Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?

Voters
1670. You may not vote on this poll
  • I've never worn a bike helmet

    178 10.66%
  • I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped

    94 5.63%
  • I've always worn a helmet

    648 38.80%
  • I didn't wear a helmet, but now do

    408 24.43%
  • I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions

    342 20.48%
Page 114 of 350 FirstFirst ... 1464104112113114115116124164214 ... LastLast
Results 2,826 to 2,850 of 8743
  1. #2826
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Doohickie View Post
    ?.. I feel pretty strongly about wearing a helmet. For myself anyway...

    I'll do my own analogy: It would be like me saying people can smoke if they want and then going on to say "but I value my lungs enough to not smoke"...
    Except that it can be clearly proven that smoking damages lungs. You're assuming that by simply wearing a helmet, it protects your noggin. This hasn't been clearly proven. In fact, there is evidence that when helmets are worn, injuries increase.
    Last edited by closetbiker; 07-06-12 at 09:41 AM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  2. #2827
    You gonna eat that? Doohickie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
    My Bikes
    1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS
    Posts
    14,022
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hagen2456 View Post
    There's a subtle but important difference between the noggins statement and the lungs statement: We're supposed to use our brains to decide whether it's stupid or not to ride helmetless. See?
    No. No I don't.
    I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.



    Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."

  3. #2828
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    It seems highly unlikely.
    Or highly likely.

    Sort of like Elvis being alive. I'm not required to prove either claim: the people making the claims have that requirement.
    Or perhaps the people claiming that helmets are effective should be required to explain why fatal crashes have doubled.

    Please provide any data about the speed of the TdF crashes before and after the introduction of helmets you have. Once I see your data, maybe, I'll comment on it.
    Aw, I don't remember the exact figure, but it's around a 5% increase.

    However, the fatal crashes in pro cycling typically happen at speeds that are very high, and a difference between 60 km/h and 63 km/h is unlikely to make that big a difference.

    Edit: What I wrote aboute "increased speed" referred not to the increased speed of the pro races but to the difference in the effect of a helmet at 20 km/ respectively 60 km/h. Sorry about the confusion.

    ??? So, I'm required to prove it isn't correct but you aren't required to prove that it is correct? That's bizarre too!
    That's not what I "required". I tried to show you that you offered no explanation, and in light of that, I offered an alternative, plausible explanation which is in line with what we know about the capacities and drawbacks of helmets. I have now also explained why it probably doesn't have anything to do with the speed. As for the number of crashes, I have no idea. But look at older footage of the Tour, the Giro etc. Plenty of crashes.

    (Or look at the Youtube-video I linked to showing Fuente's descent. You may remember that he and Merckx crashed at one time at high speeds.)
    Last edited by hagen2456; 07-05-12 at 08:17 PM.

  4. #2829
    Senior Member rekmeyata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5,869
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
    Studies show that the higher the IQ the higher helmet useage. That says something.
    That's what I've been saying all along, those that don't wear helmets will die, it's just natural selection at work...those that are dumb will die off eventually leaving only the higher IQ people. So I'm all for those people not wearing helmets, go for it!

  5. #2830
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
    Studies show that the higher the IQ the higher helmet useage. That says something.
    Yes. It says something about how we should approach statistics. Have you for just ONE moment considered that the reason might not be that it's because they're intelligent but because they typically belong to a social class with a generally different life style and different risk assessment (AND have bought into the myths about the life-saving helmets)?
    Last edited by hagen2456; 07-05-12 at 08:19 PM.

  6. #2831
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
    That's what I've been saying all along, those that don't wear helmets will die, it's just natural selection at work...those that are dumb will die off eventually leaving only the higher IQ people. So I'm all for those people not wearing helmets, go for it!
    Beautiful parody

  7. #2832
    Observer jjamesstrk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    My Bikes
    2000 LeMond Buenos Aires
    Posts
    62
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    It appears that the only differences is that crashes are more common in MTB biking and those crashes never involve cars. Outside of that, there's a lot overlap of crash properties between the two activities. That is, if helmets are useful for some MTB crashes, then they are useful for some road cycling crashes.

    Of course, we don't really know (that is, assuming the events are similar is risky but assuming that they are different is equally risky).
    You should look at the numbers of cycling fatalities, specifically what portion occur because of collision with a motor vehicle. The risk is significantly different. Even if it was the only difference (which I don't believe it is) it is a very significant difference.

