I prefer way more protection than a helmet if I know I'm going to fall. Full leathers, MC boots, kneepads, elbow pads, MC or autoracing helmet, neck brace, chest protector, etc.

Yeah. In an Artie Johnson-type fall, I'm unlikely to hurt my head in the first place. In any real-world bicycle crash, a helmet may likely do me more harm than good.

Yes, when I look at all those mumbo-jumbo numbers proving this or that, I do tend to ignore them when thinking about what would happen in real life, and using commonsense tells me different... Just like you are ignoring what my tests would do to your head if you did them, thus you too, are ignoring facts that would contradict your beliefs, and you claim the answer is in the tests and are different than I would get doing my test... And yet I believe you won't do my test because deep down you know that wearing a helmet will/could help in most situations where you find yourself needing a helmet. Again I will admit that in some circumstances a helmet could be worse, but in my opinion the studies outcome/conclusion that not wearing a helmet is actually better, is what I have a big problem believing in all those mumbo-jumbo numbers...

EDIT; I guess what it boils down to, is that my commonsense tells me to ignore the numbers/studies, and those numbers/studies are telling you, to ignore commonsense...?

So there is the rotational impact argument, but clearly that is not the only type of impact that can hurt you? Do you have references or arguments to back up that overall no helmet causes less harm?

The no helmet group have numbers out the ying-yang to prove that not wearing a helmet is generally "better" than wearing a helmet, but... IMO...Really, put some commonsense into the equation and, ? :rolleyes: But I guess commonsense is for old fuddy-duddies like me... :50:

They're up and down this thread, my friend, I'm not going to bother to repost them.

I think you're living proof that common sense isn't as common as some people think.

35herpderp, I found a video of the test you're looking for. Right at your level, too.

Guess you were never a boyscout. I wouldn't have rode nude if I thought I might get a sunburn...

n-1. Where n is the post in which the mod announces closure of the thread.

Bet is to have my views on helmet use acknowledged as correct by all in the new new helmet thread for a week...

I can't wait 'til I win...

Gravel in wounds is conjecture; as is your implication that the helmet saved you from being 'knocked senseless.'

Likewise, no one else can claim with any more certainty that the helmet did not work exactly as you say.

That's the rub: as much as the helmet haterz are correct in saying you can't really claim a helmet protected you from damage you did not or wouldn't have received, they many times go a bit too far, and engage in the same type of argument they find fault with in others.

Helmet thread is like a debate about the color green, with one side arguing it is more purple, the other that it is more orange.

Also: In any real-world bicycle crash, a helmet may likely do me more good than harm.

Point being, you don't know when you're going to be robbed; you never know when you'll crash your bike.

So you should wear a helmet. Wait, that would mean you should also carry a gun...

Equating helmet use with gun nuttery open carry paranoia.

Well played, curbtender, well played indeed. *golf clap*

How about a financial plan in place for when I win the lottery? My M-F cycling style probably has equivalent odds of head impact.

Says the guy not wearing a helmet because he thinks it's "safer" to ride a bike that-way, to the guy that does wear a helmet while riding a bike... :lol:

Go outside. Find a tall building. Look around very carefully. Common sense should tell you the earth is pretty flat. Don't need none of them "fancy" studies or "sciency" stuff to tell you what you can already find out from common sense, right?

Or here's an alternative: While showering, slam your head against the tap with a helmet. Then repeat while not wearing a helmet. Did it hurt more without the helmet? Then obviously, you should be wearing shower helmets. Common Sense!

No, common sense would tell you not to "slam your head against the tap".

Well This is iffy ground for me, this scientific stuff, but wasn't it proven by commonsense that the earth was round? Somebody with some commonsense and some brains noticed that the sails of ships coming into port could always be seen first, so where was the ship? Well he applied some commonsense and came up with the brainy answer that the ship was below the horizon because the earth was round, at least that's the way it was when I went to school... As for this wearing a helmet in the shower it's a straw-man argument... And I believe real huszars ride horses, not bicycles... ;)

This may be part of the reason why this thread is going on for so long, you are mixing up two things in your response above:

1) Are you better off wearing a helmet when you hit your head?
2) Is it a necessity to wear a helmet while biking?

