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 165 of 350 FirstFirst ... 65115155163164165166167175215265 ... LastLast
Results 4,101 to 4,125 of 8743
  1. #4101
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    south Georgia
    My Bikes
    1972 Schwinn super sport, heavy no name each cruiser
    Posts
    375
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    it's not the car hitting you that you have to worry about, it's your brain smacking the inside of your skull and swelling,thats what kills you, those few inches of foam are well proven to absorb enough impact to help prevent this, it's up to you if you wear it or not, but it's better then nothing,

  2. #4102
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    20,561
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by lostforawhile View Post
    it's not the car hitting you that you have to worry about,
    Really? I have to remember that.

  3. #4103
    Travelling hopefully chasm54's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    7,090
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by lostforawhile View Post
    it's not the car hitting you that you have to worry about, it's your brain smacking the inside of your skull and swelling,thats what kills you, those few inches of foam are well proven to absorb enough impact to help prevent this, it's up to you if you wear it or not, but it's better then nothing,
    Really? Just what, exactly, does the phrase "well proven to absorb enough impact to help prevent this" mean? How much impact, at what angle?

    Your views appear to differ from those of the CEO of the Snell Foundation, which tests helmets. In 1999 he said that the weight constraints on bicycle helmets made it impossible to make one that was effective in accidents with motor vehicles. It is indeed the car hitting you that you have to worry about, and in such cases the helmet is so massively overmatched as to be irrelevant.

  4. #4104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
    I must have missed that post. Please point out the post # or URL for the post where beezaur certainly made a decent case.
    Errrm? Excuse me? Are you questioning the word of a INCHe(*) who has given his personal opinion that helmets are very useful and has backed this up with the opinion of his doctors? If you're still skeptical I'll just roll my eyes and refer you to the fact that none other than mconlonx (a noted expert himself) considers this credible testimony.

    Sheesh... some people.

    Now, let's get back to ignoring the millions of real-life, personal, acutal accidents collected together as statistics (ooooooh!) and focus on a couple of aberrant experiences posted by people who, by their own testimony have suffered serious head trauma despite wearing a helmet.


    *INCHe: INternet Certified Helmet engineer

  5. #4105
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    20,561
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RazrSkutr View Post
    Errrm? Excuse me? Are you questioning the word of a INCHe(*) who has given his personal opinion that helmets are very useful and has backed this up with the opinion of his doctors? If you're still skeptical I'll just roll my eyes and refer you to the fact that none other than mconlonx (a noted expert himself) considers this credible testimony.
    Ya got me; no more will I have a doubt about either of those two INCHe. I now know how much credibility both have on this subject.

  6. #4106
    Nobody mconlonx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,460
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RazrSkutr View Post
    Errrm? Excuse me? Are you questioning the word of a INCHe(*) who has given his personal opinion that helmets are very useful and has backed this up with the opinion of his doctors? If you're still skeptical I'll just roll my eyes and refer you to the fact that none other than mconlonx (a noted expert himself) considers this credible testimony.

    Sheesh... some people.

    Now, let's get back to ignoring the millions of real-life, personal, acutal accidents collected together as statistics (ooooooh!) and focus on a couple of aberrant experiences posted by people who, by their own testimony have suffered serious head trauma despite wearing a helmet.


    *INCHe: INternet Certified Helmet engineer
    Quote Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
    Ya got me; no more will I have a doubt about either of those two INCHe. I now know how much credibility both have on this subject.
    I don't claim to be an expert, engineer, or in any way able to gauge the scientific credibility of either the studies posted or claims made.

    I do, however, have a pretty good grasp of reading comprehension, which some here very obviously lack.

    ILTB already answered this -- RazrSkutr, are you claiming that there's no way beezaur's helmet protected him exactly as he described...?

    For some reason, y'all want to ignore the fact that I give you(pl) exactly as much credence as those who post that a helmet saved their lives -- you could very well be right that a helmet in any given crash did nothing for its wearer.

    BTW, what credentials do you two claim to have, which might allow you to speak with any better authority on the subject?
    I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.

