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 61 of 350 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371111161 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,525 of 8743
  1. #1501
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,976
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
    I'm not willing to devote more time to play the my stats are better than yours game.
    Hey look, Shooter: somebody else you can add to your "Hates science" list.

  2. #1502
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
    If that's your standard of "dangerous", there's a whole lot of other daily activities that make the grade that nobody considers wearing special safety equipment for.
    True, but a red herring. The question is not what activities should you wear a helmet for (only individuals can answer that), but rather, if you want to add head protection while riding a bike, can a helmet offer that?

    But what most of us here are talking about, and has been stressed repeatedly, is general daily cycling, I think it's been clear that this mostly refers to commuting and such. I know I've stated multiple times than I don't think helmets are necessary for general everyday riding, and I've been careful to attach this disclaimer as often as I can, and I think most folks here have. So I think if you are taking stats that aren't talking about that, you're comparing apples and oranges.
    I've only been talking about cycling in general. I'm not cherry picking types of activities.

    everyday cycling isn't dangerous when compared to other casual daily activities.
    That's your personal opinion, but it hasn't been borne out unequivocally by the facts. It's easy to find data and studies that contradict your assertion. See the links from a few pages back, for instance, or http://www.aans.org/Patient%20Inform...%20Injury.aspx

    Then how do you respond to the studies that find they are as/more reliable than hard sources?

    I think you may misunderstand exactly how Wikipedia works. Any given page has at least dozens, often hundreds of editors that "watch" the page. Anytime a change is made, they know about it and review it.
    I respond easily: I understand how the watchlist works and have seen articles abused in the ways I've described on multiple occasions. I've seen pages that haven't been edited in weeks or months. If you want to put faith in it, great, but I'd much rather turn to serious scholarly sources for information about anything important.

    I don't care to get the stats again... ssgoodri has them, I believe for his state anyway, but it's pretty incontrovertible that the vast majority of cycling deaths are from vehicular collisions at intersections, from multiple DOT sources.
    My source was the DOT Here's another with a similar conclusion, based on DOT data: http://www.iihs.org/research/fatalit.../bicycles.html (64% of fatalities at non-intersections)

    But the intersection point doesn't even matter anyway, in relation to our discussion here, so I'll drop that; just don't think I'm assuming these things, I've seen stats on them.
    But that's my point again: it's often easy to find (seemingly) conflicting stats. And above you label something "pretty incontrovertible" according to a specific source, when it in fact says the opposite. Be careful with stats

    As to helmets, the testing method has also been posted; they are tested for low-speed, low-force direct impacts, and at that they excel. But any claims past that simply don't have evidence that they work effectively, and burden of proof lies there.
    I posted them actually. E.g., CPSC: http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr98/10mr98r.pdf Snell: http://www.smf.org/stds

    I still find it astounding that you are actually forwarding a position that casual cycling (not downhill racing, not riding drunk, etc) is dangerous. You're cherry-picking stats to forward a ridiculous conclusion.
    Having been injured while engaged in casual cycling, having seen other cyclists get injured, having read new stories of individuals being injured or killed, and having read through a mountain of official statistics and scientific studies on the issue, I can say without doubt that is dangerous. Is it as dangerous as wrestling rabid wolverines on the edge of a cliff? No, but I can say with absolute certainty that you can get severely hurt or killed while cycling. And in fact, yearly serious injuries (to where a hospital or doctor are needed) are hardly rare flukes, but in fact numerous.

    Frankly, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I'm not willing to devote more time to play the my stats are better than yours game. My point is, the burden of proof is upon those who say helmets are effective, and beyond minor injuries that evidence is shaky and contradictory at best.
    So, you assume that the stats you like are correct and others are wrong, or? Why is the burden of proof on those who say helmets are effective, rather than those who say they aren't? There's lots of scientific evidence for their effectiveness in preventing some level of serious injury and widespread support for them in the medical community, so it's not like just one lone voice crying in the wilderness.

    (Also, it's not as though I think helmets can't be effective. Only that to expect a current design, which is little more than think plastic over beer-cooler foam, to protect you against death or serious injury, especially in a car crash, is ludicrous.
    Without data, that's just a supposition. What might seem obvious to most people can in fact be utterly wrong, as the history of science has shown repeatedly.
    Last edited by Six-Shooter; 02-21-12 at 07:15 AM.