  8. #2833
    Senior Member rekmeyata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5,869
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hagen2456 View Post
    Beautiful parody
    Ah, you see you missed my point, and that's my point.

  9. #2834
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    6,205
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Drummerboy1975 View Post
    Th death rate is up due to pro cyclist taking bigger risks and being able to go faster due to better bikes and component. I honesty can't believe y'all would argue this!
    Only somebody completely clueless about average speeds in the TdF could post something that stupid.

  10. #2835
    Senior Member Stix Zadinia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    224
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wear a helmet because it's law in my city and makes me feel a bit more safe, psyche-wise at least. It could be useful someday, or block my view from some imminent danger coming from the side some other day, who knows.


    However, it'll do pretty much nothing, should a truck decide to run over my torso. Or my head, for that matter.

    /thread.
    Last edited by Stix Zadinia; 07-05-12 at 11:46 PM.
    Why does the wind always blow cold, and always the wrong way? -Pain

  11. #2836
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
    Ah, you see you missed my point, and that's my point.
    Unlikely.


  12. #2837
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    20,553
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
    Studies show that the higher the IQ the higher helmet useage. That says something.
    First approach would be to ask the poster of the snippet of helmet-IQ "info" to provide a reference a little more substantial than the vague and unsubstantiated "Studies show..." It takes very little IQ to post rumors and fabrications about "studies" and even less to believe them without question.
    Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 07-06-12 at 06:38 AM.

  13. #2838
    You gonna eat that? Doohickie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
    My Bikes
    1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS
    Posts
    14,022
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'll throw this into the mix from another thread:



    His "helmet was absolutely smashed" but his only injury was a broken left leg. And to answer the question I had, no, that's not a pedestrian crosswalk; it's a dedicated bicycle path.

    While there is a lot of debate about the methods used to determine helmet safety, this is a pretty clear example of a helmet at least helping prevent a more serious head injury.
    I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.



    Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."

  14. #2839
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    20,553
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Doohickie View Post
    I'll throw this into the mix from another thread:



    While there is a lot of debate about the methods used to determine helmet safety, this is a pretty clear example of a helmet at least helping prevent a more serious head injury.
    It may be clear to you that the picture confirms your pre determined conclusion/opinion that smashed helmets mean serious head injury without.

    But thanks anyway for posting the URL for the thread. I don't normally read anything on that list. It was interesting and provided some good/useful information about insurance coverage limitations.

  15. #2840
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Doohickie View Post
    I'll throw this into the mix...
    While there is a lot of debate about the methods used to determine helmet safety, this is a pretty clear example of a helmet at least helping prevent a more serious head injury.
    it is a clear example of a circumstance in which the helmets limits have been exceeded (those limits are exceeded beyond simple falls - helmets are not intended for impacts with motor vehicles)

    As much as people would like to thnk otherwise, once a helmet has exceeded its limits, it can't help
    Last edited by closetbiker; 07-06-12 at 11:13 AM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  16. #2841
    Senior Member NCbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
    it is a clear example of a circumstance in which the helmets limits have been exceeded (those limits are exceeded beyond simple falls - helmets are not intended for impacts with motor vehicles)

    As much as people would like to thnk otherwise, once a helmet has exceeded its limits, it can't help
    I tend to think it's a perfect example of a helmet doing what a bicycle helmet is designed to do. The rider is thrown from his bike, goes upside down and lands on his head. Is this not basically the standard of which bicycle helmets are tested. That being, dropped upside down from a few feet. The rider says he suffered no head injury, yet the helmet was destroyed. I'd say the helmet did it's job.
    __o
    _'\<,_
    (*)/ (*)

  17. #2842
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by NCbiker View Post
    I tend to think it's a perfect example of a helmet doing what a bicycle helmet is designed to do. The rider is thrown from his bike, goes upside down and lands on his head. Is this not basically the standard of which bicycle helmets are tested. That being, dropped upside down from a few feet. The rider says he suffered no head injury, yet the helmet was destroyed. I'd say the helmet did it's job.
    A helmet is tested by a simply drop only. It is not tested by a drop that involves an acceleration outside of the force of gravity acting upon the drop.