  7. #4107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canada, PG BC
    My Bikes
    27 speed oryx
    Posts
    1,023
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=chasm54;14934075]I'm not trying to talk people out of wearing a helmet. I'm explaining why I think wearing one is unnecessary, at best, and potentially problematic, at worst. What I would like to talk people out of is, first, the idea that cycling for pleasure and transportation is intrinsically dangerous enough to require protective clothing; and, second, the illusion that in the rare event of a serious accident, a helmet is likely to make much difference.
    The health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a huge margin. It is therefore damaging to the public health to present cycling as dangerous, when it really isn't. Helmet sales depend on presenting cycling as dangerous.

    Straight enough answer?[/QUOTE]

    I'm just saying it MAY be usefull and they should think about wearing one.
    And I think there is proof that it CAN make a difference sometimes even tho it's reletively rare event.
    I agree 100%.
    Best answer yet, better than saying don't wear a helmet because it's more dangerous than not wearing one.
    Last edited by 350htrr; 11-10-12 at 04:19 PM.
    He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination. I do like my beer, so sometimes I do end up leaning on the lamp-post...

  8. #4108
    Bicikli Huszár sudo bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fresno, CA
    My Bikes
    '95 Novara Randonee
    Posts
    2,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by curbtender View Post
    Come on brother, if you don't wear some head protection in Fresno the sun is going to boil your brain...
    The air movement keeps me cool enough just fine, as I'm generally not on the bike for one extended period, but many small ones. Helmets keep the sweat from evaporating (to a greater extent) making me hotter, making me sweat more, and making my hair wet with sweat. Not exactly fun to deal with every time I need to get off the bike to run to class, to the bank, to the grocery store, etc. Not sure how serious you were being with the above, but there it is.

    This isn't really meant to convince anyone not to wear a helmet, just pointing out that people have reasons for not wearing them, and they're the same reasons I'm guessing most helmeteers don't don body armor: they've sacrificed some safety for convenience because they felt the gain was negligible compared to the PITA.
    "The bicycle is the noblest invention of mankind. I love the bicycle. I always have. I can think of no sincere, decent human being, male or female, young or old, saint or sinner, who can resist the bicycle."

    - William Saroyan

  9. #4109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    6,206
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by lostforawhile View Post
    it's not the car hitting you that you have to worry about...
    Like the parachute guys who say "It's not the fall that kills you, but the sudden stop at the end."

    Except that they're not being serious.

    Quote Originally Posted by lostforawhile View Post
    ...it's your brain smacking the inside of your skull and swelling,thats what kills you
    Well, that and the collapsed lungs, the broken neck, and the fact that one of your legs is way over there on the sidewalk. But hey, at least the A-holes on BF won't be able to crow about how you deserved it because you weren't wearing a helmet!
    Last edited by Six jours; 11-10-12 at 06:36 PM.

  10. #4110
    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
    3,061
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm just ribbing you. I'm not pro or against. Guess I'm a bi-helmet guy. I'd never wear a helmet on my Spitfire 5, but I don't feel comfortible on my commute without a helmet. I guess because it was the only time I ever needed one. Head and stone haven't met in a while, but it's nice to have a border when it does...

  11. #4111
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Saint Louis, MO
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by curbtender View Post
    I'm just ribbing you. I'm not pro or against. Guess I'm a bi-helmet guy. I'd never wear a helmet on my Spitfire 5, but I don't feel comfortible on my commute without a helmet. I guess because it was the only time I ever needed one. Head and stone haven't met in a while, but it's nice to have a border when it does...
    Sir, you are very diplomatic and reasonable. You aren't for or against helmets. Don't you pay any attention to people who call you a coward for refusing to take a firm stance. They're ignorant. I applaud your indecisiveness.
    Quote Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
    Welcome to the perennial victim world of A&S's cry baby contingent.

  12. #4112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
    I don't claim to be an expert, engineer, or in any way able to gauge the scientific credibility of either the studies posted or claims made.
    I'd agree. You appear to have a completely unscientific approach to this: instead of wanting data (either actual individual measurements, or the aggregates contained in "studies") you prefer to privilege anonymous internet expert's claims to knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
    I do, however, have a pretty good grasp of reading comprehension, which some here very obviously lack.
    I think you're patting yourself a bit too hard on the back there ... or else you're inconsistent. See below.