  3. #1503
    Senior Member rydabent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lincoln Ne
    My Bikes
    RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
    Posts
    4,025
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would like to ask the hairy chested it only happens to the other guy types if you do these things. Do you tear the seat belts out of your car and disconnect the air bag system. Do you disable the anti lock brakes and skid control on your car. Do you replace the ground fault power out lets in your home with regular plug ins. Do you take down the fire and CO2 detectors in your house.

    Your lives are full of safety devices that you use every day. A bike helmet is just another used while cycling.

  4. #1504
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
    ... Frankly, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere...
    well, not with 6 shooter it isn't. He refuses to look at the issue in perspective, thinks cycling is dangerous, considers a helmet to be incredibly effective, and doesn't acknowledge the research that runs contrary to his opinion.

    It's attitudes like his that perpetuates injuries to cyclists (by prioritizing helmets over other, more effective means of injury prevention) and endangers the health and safety of everyone (by portraying cycling as dangerous, which effectively discourages people from cycling).

    Bicycles save more lives than helmets ever can. Some people just don't get that.
    Last edited by closetbiker; 02-21-12 at 06:31 PM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  5. #1505
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,976
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
    I would like to ask the hairy chested it only happens to the other guy types if you do these things. Do you tear the seat belts out of your car and disconnect the air bag system. Do you disable the anti lock brakes and skid control on your car. Do you replace the ground fault power out lets in your home with regular plug ins. Do you take down the fire and CO2 detectors in your house.

    Your lives are full of safety devices that you use every day. A bike helmet is just another used while cycling.
    My initial urge was to whine that this is a cycling forum, so you can't talk about non-bicycle stuff. But hey, I'm told that as cyclists, we're all on the same team, so I just wonder if someone drives a car without airbags, or enters a building not equipped with Co2 detectors, or plugs something into a non-GFI receptacle, do you consider him a moron, organ donor, Darwin candidate? Do you log into chat rooms so that you can heap scorn upon him and make personal attacks against anyone who dares disagree? Or are bicycle helmets the only topic on which you take such a fiercely binary stance?

  6. #1506
    Nobody mconlonx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,324
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hagen2456 View Post
    You've got it wrong if you're "all flustered" about "helmet use" - not "helmet laws". Get it?

    Helmet use can encourage risk compensation in the form of riding, as well as in other forms. It will, of course, signal to others that cycling is dangerous. And helmet laws will so even more, and will keep a number of people from cycling, for that and other reasons.
    No, I don't get it... I'm not talking about helmet laws. As I've said before, helmet laws are bad, m'kay? I'm talking about helmet use by those who choose to do so.

    I don't believe that helmet use or even helmet manufacturers are solely responsible for the perception that cycling is dangerous. Helmet manufacturers might certainly use that perception to their advantage, but they are not responsible for the perception of danger in cycling. By your own admission, there are those riders who will strap on a helmet with the mistaken belief that it will provide them with some kind of magic force field, protecting them from all dangers on the road. Assuming they stick with it, a helmet has actually encouraged another rider to get on the road... where they find that it is actually much less dangerous than anticipated, and may, in time, having not used their helmet for its intended purpose over a length of time, decide not to wear one.

    While we may have studies about what MHLs do for ridership where such nonsense is enacted, do we have any data points regarding ridership vs. helmet use where MHLs do not exist?

    Also, I'd posit that it is less about helmet manufacturers doing the scaremongering and more about lawyers in the USA. The reason helmets are mandated by cycling orgs and event promoters have less to do with their beliefs that cycling is dangerous and helmets will help or some kind of conspiracy involving kickbacks from helmet companies, more to do with liability and fear of being sued by a helmet user or their estate.
    I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.

  7. #1507
    Nobody mconlonx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,324
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
    Yes, absolutely! That's the whole point; as the perception of risk/reward changes, so does behavior. So I can see you believe risk compensation is real and quantifiable to some extent, yes? In this case, we're only left speculating to what degree it matters, not whether or not it's a factor at all...
    If risk compensation was relevant, injury rates would go up where helmets are required or use is prevalent. But cycling isn't dangerous. I know there are studies showing that injury rates don't go down where helmet laws are instituted -- do injury rates go up in such cases to validate the whole "risk compensation" hypothesis that helmet use increases risk taking?
    I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.

