This comes up frequently in religious debates: the side with a weak position becomes furious because the position to which he is emotionally wedded is so easy to attack. Of course, the side with the minority position also becomes furious, for different obvious reasons...

So do those that run without headgear protect themselves from UV in some other way?

I haven't found typical bicycle helmets to be adequate in that regard. So I wear a bicycling cap whether or not there's a helmet on top of it.

Huh?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! Man this stuff is just too good. It seems some of you can't figure out when someone else is speaking tongue in cheek.

I wear a cycling cap when it is very sunny, of course a Campagnolo one.

Holland: Why do helmet wearers have a greater incidence of head injury than normal cyclists?


Interesting article and discussion stimulated from recent presentations by the European Cyclists' Federation. The rough idea is that cyclist behavior is a greater predictor of head injury than anything else. Ironically those wearing helmets are hoping that they'll be useful in situations for which they're not designed.

"It's a joke! When you look at me like that, it's a joke!" -Homer Simpson

Half you people would argue with a stop sign.

Yes, but we would get the last word.

:rolleyes:

We have no idea whether these riders fair better or worse with helmets.

:rolleyes:

Clearly, you should be advocating that people ride heavy bicycles slowly!

:rolleyes:

You really have no idea what those riders are "hoping".

well played sir, well played LOL

I think it's quite obvious that riding heavy bicycles slowly ought to be made mandatory Anyone travelling above 20 km/h should have their children taken away from them and there should be threads on cycling forums calling them morons. It's only common sense isnt it?

True. But given the evidence of most posts to this thread is it more likely that they believe that the helmet is of dubious efficacy in a limited circumstance, or that they believe that they will be saved from death because they've seen pictures of cracked helmets "It SAVED my LIFE!"?

In any event, it's interesting that helmet wearers are over-represented in emergency room head-injury presentations in Holland.

check this baby out, looks like a good winter helmet.
http://www.giro.com/media/catalog/pr...tslvr_34_4.jpg
any skiers out there that would wear it?

That's an average 26% grade for 50 miles? Did you make an error? I'd love to see the Strava data on that ride...

Colorado sucks, you start on basically flatland then climb a big hill then go back down a big hill, then you climb a bigger hill, then you go half way down the big hill and then go up a really big hill, then you go all the way down to where you almost started at the flatlands. losing all the altitude you gained. this goes on and on and on, it's not a linear climb and you're constantly losing and re-climbing the same altitude only gaining marginally with each new climb. while technically from point (a) to point (b) is 2500'+, it takes 26,000' of climbing to get there and back.

Sure, but 26 kft in 50 miles still seems like a lot. Assuming half of the loop is descending and half is ascending then you're gaining 26 kft over 25 miles, i.e. an average grade of about 20%. Is this a paved route or a loop on fire roads and trails?

Locally we've got a few fairly hilly paved routes, but not with that kind of average grade. The "Nifty 10-50" hits many of the steep climbs in and near Berkeley and is named that since it has 10 kft. of climb in 50 miles. And our local double century ride has almost as much climbing as your loop (22 kft) but spreads it out over 200 miles.

I'm certainly not a helmeteer... but in Holland, only competitive cyclists wear helmets. As ordinary cycling is, er, extraordinary safe in Holland, whereas racing is probably as risky as any other place, there's a logical explanation for the numbers.

That's pretty-much the bizarre conclusion of the article. The article comes darn close to calling road bicyclists "names".

No, your first comment is ironic and hypocritical.

Maybe. But given the clear bias against "roadies" in the article, it's not clear that it can be trusted as being an accurate portrayal of the data. Since it supports your side, you accept it non-critically.

I've ridden and raced all over Colorado and I'll pretty much guarantee you that you are not climbing anywhere near that much. You're talking over a 1000ft per mile. I've climbed mountaineering routes that aren't that steep. They just don't make roads that climb like that over those distances, anywhere. Maybe you can state the roads you're talking about and we can give them a look-see.

you're both probably right I'm using the Neos Pro bike computer that is packed with so many "features" it doesn't do half of them well. it uses air pressure to figure altitude and it's fluctuated 250' just in the bike stand over a week.
just the same being in the mountains isn't the same as getting to the mountains. once you're in the high country you don't dip up and down nearly as much as you would in the rollers, hogbacks, flatirons and front range. it's like a mountain town may be a few miles from another town as the crow flies but the road between them isn't straight and because of switchbacks and following a canyon or going around a mountain that few miles turns out to be a lot more.
I'm certainly not saying I'm climbing a 26,000 mountain I'm saying I'm constantly losing what I've gained and then gaining it again. this silly computer pretends to keep track of all that, it really only proves to me that technology is a joke and I should just enjoy the ride. there's no way I'd buy a Garmin or a smartphone, the only reason I got this computer is my Giant came with "ride sense" and I fell for the hype. for what it's worth I ride Horsetooth, Pinewood and Carter Lake reservoirs then Horsetooth again.

I think your confuser is giving you bogus data. ;) You ride out of Loveland or Ft. Collins? Beautiful area to ride in. I was just there a couple weeks ago (Erie actually). Most of those climbs are in the "normal" 5%-10% range. Definitely good respectable climbing but probably less than half what your Neos is telling you.

Interesting, maybe, but hardly conclusive. Since most in Holland don't wear helmets, those who do may be those who put themselves in situations where they are more likely to injure themselves. I.e., if they weren't wearing helmets they'd probably still have ended up in the emergency room with head injuries.

PLEASE read http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post14465784. I'm pretty sure the numbers are correct.

Many sports have safety equiptment. I fail to understand why a small vocal minority refuse to use safety equiptment for cycling.