Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?

Voters
1652. You may not vote on this poll
  • I've never worn a bike helmet

    175 10.59%
  • I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped

    94 5.69%
  • I've always worn a helmet

    644 38.98%
  • I didn't wear a helmet, but now do

    403 24.39%
  • I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions

    336 20.34%
Page 218 of 349 FirstFirst ... 118168208216217218219220228268318 ... LastLast
Results 5,426 to 5,450 of 8711
  1. #5426
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,033
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
    That's odd, because I know heads rotate without helmets and when they don't it's because the head was smashed flat preventing rotation! But no, helmets do not increase head rotation
    Far be it from me to disagree from your lunatic bs, but increased rotation with helmets has been proved in tests.

    in fact a lot of the tear drop shaped helmets are worse for you then the round ones because the tear drop shape and other odd shaped helmets don't allow the head to rotate and instead snaps the neck. This why time and time again round helmets fair better in consumer studies...of course no one likes to wear round helmets and they are a bit a of pain to find.
    Uh, yes: consumer test of helmets always involve neck breaking experiments! That's why they go through some many testers!

    Seriously: you are insane. No helmet is THAT dangerous - a teardrop shaped helmet is still made of foam and tear apart from a fraction of the energy need to break a neck. For any TT and triath readers: NO ONE HAS EVER HAD THEIR NECK BROKEN THIS WAY; THIS MAN IS A LOONIE! So you can go wearing your $500 hat and cutting your times by 0.5 of a second.

  2. #5427
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,033
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
    I think you are equating rotational injury with head rotation. These aren't the same thing. Rotational injury has to do with parts of the brain and their differing densities accelerating and decelerating at different rates, causing nerve axons to tear and damage. Someone feel free to interject, if I'm explaining this incorrectly.
    That's over complicated: your brain just should not rotate in its skull. That simple.

    Interestingly, beside being the major cause of serious brain damage, rotational injuries are also cummulative (think of boxers and NFL.) So that guy who falls his bike a lot and avoids scalp cuts by wearing a helmet might, quite seriously, be making a bad trade off...

    But, honestly, rotation is something of a red herring: virtually all serious cyclist head injuries come from fast hits by cars, and they do so much damage that any sort of helmet you can wear is irrelevant. The only smart safety measures are those that aim at not being hit. The reason why anti-rotation helmets matter is sports use - bmx, crit racing, downhill - where a participant might fall off quite frequently and where (obviously) no cars are involved. And of course it matters in motorcycling, because motorcycle helmets are tough enough to survive hits at more than 12mph.
    Last edited by meanwhile; 05-29-13 at 03:34 PM.

  3. #5428
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,033
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
    Fact? it's like you're Mr Obvious! Obviously a helmet is not effective in accidents where someone dies, this is true for motorcycle helmets, true with seat belts, true about a lot of different things designed to protect you but fail and you die. That's why it was so funny.
    Ok: I was overestimating your intelligence again.

    1. In almost all accident where cyclists have fatal head injuries, THEY ALSO HAVE FATAL TORSO INJURIES. Indicating that a helmet can't really do much... for reasons that will probably still elude your intellect, but never mind.

    2. Helmets are designed to take 100-200J of kinetic energy. In almost all accidents where a cyclist dies they are hit by a car with something like a thousand to ten thousand times that amount of energy.
    Last edited by meanwhile; 05-30-13 at 05:52 AM.

  4. #5429
    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 robble View Post
    it sounds to me that you just admitted that helmets ARE EFFECTIVE.

    game over. You lose.
    High school never gets old, does it?

    So can I expect you to be breaking out the body armor?

    Had my friend been wearinga suit of body armor he wouldn't have gotten a ton of road rash either but you didn't hear me saying that would have been feasible. road rash seldom kills. Head injuries do.
    Except that's not true. What is most likely to kill you is a car crash. In car crashes, it quite often is a lot more than a head injury that kills you. It's often massive internal damage. Now, I don't know if body armor is actually designed to help with those forces, but we don't seem to care that helmets aren't either, so that seems a moot point. The real point: the forces you're going to experience that kill you are beyond what a helmet is designed/capable of handling, and even if it was, in the cases which you're most likely to die, it's injury to the rest of your body that'll be just as likely to kill you, so you should be riding in body armor as well if you're consistent in your goal.
    Last edited by sudo bike; 05-29-13 at 06:37 PM.
    "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

  5. #5430
    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 350htrr View Post
    And you guys are missing my point. I don't think doing any of those things is as dangerous as cycling thus I don't wear helmets doing them, but I think bicycling is just dangerous enough, to wear a helmet... You guys don't really think any of those things are really dangerous including bicycling, thus you don't wear helmets doing any of those things...
    In which case, more power to you. I don't find riding a bike any more dangerous than walking the dog. If I was seriously concerned about my chances at getting injured while riding, I probably just would stay home. As it is, I'm pretty sure I've tripped and fell more than I've crashed on a bike.
    "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

  6. #5431
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,033
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
    Except that's not true. What is most likely to kill you is a car crash. In car crashes, it quite often is a lot more than a head injury that kills you. It's often massive internal damage. Now, I don't know if body armor is actually designed to help with those forces, but we don't seem to care that helmets aren't either, so that seems a moot point. The real point: the forces you're going to experience that kill you are beyond what a helmet is designed/capable of handling, and even if it was, in the cases which you're most likely to die, it's injury to the rest of your body that'll be just as likely to kill you, so you should be riding in body armor as well if you're consistent in your goal.
    Virtually every accident that kills a cyclist involves him/her either going over the hood of a fast moving car or under a truck. In about 95% of these cases (see the source I gave on the last page) the cyclist will have fatal torso injuries as well as head injuries; in the other 5% the head impact will have had at 1000 times the energy a helmet is specced for.

    What's real sad is that you see idiots in helmets trying to commit suicide all the time in urban areas. Trucks kill +50% of cyclists who die in cities, and it is usually because a cyclist is in a blindspot at a junction. Very few cyclists know where these are - you often seen people put themselves in the blindspot in front of a truck as well as those to the side. If you want to avoid dying and cycle in a city, staying away from trucks at junctions will do more to keep you alive than anything else: a fraction of the effort spent on helmet promotion would save lives if diverted to educating people on real safety.
    Last edited by meanwhile; 05-30-13 at 06:35 AM.

  7. #5432
    Senior Member rekmeyata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5,742
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    Ok: I was overestimating your intelligence again.

    1. In almost all accident where cyclists have fatal head injuries, THEY ALSO HAVE FATAL TORSO INJURIES. Indicating that a helmet can't really do much... for reasons that will probably still elude your intellect, but never mind.

    2. Helmets are designed to take 100-200J of kinetic energy. In almost all accidents where a cyclist dies they are hit by a car with something like a thousand to ten thousand times that amount of energy.

    You're funny considering you have no intelligence to estimate, which is evident by the fact you never mentioned torso damage. Now you change your story to try to have some resemblance of intelligence? but just like in your statement I quoted you failed big time. Probably the story of your life. You want to get nasty? I can play. Be civil or I can keep this up whenever I'm on the computer with you.

  8. #5433
    Senior Member elcruxio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    mordor
    My Bikes
    2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro
    Posts
    697
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
    You're funny considering you have no intelligence to estimate, which is evident by the fact you never mentioned torso damage. Now you change your story to try to have some resemblance of intelligence? but just like in your statement I quoted you failed big time. Probably the story of your life. You want to get nasty? I can play. Be civil or I can keep this up whenever I'm on the computer with you.
    It would seem you missed his point entirely and purposefully. If you decide to misinterpret someone's message it is entire on you. I understood what he meant with no great difficulty.
    It's called reading between the lines and understanding what is not clearly written out. The writer trusts his readers to have enough common sense to understand a textual meaning without the whole thing being opened up and intrisically explained (sorry meanwhile, apparently you messed this one up...). It is a skill learned before high school and an adult should already have perfected this skill.

    Of course in an organized debate situation it is allowed and encouraged to use the opponents linguistical failings against him. But in a debate the aim is to win. This is not a debate even if some debate features are constantly evident in this discussion. And a discussion it is. The aim is to find the truth about helmets, not to win against all odds.
    If you really want to bring a point across, don't mock the other discussers (which you do constantly), counter with evidence and valid points and not by starting a mess because "YA DINNAE WRIT A WURD HURRDURR!"
    Seriously, get a clue. You are verging on rydabent level (although he cannot be overcome)
    Last edited by elcruxio; 05-30-13 at 08:51 AM.

  9. #5434
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,033
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
    You're funny considering you have no intelligence to estimate, which is evident by the fact you never mentioned torso damage.
    From post 5418:

    about 75% of fatal head injuries to cyclists are accompanied by fatal torso injuries. (Front of car made of metal, yes???) This shouldn't surprise anyone intelligent, but there you go..


    From post 5420:
    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html

    Most fatalities involve multiple injuries and head injury is not the sole cause of death. The experience of a solicitor specialising in cyclist injuries (BHRF, 1173) supports the view that deaths solely due to head injury are unusual. Furthermore, fatal head injuries typically involve rotational forces, which cycle helmets do not mitigate and may even make more likely (BHRF, 1039). Cyclist deaths were also investigated in Auckland, New Zealand (Sage, Cairns, Koelmeyer and Smeeton, 1985). 16 of 19 non-helmeted cyclists died from mulitple injuries, so helmets would not have changed the outcome. Only one cyclist died of head injuries in a bike-only crash, the most likely situation for a helmet to help. That cyclist died despite wearing a helmet and a fall at moderate speed. The researchers concluded: "This study indicates that the compulsory wearing of suitable safety helmets by cyclists is unlikely to lead to a great reduction in fatal injuries, despite their enthusiastic advocacy".

    A study of cyclist crashes in Brisbane, Australia concluded that helmets would prevent very few fatalities (Corner, Whitney, O'Rourke and Morgan, 1987). All deaths were caused through collisions between a bicycle and a motor vehicle. For 13 of the 14 cyclists who died, there was no indication that a helmet might have made any difference.


    Understand what this means: even if you had a helmet that would work perfectly and would protect your head at any speed, there is virtually no chance that thus helmet would save your life. Fatal cycling accident almost always involve a cyclist being smashed against a large piece of metal at high speed, and the odds (about 13 to 1!) say that such an accident will turn the contents of your torso into jam.

    ...This reading thing is HARD isn't it?

  10. #5435
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,033
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by elcruxio View Post
    You are verging on rydabent level (although he cannot be overcome)
    Rydabent is the man who believes that he is safer on his recumbent than a regular bike because if a the grill of a truck or SUV hits him at +30mph, head on, because he won't have as far to fall before he hits the ground. Because it's not the huge bloody piece of metal hitting you at 30 mph that hurts, or being dragged beneath 10 tons of truck, but falling the same height that you would if you stumbled while jogging...

    To be fair to Rydabent though, I think a lot of people make the same implicit assumption and don't bother - or deliberately avoid - thinking about what happens in a fatal collision. Which is, almost invariably:

    1. Your head and torso slam into said huge piece of metal at high speed. Your brain rotates, tearing neural connections, mushing cells, and causing internal bleeding. Your ribs fracture, your lungs are smashed into mush, your intestines rupture, etc.

    Or

    2. A truck smacks into you, breaking half the bones in your body, then drives over you. You are then either dragged and smeared like garlic against a cheese grater, or part of you goes under the wheel and you just POP! rather wetly.

    In neither case will a 200g foam hat help. Head-only fatalities are rare (see my last post) and head-only fatalities within the operating range of a cycling helmet are just freakishly rare. This might not be what your intuition tells you, it may not be what you want to believe, but is what the statistics say, so get used to it. Watching this 60 second video will do more for your safety than any cycling helmet ever made:

    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...47244034,d.d2k
    Last edited by meanwhile; 05-30-13 at 09:47 AM.

  11. #5436
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,033
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And for the advanced course on how not to be killed by a truck:

    http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...-about-trucks/

    http://www.movingtargetzine.com/foru...e-your-life/p1

    - The diagrams there are over optimistic - they neglect the effective front blind spot that most drivers have - the region very close to the grill they could check but do not.