    A helmet is destroyed when it passes it's maximum capacity. This happens at far lower forces than most people think.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  18. #2843
    Senior Member NCbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
    A helmet is tested by a simply drop only. It is not tested by a drop that involves an acceleration outside of the force of gravity acting upon the drop.

    A helmet is destroyed when it passes it's maximum capacity. This happens at far lower forces than most people think.
    I agree, bicycle helmets have limits of protection and one would provide little to no protection if your head were to bounce off the windshield of a vehicle at 35 mph, or even much less perhaps, but won't you concede that in the subject crash, the helmet probably provided some measure of protection considering the rider suffered no head injury?
    __o
    _'\<,_
    (*)/ (*)

  19. #2844
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by NCbiker View Post
    I agree, bicycle helmets have limits of protection and one would provide little to no protection if your head were to bounce off the windshield of a vehicle at 35 mph, or even much less perhaps, but won't you concede that in the subject crash, the helmet probably provided some measure of protection considering the rider suffered no head injury?
    I think it's reasonable to expect a helmet to protect within the area tested (1 to 2 inches above the bottom-most portion of the helmet - a very small area indeed) up to it's tested capacity (a straight line, linear blow up to 12mph).

    But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the director of the largest facility in Europe that tests helmets to make sure they meet standards:

    the protection helmets provide is for the kind of accident where the rider falls to the ground without motor vehicles being involved...

    The tests cycle helmets currently go through mean they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian that trips and falls to the ground...
    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf
    Last edited by closetbiker; 07-06-12 at 02:41 PM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  20. #2845
    Senior Member NCbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The tests cycle helmets currently go through mean they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian that trips and falls to the ground...
    Or, apparently similar to a bicycle rider that is struck by a motor vehicle broadside at low speed, where the rider is thrown inverted and strikes his head on the ground.
    __o
    _'\<,_
    (*)/ (*)

  21. #2846
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by NCbiker View Post
    Or, apparently similar to a bicycle rider that is struck by a motor vehicle broadside at low speed, where the rider is thrown inverted and strikes his head on the ground.
    not really. Passed it's capacity, a helmet bottoms out and can offer no more protection. Cyclists survive such impacts without helmets all the time. The presence of a broken helmet is no proof of anything other than the helmet passed it's limits
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  22. #2847
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by NCbiker View Post
    I agree, bicycle helmets have limits of protection and one would provide little to no protection if your head were to bounce off the windshield of a vehicle at 35 mph, or even much less perhaps, but won't you concede that in the subject crash, the helmet probably provided some measure of protection considering the rider suffered no head injury?
    I know someone that put their head through an SUV windshield. Their jaw and some teeth were broken. Nothing else. I know someone else that was struck from behind and somersaulted over the vehicle onto their head. Scalp lacerations were the only result. Obviously the fact that were both carrying mastercards in their wallets protected them. Wouldn't you concede that?

  23. #2848
    Senior Member NCbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RazrSkutr View Post
    I know someone that put their head through an SUV windshield. Their jaw and some teeth were broken. Nothing else. I know someone else that was struck from behind and somersaulted over the vehicle onto their head. Scalp lacerations were the only result. Obviously the fact that were both carrying mastercards in their wallets protected them. Wouldn't you concede that?
    You can't be serious? Show me some pictures of how they had their heads up there ass at the time of the accidents and maybe and I'll concede that the card in their back pocket may have provide some protection to their heads.
    __o
    _'\<,_
    (*)/ (*)

  24. #2849
    Senior Member curbtender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    SF Bay Area, East bay
    My Bikes
    Kestral 200 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Schwinn Speedster, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina
    Posts
    3,060
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm going out on a limb (the one that supports a head) and I'll say that a head covered with some styrofoam will have less damage then one without if it meets a hard surface (concrete ,asphalt, car, tree). I've watched them drop eggs off two story buildings, and the ones in some sort of packaging tend to do better. Doesn't make sense to argue that point. The point most non-helmet people have is that they've chosen not to use one when they ride in low risk situations.

  25. #2850
    Geck, wo ist mein Fahrrad Rx Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Front Range
    Posts
    715
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    safety IS the reason I don't wear a helmet. the noise a helmet creates makes it impossible to hear anything else. faster than 40 mph and it's just one long LOUD whistle. 50- 60 mph and hearing loss would be a larger concern. you can argue how a foam hat can save lives all you want, but I'm not eliminating my second most used sense for safety, for safety equipment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •