 |
| Troy Meyeraan (L) and myself circa 1995- No helmets required! |
A frequent commenter to this blog, "DT", asked me about my reticence to allow for GPS tracking during Trans Iowa versus my over-arching care for the riders and their safety. DT also correctly stated that now things cannot be as they once were, and this in regard to advancing technology, but I responded to his comment that it was more than just that.
This post today was also inspired by a story in "Forbes" by author and cycling advocate, Carlton Reid about how one cargo bike delivery company banned helmet wearing for its employees. This, obviously, sparked much critical debate and even Mr. Reid himself was accused of not being a very safe fellow.
On Risks Overall: I thought that the entire assumption implicit in the idea that a simple plastic and polystyrene hat could ward off all life threatening injuries for cyclists to be a bit of poor thinking on the part of many of us. It has to do with risks, what is real versus supposed risk, and our technology today and how that has changed our mindsets as humans in the 21st Century. So, instead of riffing on helmet usage and letting the response to DT be veiled from sight in the comments section, I thought I'd elucidate my take on this risk/technology/cultural nexus as it affects cycling.
So, to kick off this post, I wanted to quote from my answer in the comments to DT. Here I am speaking in terms of Trans Iowa, but I think you can draw references to other events and rides as well. Here is the quote:
" On risk: In the pre-2000's, having groups of people doing touring, races
in remote places, and well.....just training- was not a "track-able"
thing, right? We didn't have any way of communicating our
distresses/emergencies at all unless we could find a rural residence.
Risk assessment was a TOTALLY different animal back then. You wouldn't
have thought twice about putting on an event like Trans Iowa from that
aspect, but would I have worried less or cared less about riders?
Probably not.
Fast forward to the 20-teens. Now you are held to a
different standard BECAUSE of technology. Had something went awry-
let's say we didn't find Charlie Farrow during Trans Iowa v8 when he was
temporarily 'lost' - Well, what do you think everyone sitting in their
homes, all warm and cozy, would have judged in that case? "Guilty! Why
didn't you use tracking technology!" It wouldn't have mattered a whit to
anyone being self-righteous behind a keyboard that Charlie eschews
technology and wasn't carrying a cell phone because he was willing to
accept that risk. "
 |
| (L-R) At T.I.v8: Matt Maxwell, A. Andonopoulous, GT, Charlie Farrow. (Image by S. Fuller) |
I often joke with my wife that if I forget my smart phone on a bicycle ride I am just having a "1980's Day". She doesn't see the humor in that. Why? Because she is afraid that if something should happen to me, she wouldn't be made aware of it immediately, and therefore would not have some sort of 'control' over what happened next. Maybe she could effect some better outcome depending on what might happen, but think about that- What could she really do but worry?
I'm not saying she couldn't do anything, (call an ambulance, muster the authorities) , but if I was functional to some degree after a mishap, I'm probably going to be okay, and if I am killed or unconscious, what good is a cell phone at that point? These are good things to consider, and, of course, there are thousands of reasons for and against these ideas, but the over-arching thought process we have is that if you carry your smart phone you'll be okay. It's like some sort of guarantee or 'insurance', when it is not. What are the chances that you'd ever need a smart phone to mitigate an emergency on a ride? Yes- there is a chance you'd need it, but more often than not? You're fine, really.
 |
| Wear one, or don't. The choice should be yours to make. |
Back in those days I was part of a trio of young men that had decided to ride a self-contained tour from Iowa to Canada in a week via Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan. One of the pre-tour debates we had was whether or not to bring a helmet.
Now, of the three of us, two were licensed racers and I had recently had an experience which made me a believer in helmet use. So, we weren't coming from preconceived notions where helmets weren't used at all or regularly. We all used helmets a lot. So, when we decided, unanimously and quickly, not to use helmets on this tour, what was our rational?
We all agreed that we would bring a helmet to use through bigger cities, mostly out of reasoning that we would escape any ridicule from others. Then, for anything else outside of a city we were not wearing helmets because we agreed that a helmet would not prevent serious injury or death if we were struck by a car or truck traveling at highway speeds. So why make ourselves more uncomfortable than necessary? I did the same thing on a ten day tour to the Black Hills the following year with two other guys. We assumed a risk. We were, (obviously) fine.
On Technology: In events, the technologies we carry around or bolt onto our bicycles, (and in some cases now are a part of our bicycles), open up all sorts of issues for those who would direct the activities for an event. Most events are simply not just a 'race'. There are factors which, when race directors implement them correctly, make events more than races. However; in an effort to 'push the easy button', riders can, and sometimes do, use technology to cheat. There are a myriad of ways to use technology to cut corners. Sometimes it is intentional, other times it is by happenstance.
 |
| Tales of cheating at ultra-gravel events are not unheard of |
The truth or fictional status of these tales is not my point, however, but what I wanted to point out is that most, if not all of these issues in these tales would not have happened pre-2000.