    Quote Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
    ILTB already answered this -- RazrSkutr, are you claiming that there's no way beezaur's helmet protected him exactly as he described...?
    There's two problems with this: 1) Beezaur didn't describe anything except "I had a crash, my helmet is damaged and the doctors said it saved me, therefore, because I'm an anonymous internet expert I certify with 100% double-plus authenticity that this is The Truth". A scientist or engineer would describe the crash with measurements.....

    2) Beezaur made a claim which I'm very surprised you accept. Either you've gone back on your original acceptance of the proposition that helmets are mostly useful for minor injuries, or else your self-vaunted reading comprehension was undergoing repairs when beezaur posted:
    Quote Originally Posted by beezaur
    When claims are made that helmets don't protect you, that is what they're talking about - minor injuries. What they don't mention is that the reason is that they do protect against major injuries.

    Verified by my doctors, that is exactly how my helmet worked.
    Are you serious? You actually accept this?

    Quote Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
    For some reason, y'all want to ignore the fact that I give you(pl) exactly as much credence as those who post that a helmet saved their lives -- you could very well be right that a helmet in any given crash did nothing for its wearer.

    BTW, what credentials do you two claim to have, which might allow you to speak with any better authority on the subject?
    You're focussing on the wrong thing: don't accept me, my credentials or my testimony. Nor anyone else's individually. Individually it amounts to zilch. There are people with real skin in the game: they publish in journals with their reputations on the line and their data and thinking open for all of us to examine. They disagree strongly on the topic and defend their opinions not on the basis of some nebulous accreditation, but through stating their models, data and conclusions. Anything else is frankly unbelievable... especially when it's anonymous.

    In short, the only important and useful thing is the aggregate of experiences measured in some way and fitted to an hypothesis. This is difficult to do. It is inconclusive. The most believable results (of population studies with large power) suggest that helmets MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO SERIOUS HEAD INJURIES. The rest is just true believers getting up and speaking in tongues about the helmet god.

  13. #4113
    Nobody mconlonx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,460
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RazrSkutr View Post
    I'd agree. You appear to have a completely unscientific approach to this: instead of wanting data (either actual individual measurements, or the aggregates contained in "studies") you prefer to privilege anonymous internet expert's claims to knowledge.
    Nope. I've been in this thread since page 3 and at least the thread before this one. I've seen the inconclusive studies posted at the notorious pro-helmet site; I've seen the inconclusive studies posted and the notorious helmet-skeptic site. There's good and bad stuff on each, but more to the point, there's people misquoting and misrepresenting studies from each to "prove" their point here in this thread, which even a cursory glance at the studies or abstracts will reveal as more wishful thinking than "proof" one way or another.

    I don't believe anyone who comes on here and says "A helmet saved my life!" but I also don't give any credence to those who say "No it didn't!"

    Quote Originally Posted by RazrSkutr View Post
    I think you're patting yourself a bit too hard on the back there ... or else you're inconsistent. See below.
    That must be why my shoulder hurts...

    Quote Originally Posted by RazrSkutr View Post
    There's two problems with this: 1) Beezaur didn't describe anything except "I had a crash, my helmet is damaged and the doctors said it saved me, therefore, because I'm an anonymous internet expert I certify with 100% double-plus authenticity that this is The Truth". A scientist or engineer would describe the crash with measurements.....
    No, he said more than that: referenced 3d liner deformation, asserted his professional/educational ability to assess the damage and deformation taken by the helmet as some kind of authority on physics, materials, and destructive testing. Totally a bummer that he wasn't wired up with accelerometers and whatnot when he suffered that total fluke crash -- must have just forgotten them that one day... Might also be that he's got better things to do than argue with uninformed fanatics online...

    Quote Originally Posted by RazrSkutr View Post
    2) Beezaur made a claim which I'm very surprised you accept. Either you've gone back on your original acceptance of the proposition that helmets are mostly useful for minor injuries, or else your self-vaunted reading comprehension was undergoing repairs when beezaur posted:
    [beezaur quotes]
    Are you serious? You actually accept this?
    That helmets don't protect against major injuries? Yes, I accept this -- you don't?!? That his doctors say he would have suffered major injuries without a helmet? Of course not -- that's what I've been saying all along. (Ref: reading comprehension of some who post here, above) But I do accept that his helmet may have mitigated some damage, and his assessment of liner deformation confirms that. As much as anyone wants to believe his supposed credentials and ability to make an educated assessment.

