The "terrorists" hate us for our freedoms, so I guess that is why they want to take all our freedoms away — so the terrorists won't hate us anymore?


adam
2012-06-06 20:56:22

This entire thread has become somewhat trite.


We're arguing about whether or not a city can restrict the size of sodas sold in restaurants.


Meanwhile, our President is personally bombing our own citizens, without a trial.


In Arizona, the State prohibited teachers from teaching ethic studies and banned books from classrooms.


And we're debating soda sizes.


sgtjonson
2012-06-06 20:57:00

"This entire thread has become somewhat trite."


+9001


it was a fun debate for a while, though


2012-06-06 21:14:10

Anyway, in a comment that may possibly be back on topic, while I find the NYC proposal to be invasive and governmental overreach, I find equally annoying individuals who apparently wanted to be hall monitors, who harp on other fully grown adults that they should be wearing helmets. People who insist on telling consenting adults that they should be wearing helmets are on the same footing as drivers who try to instruct cyclists in traffic law and then say "I bike too".

(Pulls pin, throws...)


edmonds59
2012-06-06 21:45:32

@edmonds: agreed on all counts.


reddan
2012-06-06 22:08:00

I guess the good thing is on many accounts a broad spectrum of people do sort of agree.


orionz06
2012-06-06 23:52:00

The wierd this is that they could accomplish a great reduction of soda consumption just by removing costly government subsidies of high fructose corn syrup.


(Well,a ctually just corn itself is subsidized, but for practical purposes that lowers prices on Fritos and Pepsi Cola)


mick
2012-06-07 15:04:04

it's really sad that we subsidize a plant. It's admirable to try and help farmers ensure consistent income in a weather dependent profession that produces our food, but subsidizing a plant doesn't benefit the farmers.


ejwme
2012-06-07 15:31:25

I really doubt the subsidies make much difference in the price of HF corn syrup (though I agree they're a big waste of money). The stuff is cheap to produce, that's all, and it just takes a lot more manual labor to grow, pick, process, ship and sell fruits and vegetables.


jonawebb
2012-06-07 16:52:48

Well, I'm no expert, but last time I read up on this, my understanding was this:

The market price of a bushel of corn would definitely be below the production cost of a bushel of corn without the subsidies, but instead of letting that market force work, we subsidized it into overproduction. Companies then had this huge surplus of corn and had to figure out how to monetize it, and that's why corn products like HFCS became popular. HFCS wouldn't even be playing a significant role in the market in the first place if the subsidies hadn't directly led to that massive surplus of corn that wasn't needed for the production of actual food. So the subsidies definitely seemed to cause the problem and bring HFCS into existence. Who knows whether getting rid of the subsidies would necessarily fix anything now since our food system is so very, very broken, but it seems like a good place to start.


2012-06-07 17:27:52

If HFCS were simply cheaper soda makers would be using it in other countries.


For what it's worth, Bloomburg does not support a helmet law.



“Well, look, keep in mind that my foundation works on traffic safety and getting helmets to people that ride motorcycles and motor scooters more than bicycles, is something that we’re working on and spent a lot of money on around the world. It would be better if everybody wore a helmet. I think in a practical sense a lot of people won’t, and they’re better off taking a bike than driving or walking in the streets and getting pedestrian accidents (sic). The most important thing we can do is separate bicycles lanes from traffic, and that’s one of the things we’re really trying to do.”


rsprake
2012-06-07 17:55:13

US Corn subsidies 2010 = $3.5 billion (farm.ewg.org)

US Corn production 2010 = 14 billion bushels (usda.org)

Subsidy per bushel = 25 cents

Cost of a bushel of corn is around $2

EDIT: To be clear, I think this is a colossal waste of money. But I don't think it has much impact on the cost of HF corn syrup. Since corn is grown as a feed grain in this country, vegetarianism, by lowering the price of meat, probably contributes to corn's use as HFCS. (I am a vegetarian so guilty.)


jonawebb
2012-06-07 18:16:16

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247588/

This guy agrees with you (Quick summary: The subsidies were a bad idea to begin with, but at this point studies estimate getting rid of them would only raise corn prices by 5-7%, which wouldn't make a noticeable difference for HFCS. But on the other hand maybe we could take that money and put it towards subsidizing actual food like fruits and vegetables to make them cheaper for consumers, which might not be totally pointless)


Edit to respond to your edit: I'm guilty too, but I guess vegetarianism + minimizing HFCS consumption can push in both directions? I dunno, I have to be careful not to read TOO much about this stuff or I start thinking I need to stop eating altogether because everything is bad


2012-06-07 18:40:58

Farmers should be free to grow what the market wants, not what the government thinks it wants or what a particular industry wants.


rsprake
2012-06-07 18:45:28

This is getting pretty off topic, but my understanding is that we actually drive the cost of sugar up through tariffs on sugar imports as a way to prop up the American sugar industry. This results in HFCS being a cheaper alternative for soda and candy.


willb
2012-06-07 18:52:11

Yeah, but if there were no sugar tariffs we'd be sweetening our sodas with sucrose instead of HFCS. Not clear that's an improvement in terms of health, though I understand it's tastier.


jonawebb
2012-06-07 18:57:54

I wouldn't consider yourself guilty of anything, jon. I don't quite equate not contributing to demand with subsidy. I haven't bought into space tourism but that doesn't mean I'm subsidizing it for others, at least in that sense.


dmtroyer
2012-06-07 19:22:33

Prioe of sugar: Not so much sugar tarriffs as boycotting Cuba. I recall my distress at the beginning of that embargo when popsicle prices went up 40%.


mick
2012-06-07 19:37:18

@jonawebb


You don't think a subsidy that by your own numbers pays for 12% of the base product that turns into HFCS is a significant contributor to cost?


That's 3.5 billion dollars of subsidies.


Don't feel too bad about being a vegetarian. The dairy cows and their male (and female) calves, which get turned into veal/beef consume that corn too. Same thing for hens and whatever other animals you use.


There's a lot of contributions to the cost of corn, like our lovely biofuels for example.


What's more interesting to look at is how the corn demand competes with the price of other grains and raises food prices world wide. It's also interesting to look at how inefficient the consumption of meat is and how many more people could be fed with a plant based diet. (Based on math I did a while ago, 32 kids could be fed on the difference between the amount of corn that goes through the food pyramid of an average omnivore and a vegetarian)


sgtjonson
2012-06-07 19:42:55

the sad thing is that the corn subsidies get lumped into things like crop insurance for other types of farms in people's minds and in legislation. fruit and vegetable farmers don't get shit for subsidies the way grain farmers do, and the ceiling on what a "small" farm is for the subsidies is ridiculously high.


cburch
2012-06-07 22:50:28

It's too bad we don't support America's fruit basket. It seems like it's mechanically more complicated to harvest fruits and vegetables too


sgtjonson
2012-06-07 23:07:34

If I had to throw out a wildass cynical guess, someone correct me, but I would guess it has to do with fruits and vegetables not being traded on the stock market as commodities futures the way corn and certain other products are. The subsidies actually have nothing to do with protecting farmers, that's a nice smokescreen, they are in place to protect prices on the market. It's all about the money interests.


edmonds59
2012-06-07 23:35:58

^this


cburch
2012-06-07 23:58:51

Well, that's the problem with America, isnt' it? The filthy rich just don't have enough money.


But we might get to fix that after the election. We'll get the government OFF our backs (and put Goldman Sachs on there instead.)


mick
2012-06-08 00:02:40

@edmonds - I don't think that's it:

http://www.statpub.com/statveg.html


Also, the farmers ARE the money interest. Most agriculture these days isn't done by small family farmers, it's giant corporations, and this goes for fruits and vegetables as well as grains. As far as corn goes specifically, it's not a coincidence that Iowa, the first primary (well, caucus actually) state is a massive corn producer.


willb
2012-06-08 13:30:35

@ willb Most agriculture these days isn't done by small family farmers, it's giant corporations


This is true. On the other hand the USDA's Economic Research Service says ERS defines a "family farm" as any farm organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or family corporation.


Historically, the largest family farms in the original colonies have been somewhere north of 5 million acres. Out West, though, I guess they might get a bit larger.