  8. #1508
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
    well, not with 6 shooter it isn't. He refuses to look at the issue in perspective, thinks cycling is dangerous, considers a helmet to be incredibly effective, and doesn't acknowledge the research that runs contrary to his opinion.
    Project much? Now, instead of discussing facts, you've decided to attack the poster with false insinuations. How does that help the discussion? Not everyone is going to agree with you or interpret things the same way; that's part of adult discussion.

    I've indeed looked at the issue from multiple perspectives and continue to read extensively about it. I'm fully aware that some research questions the efficacy of helmets. I never said a helmet is "incredibly effective" or anything remotely like that. I know for a fact cycling poses dangers (see above posts--and ask those who've been injured or lost loves ones how harmless it is) but have repeatedly acknowledged that people perceive the risk differently. You've just written a bunch of bold-faced lies about an individual instead of discussing the issue like a grown-up. Good contribution.

    It's attitudes like his that perpetuates injuries to cyclists (by prioritizing helmets over other, more effective means of injury prevention) and endangers the health and safety of everyone (by portraying cycling as dangerous, which effectively discourages people from cycling).

    Bicycles save more lives than helmets ever can. Some people just don't get that.
    Quite outrageous hyperbole, and quite a cheap debating tactic: someone who doesn't agree with you is now a menace to society who's endangered the health and safety of everyone?

    Had you read my posts--and, iirc, I believe you concurred with the one I'm about to mention--you'll note that I have said that I see bicycle safety as a comprehensive set of attitudes, practices, and gear.

    Secondly, claiming bicycles "save lives" is comically overstating the case; cycling is fun and offers health benefits, but it doesn't exactly "save" people's lives--remember, if someone so desperately needs exercise, they can turn to numerous other activities or sports.

  9. #1509
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
    No, I don't get it... I'm not talking about helmet laws. As I've said before, helmet laws are bad, m'kay? I'm talking about helmet use by those who choose to do so.
    and yet, the very same arguments and data that people use to encourage helmet use, are used to pass helmet legislation.

    I don't believe that helmet use or even helmet manufacturers are solely responsible for the perception that cycling is dangerous.
    I agree. They aren't solely responsible. People often look at many things with a fearful eye, in particular something that is not considered "normal". Riding a bicycle in countries where riding a bicycle isn't "normal" is where helmets are used the most. Helmets are used far less frequently in countries that use the bicycle as a 'regular" event


    Helmet manufacturers might certainly use [the perception that cycling is dangerous] to their advantage, but they are not responsible for the perception of danger in cycling.
    They are responsible for knowingly taking advantage of a basic human characteristic.




    While we may have studies about what MHLs do for ridership where such nonsense is enacted, do we have any data points regarding ridership vs. helmet use where MHLs do not exist?
    Investigating Helmet Promotion for Cyclists: Results from a Randomised Study with Observation of Behaviour, Using a Semi-Automatic Video System

    A paper published this week shows helmet promotion increases the *percent* of cyclists wearing helmets. The cyclists that received helmet information and/or helmets were seen less often and fewer of them were seen at least once. That is, the Group that received helmets and information were seen the least amount of the 4 control groups. And they were seen on half as many trips as the control group.

    Also, I'd posit that it is less about helmet manufacturers doing the scaremongering and more about lawyers in the USA. The reason helmets are mandated by cycling orgs and event promoters have less to do with their beliefs that cycling is dangerous and helmets will help or some kind of conspiracy involving kickbacks from helmet companies, more to do with liability and fear of being sued by a helmet user or their estate.
    Fear of lawyers and litigation is a problem too.

    Perhaps we should solve this problem and just not ride at all? Stay in bed and die from something else?
    Last edited by closetbiker; 02-22-12 at 06:55 AM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  10. #1510
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
    While we may have studies about what MHLs do for ridership where such nonsense is enacted, do we have any data points regarding ridership vs. helmet use where MHLs do not exist?
    Most helmet use data is tied to injury/fatality data, but we do have some estimates and surveys. For the US (no national all-ages MHL), "Half (50%) of bicyclists wear a helmet for at least some trips, with 35 percent using them for all or most trips." http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traff...les/810971.pdf

    "Survey results indicate that the percent of Colorado children ages 5-14 who were reported as always wearing a helmet when bicycling increased slightly, from 40.3 percent in 1999 to 49.3 percent in 2005 (Table 1). These results are comparable to those from a national survey conducted by Safe Kids Worldwide, which indicated that 40 percent of children ages 8-14 reported they always use a bicycle helmet." http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/pp/injepi/HSbikefinal.pdf

