Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?

Voters
1621. You may not vote on this poll
  • I've never worn a bike helmet

    170 10.49%
  • I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped

    92 5.68%
  • I've always worn a helmet

    633 39.05%
  • I didn't wear a helmet, but now do

    397 24.49%
  • I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions

    329 20.30%
Page 56 of 345 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866106156 ... LastLast
Results 1,376 to 1,400 of 8601
  1. #1376
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six-Shooter View Post
    another endless round of statistics
    And then the other side responds with their own endless round of statistics, and then you rip their stats, and they rip yours, and twelve pages later we end up right back where we started.

    Meanwhile, the individual remains the only one qualified to asses his or her own risks and respond to them appropriately - and we all ought to be suspicious of anyone who wants to make those decisions for us.

  2. #1377
    Strong Walker martl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    My Bikes
    too many
    Posts
    485
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six-Shooter View Post
    I don't know if this counts as compelling, but these conclusions of some formal meta-analyses and general surveys of helmet studies might be interesting:

    http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...ic_Crash_5.pdf:
    Very well, i knew that one, and a lot of those studies oused as input, too. These studies try to find out whether a bicycle helmet can give me better protection against head injuries.

    But i was asking for a compelling reason to wear a helmet when riding a bike.

    A helmet is something usually no one wears at "normal", everyday activities, at least i see few people wearing one when participating in traffic (say by foot or in a car), i don't see people ice-skating with a helmet, or tobogganing, or climbing ladders.

    If someone handed helmets out to ladder climbers, or car drivers, and then did a survey, the results would look similar than those in the study you cited. Because head injuries will occur if the number of people evaluated is big enough, and possibly/hopefully a bike helmet would show impact on those.

    But we don't wear helmets when climbing stairs aor driving cars. We wear helmets in situation which bear a *much higher* risk for our dear skulls than usual. Or in situations we believe to be. Like mountain climbing, where the guy above you can and will send small rubble down your way, or similar.

    So again, why should i wear a helmet when riding a bike?

  3. #1378
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six-Shooter View Post
    Sorry, I can't resist it: all the research you link to has apparently been included in the Elvik paper. Read his introduction. It is extremely instructive, in particular in regards to bias, not least time trend bias. Once read, one tends to take previous papers and research with more than a grain of salt.

    The Dutch SWOW report does not seem to include the findings of Elvik, but refers to older research.

    So, it's not "another endless round" etc. Elvik really DOES take into account some aspects NOT included in earlier papers, and it has a big influence on the conclusions: bicycle helmets are at most marginally effective in preventing harm.

  4. #1379
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
    And then the other side responds with their own endless round of statistics, and then you rip their stats, and they rip yours, and twelve pages later we end up right back where we started.

    Meanwhile, the individual remains the only one qualified to asses his or her own risks and respond to them appropriately - and we all ought to be suspicious of anyone who wants to make those decisions for us.
    Just putting them out there for those interested. Make of them what you will. But it's rather lazy to just write off scientific evidence, pro or con.

  5. #1380
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by martl View Post
    So again, why should i wear a helmet when riding a bike?
    To offer some measure of head protection in case you fall But your rationale for or against is your own. It's not my business. You asked for a reason, so I offered some reviews of the scientific evidence.

  6. #1381
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hagen2456 View Post
    Sorry, I can't resist it: all the research you link to has apparently been included in the Elvik paper. Read his introduction. It is extremely instructive, in particular in regards to bias, not least time trend bias. Once read, one tends to take previous papers and research with more than a grain of salt.

    The Dutch SWOW report does not seem to include the findings of Elvik, but refers to older research.

    So, it's not "another endless round" etc. Elvik really DOES take into account some aspects NOT included in earlier papers, and it has a big influence on the conclusions: bicycle helmets are at most marginally effective in preventing harm.
    One needs to take anything written about bicycle helmets with a grain of salt, it seems I've learned to be leery of the research and extremely leery of partisan sites, Wikipedia, blogs, etc.

    The Dutch report summarizes and discusses Elvik at some length.

    I think one should be careful with Elvik's article and note that

    a) his own earlier meta-analysis has "reported a 64% reduction in the risk of head injury when a hard helmet is worn and a 41% reduction in risk when a soft helmet is worn."
    b) he is re-analyzing the interpretations of one specific paper
    c) he concludes "Do bicycle helmets reduce the risk of injury to the head, face, or neck. With respect to head injury, the answer is clearly yes." His re-analysis of Attewell "has not changed this answer."
    d) He found only four estimates of neck injury, each suggesting an increased likelihood, therefore when head, neck, and face injuries are lumped together, the total protective effect of a helmet seems reduced (or evened out when you just consider just those four studies).
    e) look at his actual numbers in tables 1 and 2, which, with adjustments for the new studies and potential bias, still show a substantial odds ratio for head injury protection. Of course, the neck injury statistics raise a big question for further research.