Betcha if grampa owns a couple thousand square miles, you aren't going to bed hungry. For a few of the richest of those guys, it might even be rational to vote Republican.


mick
2012-06-08 15:01:11

@ "paleo diet"


I used to be a neandertal, but I went back to school. Now, I'm a certified Hunter-Gatherer.


mick
2012-06-08 15:08:14
From http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sunday-review/to-encourage-biking-cities-forget-about-helmets.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 In the United States the notion that bike helmets promote health and safety by preventing head injuries is taken as pretty near God’s truth. Un-helmeted cyclists are regarded as irresponsible, like people who smoke. Cities are aggressive in helmet promotion. ... But many European health experts have taken a very different view: Yes, there are studies that show that if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury. But such falls off bikes are rare — exceedingly so in mature urban cycling systems. ... “Pushing helmets really kills cycling and bike-sharing in particular because it promotes a sense of danger that just isn’t justified — in fact, cycling has many health benefits,” says Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Macquarie University in Sydney. He studied the issue with mathematical modeling, and concludes that the benefits may outweigh the risks by 20 to 1. ... He adds: “Statistically, if we wear helmets for cycling, maybe we should wear helmets when we climb ladders or get into a bath, because there are lots more injuries during those activities.” The European Cyclists’ Federation says that bicyclists in its domain have the same risk of serious injury as pedestrians per mile traveled. ... [PITTSBURGH TAKE NOTE] Recent experience suggests that if a city wants bike-sharing to really take off, it may have to allow and accept helmet-free riding. A two-year-old bike-sharing program in Melbourne, Australia — where helmet use in mandatory — has only about 150 rides a day, despite the fact that Melbourne is flat, with broad roads and a temperate climate. On the other hand, helmet-lax Dublin — cold, cobbled and hilly — has more than 5,000 daily rides in its young bike-sharing scheme. Mexico City recently repealed a mandatory helmet law to get a bike-sharing scheme off the ground. But here in the United States, the politics are tricky. ... But bicycling advocates say that the problem with pushing helmets isn’t practicality but that helmets make a basically safe activity seem really dangerous. ... In fact, many European researchers say the test of a mature bike-sharing program is when women outnumber men. In the Netherlands, 52 percent of riders are women. ... Before you hit the comment button and tell me that you know someone whose life was probably saved by a bike helmet, I know someone, too. I also know someone who believes his life was saved by getting a blood test for prostate specific antigen, detecting prostate cancer. But is that sense of salvation actually justified, for the individual or society?
yalecohen
2015-01-26 00:30:48
"In the United States the notion that bike helmets promote health and safety by preventing head injuries is taken as pretty near God’s truth. Un-helmeted cyclists are regarded as irresponsible, like people who smoke." I never wear a helmet and rarely get comments about it. I think they would do very little if I fell off my bike which I have done years ago and certainly never hit my head. It would be an odd enough crash, that if you are going to live in that kind of fear, you might as well just keep a helmet on daily, no matter what you are doing. The reasons helmets are such a big deal in the US is obvious. MONEY! The amount of advertising and fear mongering by companies to profit from them is similar to SUV advertising. You have one child, you MUST have an SUV! USA! USA! Money!
gg
2015-01-26 08:27:15
Ugh. Helmet wars.
jonawebb
2015-01-26 08:52:32
I always feel safer with a helmet, even more so with armor (shin/knee/elbow pads). Invincible even. I guess the question is, am I really safer or do I just feel that way?
ericf
2015-01-26 08:53:00
Well, since you ask, here's the CDC's view: "Head injury is the most common cause of death and serious disability in bicycle-related crashes; head injuries are involved in about 60 percent of the deaths, and 30 percent of the bicycle-related ED visits... Bicycle helmets are a proven intervention that reduce the risk of bicycle-related head injury by about 80 percent." http://www.cdc.gov/program/performance/fy2000plan/2000xbicycle.htm I'm not an advocate for mandatory helmet laws, BTW; I think the benefit of biking, even without a helmet, outweighs the slight risk of head injury. But if you ride regularly you should wear a helmet, because it takes only one crash without one to seriously screw up the rest of your life.
jonawebb
2015-01-26 09:15:30
The chance of such a life changing injury is heavily dependent on speed. By in large, bike share riders will be be treating biking as a faster way of walking and going maybe 12mph. When more of a very low stress system is built out that type of cycling will become more dominant, and fractional helmet usage will decline further. But it probably won't (and shouldn't) decline as far here as it would in a place without hills.