    I note that you still did not answer the question I actually asked...

    Quote Originally Posted by RazrSkutr View Post
    You're focussing on the wrong thing: don't accept me, my credentials or my testimony. Nor anyone else's individually. Individually it amounts to zilch. There are people with real skin in the game: they publish in journals with their reputations on the line and their data and thinking open for all of us to examine. They disagree strongly on the topic and defend their opinions not on the basis of some nebulous accreditation, but through stating their models, data and conclusions. Anything else is frankly unbelievable... especially when it's anonymous.

    In short, the only important and useful thing is the aggregate of experiences measured in some way and fitted to an hypothesis. This is difficult to do. It is inconclusive. The most believable results (of population studies with large power) suggest that helmets MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO SERIOUS HEAD INJURIES. The rest is just true believers getting up and speaking in tongues about the helmet god.
    Don't get me wrong, I don't accept you, your credentials or your testimony. Nor anyone else's individually. But you and others occasionally post a link to an interesting study that's handy to peruse, usually because it turns out they've misquoted or misinterpreted said studies to support their own POV. It's OK, though --happens on both sides of this argument.

    In an aggregate, of course they make no difference to serious head injuries. Helmet manufacturers state as much, and studies back it up. I've never said different and double-dog dare you to find and quote where I've said otherwise. That does not mean that they don't help in specific instances, and while most can be dismissed because they come from faith-based belief, this report seemed to be at least a notch or two beyond the usual.
    Last edited by mconlonx; 11-11-12 at 03:32 PM.
    I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.

  14. #4114
    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
    3,061
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by commodorefork View Post
    Sir, you are very diplomatic and reasonable. You aren't for or against helmets. Don't you pay any attention to people who call you a coward for refusing to take a firm stance. They're ignorant. I applaud your indecisiveness.
    I know my limits. Come do a 50+ downhill with me and lets see who hits the brakes first. I'll be wearing a helmet.

  15. #4115
    Senior Member John C. Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    My Bikes
    Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
    Posts
    1,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
    Nope. I've been in this thread since page 3 and at least the thread before this one. I've seen the inconclusive studies posted at the notorious pro-helmet site; I've seen the inconclusive studies posted and the notorious helmet-skeptic site. There's good and bad stuff on each, but more to the point, there's people misquoting and misrepresenting studies from each to "prove" their point here in this thread, which even a cursory glance at the studies or abstracts will reveal as more wishful thinking than "proof" one way or another.

    I don't believe anyone who comes on here and says "A helmet saved my life!" but I also don't give any credence to those who say "No it didn't!"...

    ...Don't get me wrong, I don't accept you, your credentials or your testimony. Nor anyone else's individually. But you and others occasionally post a link to an interesting study that's handy to peruse, usually because it turns out they've misquoted or misinterpreted said studies to support their own POV. It's OK, though --happens on both sides of this argument.

    In an aggregate, of course they make no difference to serious head injuries. Helmet manufacturers state as much, and studies back it up.I've never said different and double-dog dare you to find and quote where I've said otherwise. That does not mean that they don't help in specific instances, and while most can be dismissed because they come from faith-based belief, this report seemed to be at least a notch or two beyond the usual.
    (Emphasis added, jcr)
    Here's a study which does not back that statement up:
    CMAJ. 2012 Oct 15. [Epub ahead of print]
    Nonuse of bicycle helmets and risk of fatal head injury: a proportional mortality, case-control study.
    Persaud N, Coleman E, Zwolakowski D, Lauwers B, Cass D.
    Abstract

    BACKGROUND:The effectiveness of helmets at preventing cycling fatalities, a leading cause of death among young adults worldwide, is controversial, and safety regulations for cycling vary by jurisdiction. We sought to determine whether nonuse of helmets is associated with an increased risk of fatal head injury. METHODS:We used a case-control design involving 129 fatalities using data from a coroner's review of cycling deaths in Ontario, Canada, between 2006 and 2010. We defined cases as cyclists who died as a result of head injuries; we defined controls as cyclists who died as a result of other injuries. The exposure variable was nonuse of a bicycle helmet. RESULTS:Not wearing a helmet while cycling was associated with an increased risk of dying as a result of sustaining a head injury (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-7.3). We saw the same relationship when we excluded people younger than 18 years from the analysis (adjusted OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.4-8.5) and when we used a more stringent case definition (i.e., only a head injury with no other sub stantial injuries; adjusted OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.2-10.2). INTERPRETATION:Not wearing a helmet while cycling is associated with an increased risk of sustaining a fatal head injury. Policy changes and educational programs that increase the use of helmets while cycling may prevent deaths.