Again from my comments to DT:
"It (technology) is the reason I say that Trans Iowa was really a pre-2000's event stuck in the post-modern world. You cannot do an event like that anymore, just as you say when you mention 'the genie'. There are events that try to be similar, and you even have Iowa Wind and Rock trying to keep the flag flying, but there just isn't any way it could be the same as it was back in the 2000's. No ding on IWAR here, but it is what it is now. "
The 'genie' is a reference to how now that technology is out there, you really cannot do things anymore like they once were done. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? If you are risk averse, you might answer that it is a good thing. But there is no denying that the experience is nothing like it was pre-2000's and which faded away as the 2000's progressed.
Taking risks at a higher level isn't for everyone, but I would argue that we- as a race - have lost something in the exchange for comfort/safety which we had before we accepted technology. It goes a LOT further and a LOT deeper than just how things affect the tiny world of cycling, but many times, in cycling it isn't the cyclists who are complaining about taking risks.
 |
| Risk assessment was a big part of my life. (Image by G. Keslin of the T.I.v14 start) |
Take for instance that "Trans Iowa Stories" post I referenced above where technology on a man's phone in which he had tracking on a rider in the event dismayed me:
"That is part of the reason I was dismayed at the beacon I saw that afternoon on that man's cell phone. It was people like him that were the issue. NOT the riders. It was all the people judging Trans Iowa from behind a keyboard that would never, in a hundred years, ever attempt such a challenge."
In the end, this is a topic that could be debated at length for hours, maybe even days. But what I wanted to point out here is not that you should or should not do anything- Wear a helmet, use technology, use and carry a cell phone on every ride. The chances that technology or a helmet might save you trouble is worth it. But don't think it will erase all risks, and don't think that because you've reduced your risks that you are experiencing life at its fullest. There must be balance, and sometimes - yes- you've gotta take the big risks to get the rewards.
And sometimes, probably every time, you'll pay for taking those risks. Are you willing to accept that responsibility? Are you willing to affect others with the possible negative or positive outcomes of your risk taking?
Big questions, and I don't pretend to have any easy answers for you. That's something you'll have to wrestle with yourself. How you answer those questions will have a big impact on your life - and other's lives - going forward.
13 comments:
The troublesome part of this issue to me is the sheer number of people who seek to impose their risk assessment on me, and others. What's next? Fines for failing to wear a helmet on a city bike path? Law enforcement at checkpoints along the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route to ensure I'm carrying the approved safety items? How a civic lesson to Stay In Your Own Lane.
@CrossTrail - Keeping it in the realm of cycling - because this discussion could go off the deep end in a hurry- I think you have a spectrum of people on a continuum. On one end you have people who are very caring and totally risk averse to the point that they are willing to impose their will on others. On the other end you have 'devil-may care', people who are very independent as well who balk at any sniff of outside control and are willing to 'go to war' over anything they see impinging on their liberties.
As I stated in my post- Balance is key. I think most of us are trending more toward the middle ground in terms of risk assessment and cycling. When we come up against policy makers,family/friends who are non-cyclists who are stuck at the extremes - or near them- it is then when we feel the decisions made are not in balance with most of the cycling folk.
So yes- "the troublesome part", as you stated, are those who are not willing to invest themselves in a risk taking activity and who do not think you should either. They are the ones who will be the first to point fingers at anyone- an event, promoter, riders- when things go wrong. And sometimes these same folks are cyclists themselves, which can be really disheartening.
Look- I don't get rock climbing. It terrifies me, and I think it is a very risky activity, but I would never presume that because rock climbing is not for me that you- or anyone else who wishes to engage in that activity- should not be doing it. Yes- be responsible and prudent in that activity, but overall? have at it if that is what you want to do.
And when someone dies or is seriously injured in the rock climbing community? I am saddened by that, but I still don't wish upon the rest of that community that they stop what they are doing because it is "too risky". I mean, if THAT were the logic we employed for risk assessment, there would not be anyone driving a motor vehicle. Right? Just a casual perusal of accident data on highways and roads negates using that logic for anyone in this country.
So, yeah, it saddens me as well that there is pressure on cycling in the ultra scene and in the endurance scene this way. But it is a real thing and I felt it keenly when I was putting on Trans Iowa all those years. I touch on this in tomorrow's post as well.
More broadly on the topic of Risk and our culture, and the absence of adventure in our daily lives, I would recommend the book The Comfort Crisis by Michael Eastman. Not at all about bikes/biking but does speak to our connection to adventure/risk as a balance to the stressors of the modern world, cell phones, social media, and the rest.