    In London, 54% of cyclist deaths are from trucks and buses. None of them could be avoided by wearing a helmet; most could be avoided by exercising knowledgeable paranoia around these vehicles - especially at junctions.

  12. #5437
    Senior Member elcruxio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    mordor
    My Bikes
    2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro
    Posts
    697
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    And for the advanced course on how not to be killed by a truck:

    http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...-about-trucks/

    http://www.movingtargetzine.com/foru...e-your-life/p1

    - The diagrams there are over optimistic - they neglect the effective front blind spot that most drivers have - the region very close to the grill they could check but do not.

    In London, 54% of cyclist deaths are from trucks and buses. None of them could be avoided by wearing a helmet; most could be avoided by exercising knowledgeable paranoia around these vehicles - especially at junctions.
    My natural instinct in proximity of large vehicles is a very certain _nope_ and to avoid the shiznizzle out of that thing. I hate being close to a truck when I'm driving a car so being on a bike just makes it worse.

    Still one sees these vids from london where cyclists squeeze themselves past a truck in red lights from the outer side of the road. Makes me cringe bad.

  13. #5438
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canada, PG BC
    My Bikes
    27 speed oryx
    Posts
    875
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think pretty well everyone reading this thread understands and even agrees that a helmet won't "save" your life over a certain speed and impact level... But I would suspect the majority of falls that happen, are below that speed and impact level, over 50,000 visits to the emergency with head injuries and about 1,000 die a year. So the real discussion should be how much did the helmets help with the 49,000 that did not die...?
    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...

  14. #5439
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,033
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post
    I think pretty well everyone reading this thread understands and even agrees that a helmet won't "save" your life over a certain speed and impact level...
    You are being evasive: the operating threshold for a helmet is, for all practical purposes, below that where death or serious injury are possible.

    But I would suspect the majority of falls that happen, are below that speed and impact level, over 50,000 visits to the emergency with head injuries and about 1,000 die a year.
    There about 600-700 cyclist deaths a year in the USA. Statistically:

    - 75-95% involve fatal torso injuries as well/instead of head injuries

    - +95% involve high speed hits with cars, outside of a helmet's possible operating limit.

    So the real discussion should be how much did the helmets help with the 49,000 that did not die...?
    If you paid attention you would already know the answer - a helmet cuts out before the level where even concussion is likely, so a helmet will reduce the chances of a skull laceration if the head is hit... at the cost of increasing the chances of a head impact through a larger target and increasing cumulative brain damage through concussion. The only case in which a helmet makes sense is the one they were actually designed for - the special case of protecting children's still growing skulls. If that.

  15. #5440
    Senior Member rekmeyata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5,742
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    From post 5418:

    about 75% of fatal head injuries to cyclists are accompanied by fatal torso injuries. (Front of car made of metal, yes???) This shouldn't surprise anyone intelligent, but there you go..


    From post 5420:


    Understand what this means: even if you had a helmet that would work perfectly and would protect your head at any speed, there is virtually no chance that thus helmet would save your life. Fatal cycling accident almost always involve a cyclist being smashed against a large piece of metal at high speed, and the odds (about 13 to 1!) say that such an accident will turn the contents of your torso into jam.

    ...This reading thing is HARD isn't it?
    Next time you write something quote the post number, what do you think people have time to read 5,436 posts! Get a freakin clue. I don't just sit behind the computer on forums reading all day like you do, some of us work and have more important things to do. So I read what you said and took it for what you said and not reading between the lines or trying to a brain meld with you, or second guessing what you mean, or reading back thousands of post to again guess at which post you might be referring to while actually never mentioning you were referring to a post.

    And all of those websites are just blogs, almost meaningless. HOWEVER, I am reconsidering my hard stance on helmets, not because of you, but because of new information released by the US media yesterday that is agreeing with other studies done in Europe. This does not mean that I will stop wearing a helmet because I still think their useful at low speed; but what it does mean is that I won't be buying a new helmet for at least a couple more years until new regs come out and helmets are made to meet those regs.
    Last edited by rekmeyata; 05-30-13 at 11:24 AM.

