Originally Posted by Rx Rider
(Post 14240966)
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=250998
this thread is why you should wear a helmet. |
Funny about helmets, motorcyclists for years have lobbied to repeal helmet laws because they show stats that helmets while riding a motorcycle do nothing to protect the brain, yet year after year motorcyclists die due to not wearing a helmet and the EMT and the med staff will say that most could have survived had they been wearing a helmet. What's really funny is I remember when seat belts were required, there were many drivers doing the same thing, showing stats that seat belts caused more deaths then not wearing them.
It's all kind of silly the things we believe. |
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 14241826)
Funny about helmets, motorcyclists for years have lobbied to repeal helmet laws because they show stats that helmets while riding a motorcycle do nothing to protect the brain, yet year after year motorcyclists die due to not wearing a helmet and the EMT and the med staff will say that most could have survived had they been wearing a helmet. What's really funny is I remember when seat belts were required, there were many drivers doing the same thing, showing stats that seat belts caused more deaths then not wearing them.
It's all kind of silly the things we believe. |
Originally Posted by chipcom
(Post 14241838)
Like EMTs believing that they know what a result shoulda/woulda/coulda been had only the subject done X.
|
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 14241852)
You would have said the same thing 50 years ago when seat belts were required and this same subject came up about those. Sorry, but I'll take what they know about this sort of thing then you.
|
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 14241852)
You would have said the same thing 50 years ago when seat belts were required and this same subject came up about those. Sorry, but I'll take what they know about this sort of thing then you.
The perhaps most interesting about the available statistics about bike helmets is that the newer they are, the less advantage there seems to be in wearing a helmet. It also seems that with refined methods, it's possible to tell that, yes, some groups do benefit from wearing a helmet, namely children and elderly. Not the 85% found by the much-quoted paper, but still a slight benefit. I wonder if you'll read, not to speak of understand what I'm saying. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 14239600)
:cry::cry::cry:
Simple: for these sorts of sociological studies, the putative health effects of cycling can't be known with any sort of accuracy. Tweak a few parameters, select the right markers, and you can get all sorts of results. That you aren't aware of this is scary. And, all cyclists don't derive the same health benefits from cycling (many don't ride enough for to have any measurable effect). It's quite possible that the cyclists that are discouraged from riding are mostly from this group (we just don't know). What's really bizarre is that every pro-helmet study is always flawed, and every anti-helmet study is perfect. If you have to argue against helmets by arguing against helmet laws, then you anti-helmet argument is pretty weak. This is a really stupid comment. You and others make these sorts of claims against pro-helmet studies all the time. |
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 14241826)
Funny about helmets, motorcyclists for years have lobbied to repeal helmet laws because they show stats that helmets while riding a motorcycle do nothing to protect the brain, yet year after year motorcyclists die due to not wearing a helmet and the EMT and the med staff will say that most could have survived had they been wearing a helmet. What's really funny is I remember when seat belts were required, there were many drivers doing the same thing, showing stats that seat belts caused more deaths then not wearing them.
It's all kind of silly the things we believe. Now, that fact didn't stop me from occasionally telling people that their helmets saved their lives. It's embarrassing in hindsight, but frankly, you feel kind of cool when you say that to somebody, and everybody has a little shiver. Doubtless those patients went home and told everybody that "The paramedic said if I hadn't been wearing my helmet I would have died!!!" Maybe some of them even post to that effect on the internet. My bad. |
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 14242839)
Motorcycle helmets do save quite a few lives. The statistics are really quite clear about that. Seat belts too, but in that case there's a bit more to it, as they also seem to encourage risk compensation, which means that the number of accidents increased. Those hurt in the accidents were just to a larger extent outside the cars...
The perhaps most interesting about the available statistics about bike helmets is that the newer they are, the less advantage there seems to be in wearing a helmet. It also seems that with refined methods, it's possible to tell that, yes, some groups do benefit from wearing a helmet, namely children and elderly. Not the 85% found by the much-quoted paper, but still a slight benefit. I wonder if you'll read, not to speak of understand what I'm saying. :rolleyes: Sorry, but there are advocates in the motorcycle industry that can prove helmets don't work, here's one such example: http://www.forbes.com/forbes-life-ma.../0503/041.html Nor am I saying their right, just saying that for many years people proved with false evidence that seat belts caused more harm then good, then the same with MC helmets, and now bicycle helmets, next will be snow skiing...you see, that's the next helmet frontier due to rising head injuries and thus will come the doubters with their proof proving skiing with helmets won't work. The same facts you quote that MC helmets save lives are the same facts that say quite clearly state that bicycle helmets save lives, yet bicycle forums like this one always have those who don't believe the facts if those facts are against their own special interest. You can always find evidence with the miracle of the internet to support any position you want to take just as I did with MC helmets. |
... And the conclusion you draw, therefore, is that only the evidence supporting helmets is valid? That's a two-way street if you really want to be so distrusting of evidence, you know.
Playing the ol' game of "my facts count, yours don't" doesn't take the discussion anywhere further and sort of poisons the well. No point in even participating anymore if no amount of evidence can get you to change your mind. |
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 14242887)
There's at least two reasons to have more faith in the helmet-skeptical papers than the pro-helmet ditto: The first pro were funded by the helmet industry, and since then, we've probably seen quite a bit of bias in a lot of the research, bias that couldn't be detected by the authors themselves because the beneficial effect of helmets seem so intuitively self-evident. It takes a bit more of an independent attitude to go against that trend.