    PMID:
    23071369
    [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23071369
    Here is the definition of an Odds Ratio (OR):
    An odds ratio of 1 indicates that the condition or event under study is equally likely to occur in both groups. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that the condition or event is more likely to occur in the first group. And an odds ratio less than 1 indicates that the condition or event is less likely to occur in the first group. The odds ratio must be nonnegative if it is defined. It is undefined if p2q1 equals zero, i.e., if p2 equals zero or p1 equals one.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio
    And guess what, this isn't the only one:
    J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2012 Oct 2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Performance analysis of the protective effects of bicycle helmets during impact and crush tests in pediatric skull models.
    Mattei TA, Bond BJ, Goulart CR, Sloffer CA, Morris MJ, Lin JJ.
    Source

    Department of Neurosurgery, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Illinois Neurological Institute;
    Abstract

    Object Bicycle accidents are a very important cause of clinically important traumatic brain injury (TBI) in children. One factor that has been shown to mitigate the severity of lesions associated with TBI in such scenarios is the proper use of a helmet. The object of this study was to test and evaluate the protection afforded by a children's bicycle helmet to human cadaver skulls with a child's anthropometry in both "impact" and "crushing" situations. Methods The authors tested human skulls with and without bicycle helmets in drop tests in a monorail-guided free-fall impact apparatus from heights of 6 to 48 in onto a flat steel anvil. Unhelmeted skulls were dropped at 6 in, with progressive height increases until failure (fracture). The maximum resultant acceleration rates experienced by helmeted and unhelmeted skulls on impact were recorded by an accelerometer attached to the skulls. In addition, compressive forces were applied to both helmeted and unhelmeted skulls in progressive amounts. The tolerance in each circumstance was recorded and compared between the two groups. Results Helmets conferred up to an 87% reduction in so-called mean maximum resultant acceleration over unhelmeted skulls. In compression testing, helmeted skulls were unable to be crushed in the compression fixture up to 470 pound-force (approximately 230 kgf), whereas both skull and helmet alone failed in testing. Conclusions Children's bicycle helmets provide measurable protection in terms of attenuating the acceleration experienced by a skull on the introduction of an impact force. Moreover, such helmets have the durability to mitigate the effects of a more rare but catastrophic direct compressive force. Therefore, the use of bicycle helmets is an important preventive tool to reduce the incidence of severe associated TBI in children as well as to minimize the morbidity of its neurological consequences.

    PMID:
    23030382
    [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23030382
    Before making such statements, please go to Pubmed.gov and search for "bicycle helmet".

    John
    John Ratliff

  16. #4116
    Nobody mconlonx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,460
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
    Here's a study which does not back that statement up:

    Here is the definition of an Odds Ratio (OR):

    And guess what, this isn't the only one:

    Before making such statements, please go to Pubmed.gov and search for "bicycle helmet".

    John
    Thanks for the info. I did not know to look at Pubmed. These studies are very recent--while they've undoubtably been peer reviewed, have they been A&S reviewed yet?

    Can't wait to hear what the bare head brigade has to say about these...
    I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.

  17. #4117
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    south Georgia
    My Bikes
    1972 Schwinn super sport, heavy no name each cruiser
    Posts
    375
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just cant understand the thought process of "well my helmet might now save me, so I'll wear nothing" those couple of inches of high density foam,it's not regular foam by the way, are designed to sacrifice themselves and absorb lots of energy before your skull does, it might save your life is better then it might have saved your life

  18. #4118
    Senior Member John C. Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    My Bikes
    Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
    Posts
    1,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here is one more:
    W V Med J. 2012 May-Jun;108(3):78-81.
    Pediatric bicycle injury prevention and the effect of helmet use: the West Virginia experience.
    Bergenstal J, Davis SM, Sikora R, Paulson D, Whiteman C.
    Source

    West Virginia University, Department of Emergency Medicine, USA.
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVES:

