Cycling

Should cyclists consider facemasks to prevent injuries?

August 25, 2017 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

Recently during my evening commute home, I was distracted by a cyclist wearing a bicycle helmet outfitted with crossbars, like something akin to a college hockey mask. And it wasn’t the first time.

A theme keeps popping up downtown and on the 606, and it presents a question that I’ve often thought about prior to my encounter with Mr. Blackhawk: Should cyclists and helmet manufacturers start engineering the type of gear that’s normally reserved for professional athletes?

We know that the NFL is facing a litany of scrutiny for things like CTE and long term brain damage. And because of it, companies that manufacture helmets have come up with tons of designs to curtail the kind of debilitating head trauma seen in sports like football and even soccer. They do so by incorporating science-based research into nearly every piece of new equipment, down to the fibers of the plastic.

Recently, the Seattle-based manufacturing company Vicis, co-founded by neurosurgeon Sam Browd, unveiled the ZERO1, a pliable, impact-absorbing helmet shell that cushions against violent collisions. Per the company, the helmet is based on the principle that “layers work together to slow impact forces.” Of three major helmet manufacturers, Vicis topped the popular helmets produced by companies like Riddell. A report from CBS Sports also cited Inc.com, which reported that 25 NFL teams have purchased the ZERO1 for this coming season.

People will be quick to point out that a football helmet and a cycling helmet are different. But I would argue that cycling helmets have, for many riders, acted more like an ornament rather than a protective piece of equipment. They may be sleek but they could be even more effective.

I often wonder what might happen if cyclists took the helmet issues as seriously as organizations like the NFL. What if cyclists began outfitting their helmets with facemasks, or mouth guards, or skull caps with layer-incorporated shells, helping to absorb the shock waves of violent impact? Would it make a difference?

I would even go as far as to argue that something as simplistic as a facemask would go a long way to prevent damage to the face and mouth, no less impactful than, say, a hit to the crown of the head. At the very least, you’re saving your teeth.

I look at the people commuting to work on their bikes every day—some of whom don’t wear helmets at all—and I think about the inherent danger of winding through busy streets, vulnerable to fast cars. Professional athletes seem to know that they’re vulnerable; many have taken proactive steps to change that. Cyclists should do so too.

Are helmets a false sense of security?

July 20, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

While the public continues to scrutinize the world of football for its high concussion rates, one thing’s clear: the development of safer equipment is finally catching up to the modern era. But these new developments often neglect that helmets aren’t foolproof; no matter how much impact a helmet might absorb, the fact remains that helmets are mostly a false sense of security.

Now let’s take a closer look at cyclists. The perception that cycling is safe as long as you wear a helmet is a scenario similar to that of football players, perpetuating a false sense of security and ignoring the need to learn safe-riding skills; you wouldn’t give a driver’s license to a teenager simply because they know how to use a seat belt, so why should it be different for those riding bikes?

Controversy swirls around the debate over whether helmets actually benefit cyclists in the long run. In the 1990s when helmet usage began to increase in the U.S., the Consumer Product Safety Commission found that head injuries among cyclists increased by 51 percent, despite the fact that the total number of riders decreased. While it’s not clear what caused the spike, the statistics underline the idea that helmets, while beneficial, are not foolproof or even effective. More important is the need for cyclists to understand and put to practice the techniques of defensive riding.

As more people study the types of problems associated with helmet use, football seems to have found a way to address the issue by changing how the game is played. It’s notable that football coaches are beginning to take a page from the book of rugby and force their players to tackle opponents without making head contact, as if they had no helmets at all. Many speculate that it would change the game for the better, eliminating or at the very least minimizing severe head injuries by discouraging helmet-to-helmet contact.

The same type of techniques should theoretically apply to cyclists by prioritizing safe-riding skills instead of creating a dependency on helmets alone. The state legislature continues to pass bike helmet laws that, ironically, draw attention away from the need to teach safe-riding skills. If we’re serious about making the roads better, it starts with better education.

HB 1784 is a win-win for drivers and cyclists

June 2, 2017 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

If passed, the bill would allow motorists to exercise better, safer judgement

A bi-partisan bill to protect local cyclists is headed to the governor’s desk, and if signed, it’s a win-win situation for all parties involved.

Sponsored by Ride Illinois, House Bill 1784 would do four things: Allow cars to pass cyclists in no-passing zones, when the circumstances are deemed safe and appropriate; amend and clarify the current law (625 ILCS 5/11-70), which would legalize cycling on shoulders but not require it; allow a rear red light instead of or in addition to a rear red reflector; and lastly, clarify the cyclist lane position law, which instructs cars to pass with more than three feet of distance when the lane is too narrow.

Semantics aside, the change represents a step in the right direction. Some laws are notorious for their dubiousness. They can be well intentioned but ill conceived, as when a limitation is more dangerous than the very thing it’s trying to prevent. The Idaho Stop is a perfect example. In this case, HB 1784 addresses at least one limitation that restricts motorists from making a proactive decision to stave off accidents.

As most drivers and cyclists know, there’s a bit of a quandary whenever a car approaches from behind a moving cyclist. The current law expects cars to maintain a certain speed while remaining within the restrictive borders of a no-passing zone. In that situation, most motorists veer generously to the left, putting additional space between their car and the cyclist.

Technically, that’s breaking the law. Drivers are subject to a traffic citation, and as a result, law-abiding drivers wind up clipping the very people they’re patiently trying to avoid—a completely preventable scenario.

In this instance, lawmakers appear to have recognized that cyclists are better off by allowing motorists to make a thoughtful judgment call, and it’s an example of how lawmakers should be evaluating regulations based on practicality and not theory. It’s a commitment to safety without compromising integrity.