    "Utah has a higher percentage of bicyclists who wear a bike helmet than the U.S. (36.5% vs. 20-25%)." http://health.utah.gov/vipp/pdf/Fact...0-09_FINAL.pdf

    "In Europe hardly any similar population studies have been carried out, with the exception of Sweden. The increase from 5% to 31% in the voluntary use of helmets by children younger than 15 coincided with a 43% decrease in head injuries amongst this group. Other injuries declined by 32% (Ekman et al., 1997)." http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheet...le_helmets.pdf

    "From 1988 to 2002, all categories of cyclists showed an upward trend in helmet use (p < 0.01, p < 0.001). Helmet wearing increased from about 20 to 35% among children (≤10 years) cycling during free time, from approximately 5 to 33% among school children, and from around 2 to 14% in adults. Total average helmet use rose from about 4 to 17%. However, during the last 5 years of the study period (1998–2002), none of the categories of cyclists studied showed an upward trend in helmet wearing. It is estimated that ∼30% of cyclists will wear helmets voluntarily by the year 2010, if helmet promotion activities are continued at the same level as previously. The results suggest that Sweden will probably not reach its official goal of 80% helmet use unless a national bicycle helmet law is passed. " http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/1/33.full

    "Self reported helmet use among 11–15 years olds living in the campaign area increased from 11% at the start of the campaign to 31% after five years (p<0.001), with no change in the control group. " http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...2/151.abstract (promotional campaign results in part of the UK)

    "Of the 1110 paediatricians who are active in the Netherlands, 258 answered the survey. Ninety-six per cent of the respondents ride a bicycle (68% more than once a week). Bicycle was used as a mean of transport (32%), as a recreation/sport (11%) or with both purposes (57%). When cycling for transportation, 94% never wear a helmet and 2% always wear it. When cycling for recreation, 70% never wear a helmet and 18% always wear it. The most common reasons given for not wearing a helmet were: 'I never thought about that' (43%), 'Poor appearance' (31%), 'Nobody uses it in the Netherlands' (27%) and 'Uncomfortable' (25%). A majority (91%) of the respondents agreed that bicycle helmets are effective in reducing the rate of head injury to bicyclists and that they should be advised to children (82%) and adolescents (54%)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18959572

    Paris, Boston, Amsterdam comparison (Exhibit 9) http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/bikeuse_PBA.pdf

    More here, though they're an advocacy site, so due diligence, etc. http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

    I'll try to dig up some more.
    Last edited by Six-Shooter; 02-22-12 at 07:34 AM.

  11. #1511
    Senior Member rydabent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lincoln Ne
    My Bikes
    RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
    Posts
    4,025
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Really guys in this day and age of big government nannyism, if the government found that helmets caused injury, dont you think they would outlaw them.

    This fact shoots down all the anti helmet rants.

  12. #1512
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six-Shooter View Post
    ...you've decided to attack the poster with false insinuations... You've just written a bunch of bold-faced lies...
    What I've done is offer a opinion to sudo about you. An opinion that the worth of discussing the issue with you is less than the effort of the discussion

    cycling is fun and offers health benefits, but it doesn't exactly "save" people's lives--remember, if someone so desperately needs exercise, they can turn to numerous other activities or sports.
    Right. Cycling doesn't save lives. The benefits of the exercise required to operate a bicycle cannot save a life.

    Sheesh. No wonder there's a backlash against helmet promotion.
    Last edited by closetbiker; 02-22-12 at 10:35 AM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  13. #1513
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
    What I've done is offer a opinion to sudo about you.
    So, to intentionally and publicly misrepresent someone's views and statements is to "offer an opinion." That's a sad way to try to weasel out of your rudeness.

    An opinion that the worth of discussing the issue with you is less than the effort of the discussion.
    Because I don't parrot your views, you pout or call names or mock. Classy. If you're not willing to participate in a polite, adult discussion and add something of substance, please move on.

  14. #1514
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Six-Shooter View Post
    ... please move on.
    In all fairness, you have to admit I have moved on from this discussion with you after I posted this a week ago


    Quote Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
    And here is where discussion of the issue ends; when there is no objective consideration given, and when context is ignored.
    I did post a couple of requests since that post requesting you to show injuries in context but didn't get it. This confirmed my opinion, and echoed sudos point, that the discussion (with you) isn't going anywhere.

    I hope by asking me to move on that you're not suggesting I stop posting on the subject or posting to others. After all, I've been posting on this thread since its inception years and years ago.

    Do you really think that by simply asking, I'd move on?
    Last edited by closetbiker; 02-22-12 at 07:26 PM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  15. #1515
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
    Really guys in this day and age of big government nannyism, if the government found that helmets caused injury, dont you think they would outlaw them.

    This fact shoots down all the anti helmet rants.
    So you think the testing of LSD by the government on unsuspecting citizens was a good thing?

    How about Japanese internment for everyone's benefit?

    Clearly cigarettes are still legal because they do not harm anyone (or is it because of the tax revenue)?
    Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.

  16. #1516
    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 Six-Shooter View Post
    True, but a red herring. The question is not what activities should you wear a helmet for (only individuals can answer that), but rather, if you want to add head protection while riding a bike, can a helmet offer that?
    I have no doubt. As it could while showering, walking... the question is, is that protection really necessary? As I said, for everyday cycling, my answer is no, no more than I would while walking. Others may answer differently. I have no problem with that; I disagree with their assessment (if it's a situation to what I'm facing, at any rate), but I have no problem with it.

    I've only been talking about cycling in general. I'm not cherry picking types of activities.
    I am, because I think different activities within cycling have different risks, and that matters. As I said, trail riding or racing, yes, I'd recommend a helmet. Riding down to the grocery store, I say it's overkill. Again, if you don't, that's OK.

    That's your personal opinion, but it hasn't been borne out unequivocally by the facts. It's easy to find data and studies that contradict your assertion. See the links from a few pages back, for instance, or http://www.aans.org/Patient%20Inform...%20Injury.aspx
    It has as far as I can tell. The only stats I seem to see that show cycling is somewhat more dangerous is those that don't differentiate between an urban commuter going to the grocery store and the teen bombing down a mountain; obviously they have different risks and needs. Again, driving may be driving, but race car crash statistics are probably not terribly useful to one assessing the risk of driving around town, if you see what I mean.

    I respond easily: I understand how the watchlist works and have seen articles abused in the ways I've described on multiple occasions. I've seen pages that haven't been edited in weeks or months. If you want to put faith in it, great, but I'd much rather turn to serious scholarly sources for information about anything important.
    Again, the two US, one German, and one NZ (or AU) blind study seems to not be as concerned.

    My source was the DOT Here's another with a similar conclusion, based on DOT data: http://www.iihs.org/research/fatalit.../bicycles.html (64% of fatalities at non-intersections)
    Again, I think it's beside the point anyway.

    But that's my point again: it's often easy to find (seemingly) conflicting stats. And above you label something "pretty incontrovertible" according to a specific source, when it in fact says the opposite. Be careful with stats
    Same to you.

    Indeed.

    Having been injured while engaged in casual cycling, having seen other cyclists get injured, having read new stories of individuals being injured or killed, and having read through a mountain of official statistics and scientific studies on the issue, I can say without doubt that is dangerous. Is it as dangerous as wrestling rabid wolverines on the edge of a cliff? No, but I can say with absolute certainty that you can get severely hurt or killed while cycling. And in fact, yearly serious injuries (to where a hospital or doctor are needed) are hardly rare flukes, but in fact numerous.
    And we're back to anecdotal. I have two uncles who both broke a bone because a lawnchair broke... lawnchairs are dangerous. I know many people involved in car crashes... driving is dangerous (another activity helmet use could benefit from).

    So, you assume that the stats you like are correct and others are wrong, or?
    No. Although I've seen more stats that support what I'm saying, if there is conflicting evidence, the burden of proof is on the positive position.

    Why is the burden of proof on those who say helmets are effective, rather than those who say they aren't? There's lots of scientific evidence for their effectiveness in preventing some level of serious injury and widespread support for them in the medical community, so it's not like just one lone voice crying in the wilderness.
    Because that's how logic works. The positive position shoulders the burden of proof. There is indeed plenty of proof they help with a specific degree of injury, such as minor head injuries, but there is shaky, conflicting evidence that it does any more than that (prevent concussions, brain trauma, death, etc). So yes, I agree there is ample evidence helmets help mitigate minor injury; I do not think the evidence is clear that they do more.

    Without data, that's just a supposition. What might seem obvious to most people can in fact be utterly wrong, as the history of science has shown repeatedly.
    It can be, but it very often puts you in the right direction.
    Last edited by sudo bike; 02-22-12 at 11:32 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

  17. #1517
    Nobody mconlonx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,324
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
    If risk compensation was relevant, injury rates would go up where helmets are required or use is prevalent. But cycling isn't dangerous. I know there are studies showing that injury rates don't go down where helmet laws are instituted -- do injury rates go up in such cases to validate the whole "risk compensation" hypothesis that helmet use increases risk taking?
    OK, so people took me up on the previous question, what about this one...? Any valid link between helmet use and risk compensation? Or is it just conjecture and conflation?
    I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.

  18. #1518
    Nobody mconlonx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,324
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
    They are responsible for knowingly taking advantage of a basic human characteristic.
    That's called "marketing." It's this brand new field of study people are just now learning about. Cutting edge stuff...


    Quote Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
    Perhaps we should solve this problem and just not ride at all? Stay in bed and die from something else.
    Don't be silly: riding a bike isn't dangerous, with or without a helmet, no matter what you fearmongers say.
    I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.

  19. #1519
    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 mconlonx View Post
    OK, so people took me up on the previous question, what about this one...? Any valid link between helmet use and risk compensation? Or is it just conjecture and conflation?
    There was the study that found measurable differences in other drivers' actions, and simply because of what risk compensation is we know it must have some effect, but as to whether it is detrimental to a significant degree in riders' actions, I don't know of a study that has approached that yet; the best we can do at this point is look at other similar situations and speculate. Most of my argument has been against people who refuse to acknowledge it's even an effect at all, which is empirically false. Arguing it may not be significant, while I disagree, I can respect. We just aren't yet sure exactly how this may apply to cyclists' actions. Unfortunately, I don't think people are beating down the door to study it...
    "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

  20. #1520
    Senior Member rydabent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lincoln Ne
    My Bikes
    RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
    Posts
    4,025
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The anti helmet types say------------"there was this study". That is about as believable as-----"we are from the government, and we are here to help you", and "tastes just as good as fresh perked"!!!!!

  21. #1521
    Gone.
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    509
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
    So you think the testing of LSD by the government on unsuspecting citizens was a good thing?

    How about Japanese internment for everyone's benefit?
    Yes, promoting sporting safety equipment is exactly the same as secret government LSD tests or the internment of Japanese in World War II. (You forgot Hitler, shame on you!)

  22. #1522
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,547
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
    AFAIK, no one is saying there is no place for helmets ever, some of us disagree in what degree. I absolutely think helmets can serve useful purposes for trail riders, racers, etc.
    So, you believe helmets have a strong positive benefit (in some situations).

    Quote Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
    But what most of us here are talking about, and has been stressed repeatedly, is general daily cycling, I think it's been clear that this mostly refers to commuting and such. I know I've stated multiple times than I don't think helmets are necessary for general everyday riding, and I've been careful to attach this disclaimer as often as I can, and I think most folks here have.
    Not everybody who believes that helmets provide a strong positive benefit believe they are "necessary" for general everyday riding. Certainly, ABS brakes and airbags are not "necessary" for driving either.

  23. #1523
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,547
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
    Clearly, you have a strong argument if you need to show old advertising to make a point.

  24. #1524
    Gone.
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    509
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    Clearly, you have a strong argument if you need to show old advertising to make a point.
    And no sense of humor. Both of those ads are pretty funny.

  25. #1525
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
    There is indeed plenty of proof they help with a specific degree of injury, such as minor head injuries, but there is shaky, conflicting evidence that it does any more than that (prevent concussions, brain trauma, death, etc). So yes, I agree there is ample evidence helmets help mitigate minor injury; I do not think the evidence is clear that they do more.
    The bicycle helmet manufacturers agree with you. They will not, and have never claimed, that helmets will mitigate concussion, let alone more serious injuries. A sharp contrast to the bold, unfounded claims made by others on this thread. I think it's fair to assume that said companies have been researching the issue and if they could make a credible case for helmets doing anything other than preventing cuts and scrapes they'd have been all over it.

    Obviously this is not the case and they can't make such wild, exaggerated claims for fear of being sued to kingdom come.

Posting Permissions

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