    The primary objective was evaluation of the injury pattern of children 14 years old or less involved in bicycle accidents and comparison of the differences between those wearing a helmet and not wearing a helmet.
    METHODS:

    This was a retrospective cohort study of all pediatric patients involved in bicycle crashes from 2008 through 2010 who were treated within the West Virginia Trauma System. A case was selected for further analysis if "bicycle" and "blunt cause of injury" were present in the Mechanism of Injury field and if age was 14 years old or less. Descriptive statistics were calculated on all variables. Differences between the helmeted and un-helmeted cohorts were tested using the Wilcoxon test or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. In all cases an alpha of 0.05 was selected as the threshold for statistical significance.
    RESULTS:

    The helmeted group had a concussion rate of 19.4% while concussions were noted in 37.4% of the un-helmeted group (p = 0.0509). Additionally, there was a significant difference in the rate of skull fractures seen. Skull fractures occurred in 3.2% of the helmeted and 17.4% of the un-helmeted (p = 0.0408) riders. The rate of intra-cranial hemorrhage was 0% in helmeted riders and 17.4% in un-helmeted riders (p = 0.0079). Finally, perhaps the largest indicator of the effectiveness of helmets in the pediatric bicycle population is the mortality rate. While not statistically different, 100% (n = 2) of the deaths occurred in the un-helmeted group.
    CONCLUSION:

    This study of the West Virginia pediatric population demonstrates findings similar to prior studies looking at the effectiveness of helmets in preventing injuries during a bicycle crash. Bicycle helmets were shown to significantly reduce the rates of both skull fractures and intracranial hemorrhage. Based on this, the expanded use of helmets within the pediatric population should continue to be encouraged both from an educational and legislative standpoint.

    PMID:
    22792660
    [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22792660
    John Ratliff

  19. #4119
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    6,206
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
    Can't wait to hear what the bare head brigade has to say about these...
    I've seen studies that show pretty much anything that can be imagined - "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". Now, as always, I don't doubt that cycling with a helmet is safer than cycling without one. But a two-in-a-million chance of dying is twice as bad as a one-in-a-million chance, which is pretty much the point the helmeteers are trying to make, without admitting to the big picture.

  20. #4120
    Senior Member John C. Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    My Bikes
    Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
    Posts
    1,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
    I've seen studies that show pretty much anything that can be imagined - "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". Now, as always, I don't doubt that cycling with a helmet is safer than cycling without one. But a two-in-a-million chance of dying is twice as bad as a one-in-a-million chance, which is pretty much the point the helmeteers are trying to make, without admitting to the big picture.
    Simply labeling a study where people went to the trouble of crunching cadaver heads "lies" doesn't cut it. You need to read the study, then see whether there was some kind of discrepancy which would invalidate their findings. You cannot just label it as showing "pretty much anything that can be imagined." If you don't do that kind of legwork, you are putting your own credibility on the line.

    You also need to check your facts. In Florida, the odds of dying while bicycling is more like 1 in 4,900. In Germany, the odds are about 1 in 92,000. In the UK, it again is about 1 in 4900. Also, the odds of dying while bicycling in the USA apparently is 3-5 times that of Europe.
    DYING while cycling is three to five times more likely in America than in Denmark, Germany or the Netherlands. To understand why, consider the death of Michael Wang. He was pedalling home from work in Seattle on a sunny weekday afternoon in late July when, witnesses say, a brown SUV made a left turn, crunched into Wang and sped away...
    http://www.economist.com/node/21528302
    Why?

    John
    John Ratliff

  21. #4121
    Bicikli Huszár sudo bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fresno, CA
    My Bikes
    '95 Novara Randonee
    Posts
    2,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
    Simply labeling a study where people went to the trouble of crunching cadaver heads "lies" doesn't cut it. You need to read the study, then see whether there was some kind of discrepancy which would invalidate their findings. You cannot just label it as showing "pretty much anything that can be imagined." If you don't do that kind of legwork, you are putting your own credibility on the line.
    I agree you can't simply wave off the studies you don't like, but that of course cuts both ways, and I think it is perfectly fair to point out that there are many studies that do not come to the same conclusion and can no more be waved off as lies...
    "The bicycle is the noblest invention of mankind. I love the bicycle. I always have. I can think of no sincere, decent human being, male or female, young or old, saint or sinner, who can resist the bicycle."

    - William Saroyan

  22. #4122
    Gone.
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    509
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My speculation was that it applies to some degree in cycling, and I used the previous proof as my reasoning, but I can't prove how exactly it applies to it and to what degree. That, I have admitted, is speculation based on reasoning, but not at this point provable.

  23. #4123
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
    I've seen studies that show pretty much anything that can be imagined - "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". Now, as always, I don't doubt that cycling with a helmet is safer than cycling without one. But a two-in-a-million chance of dying is twice as bad as a one-in-a-million chance, which is pretty much the point the helmeteers are trying to make, without admitting to the big picture.
    very well said!
    "Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

    Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me

  24. #4124
    Nobody mconlonx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,460
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
    I've seen studies that show pretty much anything that can be imagined - "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". Now, as always, I don't doubt that cycling with a helmet is safer than cycling without one. But a two-in-a-million chance of dying is twice as bad as a one-in-a-million chance, which is pretty much the point the helmeteers are trying to make, without admitting to the big picture.
    You're one of the more sensible bare-headers; you don't count.

    Quote Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
    You also need to check your facts. In Florida, the odds of dying while bicycling is more like 1 in 4,900. In Germany, the odds are about 1 in 92,000. In the UK, it again is about 1 in 4900. Also, the odds of dying while bicycling in the USA apparently is 3-5 times that of Europe.

    Why?
    I bet it has very little to do with helmets...
    Last edited by mconlonx; 11-12-12 at 09:45 AM.
    I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.

  25. #4125
    Senior Member John C. Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    My Bikes
    Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
    Posts
    1,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mconlox,

    Actually, it does have something to do with helmets. But if you look at the article, they use engineering design principals to separate traffic from bicycles too. Here is what one study states about bicycle helmets in Sweden:
    Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2012;19(3):213-7. doi: 10.1080/17457300.2012.707217. Epub 2012 Jul 25.
    Twenty-five years of bicycle helmet promotion for children in Skaraborg District, Sweden.
    Ekman DS, Ekman R.
    Source

    Department of Nursing, Health and Culture, University West, Trollhättan, Sweden.
    Abstract

    The purpose of this study is to describe some of the results of a long-term bicycle helmet campaign for children in Skaraborg District, Sweden. The hospital discharge data for bicycle-related injuries occurring in children under the age of 15 were reviewed, to assess changes in patterns for head and other body injuries. The study shows that head injuries to children as a result of bicycle injuries were reduced between 94 and 99% in the study areas. The tremendous gains in safety for children who ride bicycles in Skaraborg District were the result of not only national policy changes that occurred in the latter half of this study period but also the result of local collaborations based on the Safe Communities model, which were organised during the first part of the study period.

    PMID:
    22827535
    [PubMed - in process]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22827535
    What is happening is that the science is progressing. Yes, there are some studies which discuss risk compensation:
    Accid Anal Prev. 2012 Apr 7. pii: S0001-4575(12)00116-9. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.03.027. [Epub ahead of print]
    Emotional reactions to cycle helmet use.
    Fyhri A, Phillips RO.
    Source

    Institute of Transport Economics, Gaustadalleen 21, 0349 Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: af@toi.no.
    Abstract

    It has been suggested that the safety benefits of bicycle helmets are limited by risk compensation. The current article tests if previous helmet use influences the response to helmets as a safety intervention. This was investigated in a field experiment where pace and psychophysiological load were measured. We found that after having removed their helmets, routine helmet users cycled more slowly and demonstrated increased psychophysiological load. However, for non-users there was no significant change in either cycling behaviour or psychophysiological load. We discuss the implications of these results for a hypothesis of risk compensation in response to helmet use. We also show that heart rate variability is a promising measure of psychophysiological load in real-world cycling, at least in situations where there is limited physical demand.

    Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

    PMID:
    22975366
    [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22975366
    But what has happened in this thread (and the preceding ones on this topic, which goes back some seven years) is that the same old studies are being used to justify current thinking. My response is that as the science progresses, you need to keep up with the new studies. People also have to be able to change their views based upon the new science to maintain scientific credibility.

    John
    Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 11-12-12 at 11:57 AM.
    John Ratliff

Posting Permissions

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