  16. #5441
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,033
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by elcruxio View Post
    My natural instinct in proximity of large vehicles is a very certain _nope_ and to avoid the shiznizzle out of that thing. I hate being close to a truck when I'm driving a car so being on a bike just makes it worse.

    Still one sees these vids from london where cyclists squeeze themselves past a truck in red lights from the outer side of the road. Makes me cringe bad.
    Sometimes people are squeezing past to get to what they think is a position of safety - but it is actually one in the truck's blind spots. Intuition is a very dangerous guide and should only be used where you can't obtain definite knowledge...

  17. #5442
    Cycle Dallas MMACH 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Land of Gar, TX
    My Bikes
    Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
    Posts
    3,366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    While this is about meanwhile's posts, I'm directing this inquiry to sudo bike, because we have a little history on the subject.

    Is this a "shifting the goalpost" situation?

    The argument was made that you shouldn't wear a helmet because it doesn't protect your brain.
    It didn't get a lot of traction. mconlox even mentioned MIPs helmets and their improvements in protecting the brain.
    Then it was shifted to you shouldn't wear a helmet because it's the damage to your torso that's going to kill you.

    Good times in the helmet thread.
    That's gonna leave a mark.

  18. #5443
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,033
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
    Next time you write something quote the post number
    You don't.

    , what do you think people have time to read 5,436 posts!
    These posts were actually the ones you seemed to be answering - ironically you didn't quote the post (or even give a number) you were whining about. (Again, a smarter person would not have put himself in a position where he looks like a hypocrite..)


    And all of those websites are just blogs, almost meaningless
    Nope. Those links are to the BHRI - run by Europe's leading helmet test engineer and co-editted by professional statisticians - and a "blog" run by the director of the University Of Michigan's Risk Science Institute. And all of them in turn reference papers and studies.

    Again - this reading thing is hard for you, isn't it?

    what it does mean is that I won't be buying a new helmet for at least a couple more years until new regs come out and helmets are made to meet those regs.
    Except for reducing rotation, you can not make helmets tougher without making them much heavier. Motorcycle helmets and downhill helmets are at the limit of what is possible, and in each case providing protection at, say, 20mph, requires

    1. A full face design

    2. A weight of around a kilo

    3. A cost of around $600

    Standards won't change significantly, because helmets that are cheap, light, and effective are technologically impossible - otherwise motorcyclists would already be wearing them.

    Also: given virtually every cyclist with a fatal head injury also has a fatal torso injury... is there any point to spending $600 on a helmet, even if you are willing to do so and commute wearing a full face design?

  19. #5444
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,033
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
    While this is about meanwhile's posts, I'm directing this inquiry to sudo bike, because we have a little history on the subject.

    Is this a "shifting the goalpost" situation?

    The argument was made that you shouldn't wear a helmet because it doesn't protect your brain.
    It didn't get a lot of traction.
    This is argument by conclusion: ie stupid.

    mconlox even mentioned MIPs helmets and their improvements in protecting the brain.
    Yes: you can now spend $300 a helmet knowing that it will protect you from a mild scalp cut without actually INCREASING brain damage as the cheap helmets - like the ones you actually wear - do. What a triumph! These helmets still won't work in any collision likely to seriously injure you though, because they still have the 12mph failure speed.

    Then it was shifted to you shouldn't wear a helmet because it's the damage to your torso that's going to kill you.
    It wasn't "shifted" to this: these points were already widely known to anyone who had done any research, and they are valid in ADDITION to the previous ones, not instead of. (And why you imagine otherwise is beyond my ability to comprehend the lower intellectual orders...)

    In conclusion: I really can't help wondering how much cumulative brain damage some helmetoids have already taken if they find "There are several reasons why one should doubt the efficacy of helmets" complete mental overload....
    Last edited by meanwhile; 05-30-13 at 11:15 AM.

  20. #5445
    Cycle Dallas MMACH 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Land of Gar, TX
    My Bikes
    Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
    Posts
    3,366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Then perhaps you should be posting in the Torso Damage thread. It's a shift because a helmet, by definition will not protect your torso, but helmets are the subject of this thread.

    As I mentioned, it was directed to sudo bike because he and I had a rather extended discussion about shifting the goalpost a few months ago. But thanks for sharing.
    That's gonna leave a mark.

  21. #5446
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,033
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
    Then perhaps you should be posting in the Torso Damage thread. It's a shift because a helmet, by definition will not protect your torso, but helmets are the subject of this thread.
    This is Idiot Logic. Once again, if 95% of cases of fatal head injury are accompanied by fatal torso injury, then 95% of the maximum possibly fatality reduction from a helmet is lost. This is only irrelevant to wearing a helmet if you are (see first sentence) an idiot. No one wears a helmet because they would rather die only of a fatal torso injury - people wear helmets to stay alive.

    Plus, for extra Idiot Points, you have failed to realize that stats for possible "saves" from helmets are incorrect if you don't understand the above. The usual figure of 600 fatal cyclist head injuries implies a perfect helmet would save 600 lives - but of course the actual figure is more like only 30, because of the 95% fatal torso injury rate. If you are not smart enough to understand this - well obviously you weren't - then maybe you shouldn't be posting to this thread? Because the difference between 30 and 600 is pretty damn big....
    Last edited by meanwhile; 05-30-13 at 11:42 AM.

  22. #5447
    Cycle Dallas MMACH 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Land of Gar, TX
    My Bikes
    Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
    Posts
    3,366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Again, this is the helmet thread. The guy who crashed and broke his ankle because he couldn't get free from his SPDs didn't post it here because that wasn't a helmet issue.
    But keep going with the name calling. It has really helped your case.
    That's gonna leave a mark.

  23. #5448
    Randomhead
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    calling each other stupid is not allowed, please desist and don't make me read back to find all instances of it.

  24. #5449
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,033
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
    Again, this is the helmet thread. The guy who crashed and broke his ankle because he couldn't get free from his SPDs didn't post it here because that wasn't a helmet issue.
    This is correct; it is not a helmet issue.

    But if helmet advocates claim that 600 lives a year would be saved by helmets AND 95% OF THOSE PEOPLE HAD FATAL TORSO INJURIES AS WELL AS FATAL HEAD INJURIES then that it IS a helmet issue. Because it means that they are overclaiming by a factor of about 20 for the potential life saving benefit of helmets (and these are the actual figures.)

    But keep going with the name calling. It has really helped your case.
    I think at this point anyone whose brain is worth saving will look at your posts and and say much worse things about your intelligence than I have: If you can't see that a 20 times misclaim for helmet benefits is significant, than I'm not sure that the English language can sufficiently express your lack of intelligence.

    Really: you are now committed to a position where you are saying that people should wear helmets to prevent fatal head injury, even in circumstances where death is virtually certain anyway, from other causes - and that helmets don't save a meaningful number of lives in any circumstances... but you know, a corpse with less brain injury is better than one with more... Doesn't this strike you as, well, stupid??? I mean, if I was going to put your entire body into a mincing machine, would you want to i. try to avoid going into the machine, or ii. put a helmet on, so your head comes through intact, even though the rest of you will be hamburger? Because until I met you, I didn't think anyone would be an option ii...

  25. #5450
    Cycle Dallas MMACH 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Land of Gar, TX
    My Bikes
    Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
    Posts
    3,366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    ...
    Really: you are now committed to a position where you are saying that people should wear helmets to prevent fatal head injury, even in circumstances where death is virtually certain anyway, from other causes - and that helmets don't save a meaningful number of lives in any circumstances... but you know, a corpse with less brain injury is better than one with more... Doesn't this strike you as, well, stupid??? I mean, if I was going to put your entire body into a mincing machine, would you want to i. try to avoid going into the machine, or ii. put a helmet on, so your head comes through intact, even though the rest of you will be hamburger? Because until I met you, I didn't think anyone would be an option ii...
    Please show me where I said or even implied any of that.

    You're acting as if the helmeteers have decided that a helmet allows them to go dive in front of cars and head-first off of bridges. Accident avoidance is the priority for the vast majority of cyclists. Whether they have the skills and knowledge to avoid dangerous situations is a matter for another thread. The helmet is a last ditch effort to avoid or lessen injuries.
    That's gonna leave a mark.

Posting Permissions

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