byogman
2015-01-26 10:42:30
Jon: "Ugh. Helmet wars." Yeah, sorry. As soon as I hear of MORE FEAR LAWS, it gets me going. The chance of death is just too remote. It is easy to make figures create fear. I looked at Copenhagen and Finland for some data. Finland is more pro helmet and fear driven and Copenhagen is for no helmets. The statistics are interesting because there are so few deaths, you really can't come to a conclusion. Head injuries are of course a pretty big part of all the injuries, but injuries are so rare and life threatening ones are super rare. If I was running at 30mph all the time, I probably would wear a helmet. I don't ride my fast road bike very often, but the speeds that thing can go is so much faster than my fat bike and fixed gear. I just don't run over 20mph that much. Anyway, I hope we don't see more fear/laws. I don't know how motorcyclists got to remove helmets to this day. It is hard to believe they pulled that off somehow. It is a reversal of the norm, because soon I feel we really won't be allowed to leave our homes because there is too much danger. How did I live through the 70's and 80's?
gg
2015-01-26 12:49:58
I've always wondered how they got that mess in Australia passed. I just picture the Aussies as macho gator wrasslin' badasses, not bicycle helmet law passin' nancies. Perhaps an outcome of seeing bicycling primarily as a "sport" activity. The things I've recently read about Ireland cycling are fantastic.
edmonds59
2015-01-26 12:59:12
Can we get out of talking about helmets and start talking about why anyone would need a helmet? We need to prevent crashes from happening at all, and by that I mean collisions with moving motor vehicles. I don't think there's much we can do about people who wreck into stationary objects. Possibly we can reduce the number of holes, drain grates, rails and other pavement issues. But cars and trucks, that's another matter. Merely separating those three classifications from pointless and ad nauseam helmet theology would be an excellent start.
stuinmccandless
2015-01-26 15:07:56
@stu, the problem is that the question is much more complex that it appears, it hasn't been well researched, at least lately, and the biggest public health issues don't align with our concerns. According to the Cross-Fisher 1977 study, only about 12% of bike accidents involve a collision with a motor vehicle. But other data indicates that those collisions account for a high proportion of serious accidents. A large fraction of those involve children, doing things like riding out from driveways without looking, or running stop signs. And a lot of the remainder involve cars hitting cyclists on rural roads riding without lights at night. See, for example, http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch2.html So what does this mean for us? We're not children, we follow the traffic laws, more or less, we have lights.
jonawebb
2015-01-26 16:01:41
People like (more or less) us are different from the target share-bike user. For example, we ride faster and we're more comfortable with cars around us. Such factors increase risk and it's reasonable to talk about helmets. I ride with a helmet. Share-bike are very different. They are heavy and they are geared very low (even with the 3 speeds). It's hard to go fast. (Though I guess if you find a steep-enough hill, you could. But you'd have to be able to climb that hill, something share-bikes make difficult.) I don't think these riders need roadie-level helmeting to get themselves cross-town because I do not see how to OTB on a share-bike. It does strike me as a speed thing (per @byogman). On a mildly related topic, I've been told that people in the organ transplant professions were not altogether unhappy with the repeal of the motorcycle helmet law: a new source of fresh, young organs. Let's not give them ideas...
ahlir
2015-01-26 18:49:20
"But you’d have to be able to climb that hill, something share-bikes make difficult." Truer in a flat city like NYC than in ours. People who live in the east end might plausibly check out a shared bike and head down to the nearest trail via Greenfield Avenue or even Bates, figuring they'd check the bike back in downtown and perhaps take a bus back to the east end.
steven
2015-01-27 00:12:15
It is kind of obvious, if you put a helmet law in place, bike share will be used much less. People aren't going to walk around with a helmet and many won't want to use some community helmet, which is kind of gross. On top of all this, if you preach to all you MUST wear a helmet, it promotes fear to those thinking about cycling and they just will not take that step. I think NYC would be making a huge mistake mandating helmets. If they do, they might as well mandate them for pedestrians.
gg
2015-01-28 09:35:27
People who live in the east end might plausibly check out a shared bike and head down to the nearest trail via Greenfield Avenue or even Bates, figuring they’d check the bike back in downtown Well, maybe. But dynamic pricing can deal with it. (Bonus minutes for Downtown->Oakland and vice-versa). [yes, this is more like with the bike-share thread; deal with it]
ahlir
2015-01-29 21:41:47