Specific to bikes, I no longer ride on the road. MTB/trail and indoor only. I can control the risks only so far. The 21st century has brought technology to give an illusion of safety, but ALSO has given us less attentive drivers, and I feel the balance has not been in our favor overall. So yes, I quote a book that urges more adventure and in the same post that "I'm out" -- but that's how I'm controlling risk while also getting my rear off the couch.
Preach preach!! If I had a dime for ever time someone asks me about helmet, first aid, or cell phone...
@Zoxe - Is this book by Michael "Easter" and not "Eastman"? I searched for it and came up with the same title but the author's name is listed as "Easter".
Anyway, I hear you on how technology has distracted us in terms of driving, (and I'd argue everything else in life has been hi-jacked by technology)and this is why I think gravel as a niche of cycling has taken off. It is a way to get off those paved roads and be more free to enjoy cycling.
@GT - Gah! Yes, Michael Easter. Again, not biking releated but is one of the few books of this type that I finished and was tempted to start over immediately.
Helmets may actually have the opposite result of their intention. Can we look at football and how much more violent it is?
@N.Y. Roll - The comment you make on helmets is actually what the link to Carlton Reid's piece is about. Timely reference to American Football. Well played! ;>)
Well served. Just like hearing someone getting hit by a beer tossed out a moving automobile. The first thing I ask is "you were wearing a helmet?" Most responses are yes. No helmet, no target.
@teamdarb - Your comment reminds me of my own experience commuting for 20+ years by bicycle. When I was in street clothes, no helmet, I was given much more respect than if I had a helmet on with street clothes, and it was worse if I was in a jersey and shorts as well.
There is something that brings out the worst in motorists when they see that helmet on you.
So many good points in your assessment, I agree wholeheartedly we've approached risk differently since the advent of cell phones and internet connectivity. Growing up and mountain biking in Marin County and living here now, I see a huge difference in trail behavior: in the 90s cyclists took far fewer risks and seemed much less reckless than the stuff I see today. I say this knowing "risk" is entirely subjective.
I know you're focussing on rural, gravel rides, but the helmet debate has real implications for transit planning and cyclist's safety in urban areas. In study after study, it's clear that what makes cycling safe is more cyclists on the roads. The prime example of this is the Netherlands, which has more bikes than people, and where cycling fatalities are extraordinarily rare because motorists are trained ad nauseam to be aware of them. Ditto for Germany where I lived for 14 years. I commuted by bike daily and never wore a helmet, and the feeling that cyclists 'belong' on the roads is palpable there. Cyclists are expected to obey traffic laws (no Idaho stops) and the police will ticket infractions; most people feel this leads to better behavior as all road users are treated equally.
It's the general consensus that helmet laws only create barriers for cycling, and thus decrease the number of cyclists on the road. In Sydney, Australia, cycling injuries increased after helmet requirements were passed. Likewise, several years ago in Seattle the major barrier to creating the city's bike share system was Washington state's helmet law. Bike share users are required to bring their own helmets which is often a barrier for low income residents, and cycling advocates there note the helmet laws are often used as a pretext by police to stop people of color.
I realize I'm citing statistics and incidents without sources, but the information is readily available for anyone who wishes to dig deeper. Will I personally wear a helmet every time I cycle in the U.S.? Absolutely. But I'm with GT when he says their use should not be mandated.
Is the Tour De France safer with helmets? Lance Armstrong entered with no helmets, left with helmets being mandatory. Was it the doping that really made it faster? Or is it the false safety of the helmet subconsciously that allows more riskier descents and peloton maneuvers? Would Cavindish been the same risk taker on the side rail and unfairly bump Lord Sagan in the tour if he had no helmet? (I am showing my bias with Lord Sagan)
In the Netherlands, too, you see more and more cyclists wearing helmets outside the cities. If you ride your typical Dutch bike ("Bommafiets") to the supermarket in the neighborhood next door, you don't wear one, but if you go on a tour with a road, gravel or mountain bike, you do. Exceptions confirm the rule. Ten years ago, people laughed at you for wearing a helmet, but that's definitely over now. However, countries like the Netherlands, Belgium or Denmark are very unlikely to make helmets compulsory. In Italy I see that as a possibility, there you must wear a reflective vest at night as a cyclist already.
The attitude towards cyclists is also very different. In northern Europe, the bicycle is more of a means of transport, in the south it is a piece of sports equipment. The transition is fluid, and in many countries the bicycle is being rediscovered as a healthy and environmentally friendly means of transportation. Aggressive and distracted drivers exist everywhere, but in bicycle-friendly countries it is already much less dangerous. Drivers there now know full well that they can't get away scot-free if they knock down a cyclist. For example, Switzerland is not so bike-friendly in general, but car drivers are afraid of the consequences of an accident for themselves (jail! Driving ban!), so they keep their distance.
Post a Comment