Now if you answer yes or no to each of these questions, there are 4 possible combination and I have seen people here arguing for 3 of those possible combinations:

1)yes 2)yes
1)yes 2)no
1)no 2)no

That is the problem with analogies, I thought the gun example was very good, but only the people that understand your point already are going to understand the analogy, otherwise it will just be misinterpreted.

His point is that if you know you are going to be robbed you would want to carry a gun, but in your day to day life, taking into account the chances of being robbed he still prefers to walk around with no gun.

So in bike-helmet terms: If you know you are going to fall you would prefer to wear a helmet, however by itself that fact is not enough to conclude a helmet is a necessity all of the time.

Clearly, I was satirizing 350's "experiment" and was not at all serious. EDIT: Actually, I guess not so clearly :D. I meant to respond earlier but hadn't the time./edit. My point was two-fold: 1) That common sense is often wrong and usually a way to justify per-conceived notions and 2) That the method for determining whether you should use a helmet, which was actually proposed by 350, is silly. It doesn't address a lot of other variables such as whether there is enough likelihood of a collision to be really very useful or even necessary in the first place, how do most bike crashes happen, would a helmet be useful in most bike crashes, do they mitigate serious injuries or death or simply deal with minor wounds? All this and more. Simple thinking tends to want to water things down to simple black and white scenarios, such as smashing your head against a wall and seeing which hurts more. In truth, the world isn't usually that black and white or simple. All that really proves is that I'm probably going to wear a helmet if I intend on smashing my head against the wall because it will hurt less. Anything else is a wild-ass guess based on that very simple conclusion.

There's a fine line between declaring something common-sense because... well, just because, and using logical thinking to reach an answer (even moreso because "common sense" is often the refrain sung when someone doesn't like a logical answer that was reached). The latter is absolutely legitimate and is exactly what science and these studies you are so wary of try to do. Use logical thinking to account for variables as best as possible and see what happens. It isn't some mysterious black magic. You can usually go through and read their methodology and why they did it that way.

It isn't a straw man at all, as much as people who find it inconvenient try to waive it off as such. The question that is really being asked when the shower/ped helmet question is asked is: Is the risk level of riding a bike much greater than these other daily activities that it should necessitate helmet use when cycling, but not performing these activities? Further, will they benefit cyclists in a way that you should wear them riding, but not walking or jogging.

I mean, if you're just making the point that having a helmet on versus not in a collision is probably better, while I think those crashes that it does help in are a minority within a minority situation, sure, it can help to some extent. But the same could be said of walking, driving, showering, or nearly any other activity. So if you're wanting to show that wearing a helmet is especially prudent compared to not, I think you first need to show that a) the risk is above and beyond other daily activities we never think twice about not wearing a helmet for and b) that they will actually help, and how much will they help (will they prevent brain injury, or just save you a few stitches?). Neither of those two questions has been clearly answered, IMO. With other safety devices, such as seat belts or life-jackets, it has. That's why they aren't really comparable.

And I'm not a real huszar... but I do play one on TV. :p

Yea, close, but from my point of view this whole "discussion" is more like;

1) Are you generally better off wearing a helmet when you hit your head in a bike accident?
2) Are you generally worse off wearing a helmet when you hit your head in a bike accident?
3) Is it necessary (should be mandated) to wear a helmet while biking?
4) Is it a good idea to wear a helmet while biking?
5) Is it a bad idea to wear a helmet while biking?


I vote for 1 & 4 :twitchy:


EDIT; OK, sudo bike, I think I was using the wrong word, (commonsense) instead of (logic), that's what happens when English isn't ones mother tongue...

Literally or figuratively?

The arguments are similar figuratively; the result is the same literally.

That's what I'm saying. You make a choice how far you want to take your comfort zone. And thanks for the CLAP>