    It will be interesting to see what he and other researchers find as we move forward.

  7. #1382
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    FYI, here are links to the four "new" (in the sense of not included in Attewell) studies, with abstract quotes.

    Hansen et al. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14630577
    The use of hard shell helmets reduced the risk of getting injuries to the head. Children less than nine years old that used foam helmets had an increased risk of getting face injuries. All bicyclists should be recommended to use hard shell bicycle helmets while cycling.
    Hausotter http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Bicy.../10718089.html
    Therefore, there are many bicycling victims in casualty hospitals. The head being exposed and unprotected, head and brain injuries are the most frequent ones. Just as in professional and sports activities, protection of the head and neck also when bicycling has been urgently recommended and its effect repeatedly confirmed by recent statistical results. Wearing helmets by motorcyclists has clearly reduced the severity and frequency of head injuries since it became compulsory. A legislative initiative for wearing bicycle helmets as well is therefore necessary.
    Heng et al. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16645684
    Bicycle helmet use was low in our sample of injured patients. When worn, protection against injury was demonstrated. A campaign to promote use of bicycle helmets should be targeted at non-residents and older bicyclists. Authorities should consider compulsory helmet laws for bicyclists and expanding anti-drunk driving campaigns to target alcohol-intoxicated bicyclists.
    and I believe this is the English version of Amoros et al. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...31815.abstract
    This study confirms the protective effect for head and facial injuries, even though soft-shell helmets have now become more common. The reduction of risk is greater for serious head injuries. The study is inconclusive about the risk for neck injuries.

  8. #1383
    Senior Member rydabent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lincoln Ne
    My Bikes
    RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
    Posts
    3,818
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just amazing. Here we are at 56 pages on this I think is the forth thread on why trolls think we shouldnt wear helmets when cycling. Isnt it time for them to get a life????

  9. #1384
    Strong Walker martl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    My Bikes
    too many
    Posts
    485
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, you're right, it is written in the bible we should wear one, how could i be so stupid?

  10. #1385
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six-Shooter View Post
    One needs to take anything written about bicycle helmets with a grain of salt, it seems I've learned to be leery of the research and extremely leery of partisan sites, Wikipedia, blogs, etc.

    The Dutch report summarizes and discusses Elvik at some length.

    I think one should be careful with Elvik's article and note that

    a) his own earlier meta-analysis has "reported a 64% reduction in the risk of head injury when a hard helmet is worn and a 41% reduction in risk when a soft helmet is worn."
    b) he is re-analyzing the interpretations of one specific paper
    c) he concludes "Do bicycle helmets reduce the risk of injury to the head, face, or neck. With respect to head injury, the answer is clearly yes." His re-analysis of Attewell "has not changed this answer."
    d) He found only four estimates of neck injury, each suggesting an increased likelihood, therefore when head, neck, and face injuries are lumped together, the total protective effect of a helmet seems reduced (or evened out when you just consider just those four studies).
    e) look at his actual numbers in tables 1 and 2, which, with adjustments for the new studies and potential bias, still show a substantial odds ratio for head injury protection. Of course, the neck injury statistics raise a big question for further research.

    It will be interesting to see what he and other researchers find as we move forward.
    What is interesting - and might interest our very own troll, Rydabent, too - is that it takes into acount the effect on neck injuries, finding that when they're included, the total benefit of helmets is close to zero.

  11. #1386
    Senior Member njschmidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hattiesburg, MS
    My Bikes
    2011 Giant Defy 3
    Posts
    54
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wanted to add to this discussion because of a personal experience that happened to me yesterday. I have a very short commute (about a mile) to work, and I have never worn an helmet during it. Yesterday morning as I was going to work I decided to go a new way just to stir things up a bit. Along this new way, I went through what I thought was just a shallow puddle (I had driven this way before, and had not noticed any big pot holes or anything like that). Unfortunately, at the bottom of the puddle, was a crevice just large enough for my front tire to get stuck in. I fell off, managed to turn my body so that I landed on the meaty part of my upper back, but heard a loud "clunk" as the back of my head met concrete.

    I didn't lost consciousness, I got up, had a slight ringing in my ears, but was able to continue on to my office. For some backstory, a couple years ago I had a friend whose son slipped off his motorcycle as he came to a stop over some loose gravel and lightly knocked his un-helmeted head (never lost consciousness). He got back up, seemed fine, continued on home. After going to bed, he never woke up (brain bleed killed him in his sleep). Fearing a similar situation and because I was still feeling dizzy an hour after the incident, I visited the local walk-in clinic, where it was decided I needed a CT scan. Luckily, everything is fine, although the doctor said that I might continue to be dizzy and have an headache for another 2 weeks (he said I might even throw up... Yay).

    The point is, had I been wearing an helmet, I would not have made hard, direct contact with the concrete, I do not believe I would have had a concussion, and I would not now be paying $2000 in medical fees. It will take me many months of saving gas money by bike commuting to offset these medical costs, but I guarantee that I will be doing it with an helmet on (that is, once I'm no longer feeling dizzy and deem it safe for me to ride again).

    Just my $0.02.
    The Obesyclist, where I'll blog about my cycling journey towards leading a more physically active life.


    http://tickers.TickerFactory.com/ezt...crK/weight.png

  12. #1387
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
    Just amazing. Here we are at 56 pages on this I think is the forth thread on why trolls think we shouldnt wear helmets when cycling. Isnt it time for them to get a life????
    56 pages and you're still calling people trolls every time you post

  13. #1388
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njschmidt View Post
    I wanted to add to this discussion because of a personal experience that happened to me yesterday. I have a very short commute (about a mile) to work, and I have never worn an helmet during it. Yesterday morning as I was going to work I decided to go a new way just to stir things up a bit. Along this new way, I went through what I thought was just a shallow puddle (I had driven this way before, and had not noticed any big pot holes or anything like that). Unfortunately, at the bottom of the puddle, was a crevice just large enough for my front tire to get stuck in. I fell off, managed to turn my body so that I landed on the meaty part of my upper back, but heard a loud "clunk" as the back of my head met concrete.

    I didn't lost consciousness, I got up, had a slight ringing in my ears, but was able to continue on to my office. For some backstory, a couple years ago I had a friend whose son slipped off his motorcycle as he came to a stop over some loose gravel and lightly knocked his un-helmeted head (never lost consciousness). He got back up, seemed fine, continued on home. After going to bed, he never woke up (brain bleed killed him in his sleep). Fearing a similar situation and because I was still feeling dizzy an hour after the incident, I visited the local walk-in clinic, where it was decided I needed a CT scan. Luckily, everything is fine, although the doctor said that I might continue to be dizzy and have an headache for another 2 weeks (he said I might even throw up... Yay).
    +1 I'm no doctor, but what from what I've read, if you get a knock on the head and seem to be fine, still get it checked out to prevent a tragedy like you describe. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/000028.htm See symptoms section

    Glad you're essentially ok.

    You make a good point about the expense and hassle involved in even a relatively minor injury.

  14. #1389
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njschmidt View Post
    I wanted to add to this discussion because of a personal experience that happened to me yesterday. I have a very short commute (about a mile) to work, and I have never worn an helmet during it. Yesterday morning as I was going to work I decided to go a new way just to stir things up a bit. Along this new way, I went through what I thought was just a shallow puddle (I had driven this way before, and had not noticed any big pot holes or anything like that). Unfortunately, at the bottom of the puddle, was a crevice just large enough for my front tire to get stuck in. I fell off, managed to turn my body so that I landed on the meaty part of my upper back, but heard a loud "clunk" as the back of my head met concrete.

    I didn't lost consciousness, I got up, had a slight ringing in my ears, but was able to continue on to my office. For some backstory, a couple years ago I had a friend whose son slipped off his motorcycle as he came to a stop over some loose gravel and lightly knocked his un-helmeted head (never lost consciousness). He got back up, seemed fine, continued on home. After going to bed, he never woke up (brain bleed killed him in his sleep). Fearing a similar situation and because I was still feeling dizzy an hour after the incident, I visited the local walk-in clinic, where it was decided I needed a CT scan. Luckily, everything is fine, although the doctor said that I might continue to be dizzy and have an headache for another 2 weeks (he said I might even throw up... Yay).

    The point is, had I been wearing an helmet, I would not have made hard, direct contact with the concrete, I do not believe I would have had a concussion, and I would not now be paying $2000 in medical fees. It will take me many months of saving gas money by bike commuting to offset these medical costs, but I guarantee that I will be doing it with an helmet on (that is, once I'm no longer feeling dizzy and deem it safe for me to ride again).

    Just my $0.02.
    Concussions are primarily the result of oblique, not direct, impacts. Hemorrhages can happen on direct impacts, but it is in fact extremely rare.

    Just my $0.02.

  15. #1390
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six-Shooter View Post
    FYI, here are links to the four "new" (in the sense of not included in Attewell) studies, with abstract quotes.

    Hansen et al. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14630577


    Hausotter http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Bicy.../10718089.html


    Heng et al. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16645684


    and I believe this is the English version of Amoros et al. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...31815.abstract
    #1: Case-control design. You must by now be aware of how problematic that is.
    #2: Ditto.
    #3: "...head and brain injuries are the most frequent ones". What??? I think we can disregard that one.
    #4: Recommends hard-shell helmets. Good luck with getting people to cycle in the future, if that becomes mandatory.

    Ah. Typical. I mixed up the order of the links. But I guess you get the drift etc. etc.

  16. #1391
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hagen2456 View Post
    #1: Case-control design. You must by now be aware of how problematic that is.
    #2: Ditto.
    #3: "...head and brain injuries are the most frequent ones". What??? I think we can disregard that one.
    #4: Recommends hard-shell helmets. Good luck with getting people to cycle in the future, if that becomes mandatory.

    Ah. Typical. I mixed up the order of the links. But I guess you get the drift etc. etc.
    Re: #3, looks like some translation software may have been at play. The original was in German.

    Anyway I posted those to make it easy to see the four "new" studies Elvik included in his re-analysis of Attewell's original meta-analysis. If there's a problem with these articles--the ones that Elvik used to calculate smaller net benefits from helmets and greater potential for neck injuries--tell him, not me

  17. #1392
    Senior Member njschmidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hattiesburg, MS
    My Bikes
    2011 Giant Defy 3
    Posts
    54
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hagen2456 View Post
    Concussions are primarily the result of oblique, not direct, impacts. Hemorrhages can happen on direct impacts, but it is in fact extremely rare.

    Just my $0.02.
    I would say that it was between a direct-back-of-the-head hit and an oblique hit (the bump and scab are closer to my left ear). The CT scan failed to indicate hemorrhaging. I'm not sure the exact type of trauma experienced by the friend's son who died.
    The Obesyclist, where I'll blog about my cycling journey towards leading a more physically active life.


    http://tickers.TickerFactory.com/ezt...crK/weight.png

  18. #1393
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six-Shooter View Post
    Re: #3, looks like some translation software may have been at play. The original was in German.

    Anyway I posted those to make it easy to see the four "new" studies Elvik included in his re-analysis of Attewell's original meta-analysis. If there's a problem with these articles--the ones that Elvik used to calculate smaller net benefits from helmets and greater potential for neck injuries--tell him, not me
    Makes it so much more astonishing that after all, the conclusion is that the net benefit - including neck injury - is close to zero.

  19. #1394
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njschmidt View Post
    I would say that it was between a direct-back-of-the-head hit and an oblique hit (the bump and scab are closer to my left ear). The CT scan failed to indicate hemorrhaging. I'm not sure the exact type of trauma experienced by the friend's son who died.
    If he simply fell with his bike while stationary - and that's how I read it, wrongly perhaps - he's one of the few who are extremely unlucky when hitting their head. Happens in all kind of situations: at home, on the sidewalk, when biking etc.

    What is first of all being discussed here is not really if a helmet may help in certain situations. It may. Rather, what some of us doubt is BOTH that there's much more reason to wear it when biking than when walking or taking a shower, AND that they have the effect claimed by so many, including authories.

  20. #1395
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six-Shooter View Post
    Just putting them out there for those interested. Make of them what you will. But it's rather lazy to just write off scientific evidence, pro or con.
    As a "veteran" of the last four or five iterations of this thread, what you deride as laziness is, in fact, experience. Your list of links is hardly unique, and have been dissected ad nauseum.

    As has been demonstrated over and over and over, one can "prove" anything one likes with statistics. It's a pointless exercise.

  21. #1396
    Senior Member Drummerboy1975's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Arkansas
    My Bikes
    '81 Fuji Royale/ '96 Rockhopper
    Posts
    1,168
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Look what I just got in the mail today. Thanks mconlonx!




  22. #1397
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
    As a "veteran" of the last four or five iterations of this thread, what you deride as laziness is, in fact, experience. Your list of links is hardly unique, and have been dissected ad nauseum.

    As has been demonstrated over and over and over, one can "prove" anything one likes with statistics. It's a pointless exercise.
    If you've made your personal decision and presumably/hopefully aren't interested in forcing it on others, and have decided one can't learn from the science on the matter, why keep participating in the thread?

  23. #1398
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One man's "science" is another man's bull****. And one reason I still participate in this thread is to point out when folks are using bull**** to promote their own agendas.

  24. #1399
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njschmidt View Post
    I would say that it was between a direct-back-of-the-head hit and an oblique hit (the bump and scab are closer to my left ear). The CT scan failed to indicate hemorrhaging. I'm not sure the exact type of trauma experienced by the friend's son who died.
    Your friend's son may very well have survived his fall with a motorcycle helmet, but a motorcycle helmet is a very different beast than a bicycle helmet. A bicycle helmet is not proof against concussions and are not built to prevent them--you could very well have been wearing one and still suffered a concussion. Or it might have helped...

  25. #1400
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Drummerboy1975 View Post
    Look what I just got in the mail today. Thanks mconlonx!
    Hey, you're very welcome, man!

Posting Permissions

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