Actually, anti-helmet have complete-faith in anti-helmet "studies" and no-faith in pro-helmet studies. And certain kinds of studies (regardless of the position they support) have certain typical problems. For the anti-helmet camp, these typical problems magically disappear. And when someone criticizes an anti-helmet study for the same sort of problems the anti-helmet people find in pro-helmet studies (and reasonably criticize them for), you get irrational spews (like skye's). And, of course, there's bias on the anti-helmet side as well (the anti-helmet camp just doesn't see it). The basic problem is that the "skepticism" is one sided.
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 14242887)
It takes a bit more of an independent attitude to go against that trend.
|
Originally Posted by sudo bike
(Post 14243936)
... And the conclusion you draw, therefore, is that only the evidence supporting helmets is valid? That's a two-way street if you really want to be so distrusting of evidence, you know.
Playing the ol' game of "my facts count, yours don't" doesn't take the discussion anywhere further and sort of poisons the well. No point in even participating anymore if no amount of evidence can get you to change your mind. |
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 14242839)
The perhaps most interesting about the available statistics about bike helmets is that the newer they are, the less advantage there seems to be in wearing a helmet. It also seems that with refined methods, it's possible to tell that, yes, some groups do benefit from wearing a helmet, namely children and elderly. Not the 85% found by the much-quoted paper, but still a slight benefit.
|
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 14243988)
:lol::lol::lol:
|
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 14241826)
Funny about helmets, motorcyclists for years have lobbied to repeal helmet laws because they show stats that helmets while riding a motorcycle do nothing to protect the brain, yet year after year motorcyclists die due to not wearing a helmet and the EMT and the med staff will say that most could have survived had they been wearing a helmet. What's really funny is I remember when seat belts were required, there were many drivers doing the same thing, showing stats that seat belts caused more deaths then not wearing them.
It's all kind of silly the things we believe. |
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 14242839)
It also seems that with refined methods, it's possible to tell that, yes, some groups do benefit from wearing a helmet, namely children and elderly. Not the 85% found by the much-quoted paper, but still a slight benefit.
However, these figures might have changed if parents had bought correctly fitting helmets (which means regular replacements) and children had worn them correctly (which means being even less comfortable - very few adults wear their helmets right.) |
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 14243978)
You might be able to argue this but it isn't what is going on.
Actually, anti-helmet have complete-faith in anti-helmet "studies" and no-faith in pro-helmet studies. And, in general, arguing that people have to be prejudiced because they think the evidence on one side of an argument is stronger than the other, frankly, extremely silly. Lots of arguments are such that the sanity rests entirely with one side: neither Barak Obama or George Bush is not an alien, perpetual motion machines don't work, the Holocaust really happened - and a beer cooler hat won't protect you if a ton of metal hits you at 30mph. (However, one of the new - and very expensive - anti-rotational designs MIGHT have a measurable benefit if it has a strong enough shell.) As I've said before, when I started researching this issue I expected the best helmets to be reasonably effective - I didn't set out with the urge to prove that it was pointless to wear a helmet at all, just to find out which helmet to buy. Any bias I had was pro-helmet, but the evidence shows that for general use they make little to no contribution to safety. |
For reasons I cannot fathom the anti helmet clik keeps plugging away at anyone that has come forward and said a helmet saved them from injury. Why I dont know. They in effect are calling these people liars.
As I have pointed out before there are several other safety aspects of a helmet. How do they discount them. First of all they are allowed to ride in organized rides that require them. Helmets provide sun and glare protection. Helmets provide a place to mount mirrors, lights, and video cameras. I still say the anti helmet people must have been tramatize by a turtle at a very young age.:) |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 14244571)
For reasons I cannot fathom the anti helmet clik keeps plugging away at anyone that has come forward and said a helmet saved them from injury. Why I dont know. They in effect are calling these people liars.
... Helmets provide sun and glare protection. Helmets provide a place to mount mirrors, lights, and video cameras. |
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 14243996)
I'm not sure if there will ever be enough data to tell. The events are rare and data about them is poorly collected. It's this basic thing that makes being overly certain about what studies support (one way or the other) suspect.
|
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 14244571)
As I have pointed out before there are several other safety aspects of a helmet. How do they discount them. First of all they are allowed to ride in organized rides that require them. Helmets provide sun and glare protection. Helmets provide a place to mount mirrors, lights, and video cameras.
Mounting lights or a camera to a helmet adds weight in an unbalanced location which adds significant rotational forces on ones neck in an accident, making the weighted helmet much less safe than a ball cap. So it is good that you have come to terms that a bicycle helmet has the same safety as a ball cap if the user does not attach any weighted objects to the helmet, thus making it less safe than a ball cap. |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 14244571)
For reasons I cannot fathom the anti helmet clik keeps plugging away at anyone that has come forward and said a helmet saved them from injury. Why I dont know. They in effect are calling these people liars.
In reality, someone who is in accident and who doesn't incur serious brain damage, and who then ASSUMES that the helmet was responsible, is in fact merely silly and a tinge hysterical, NOT a liar. The reasoning being that such injury is in fact an incredibly rare outcome, so a lack of it is what you should be expecting, with or without a helmet. Lack of intelligence, knowledge and common sense are too blame, not (as poor 'bent assumes) deliberate deception. |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 14244571)
As I have pointed out before there are several other safety aspects of a helmet. How do they discount them. First of all they are allowed to ride in organized rides that require them.
Helmets provide sun and glare protection. Helmets provide a place to mount mirrors, lights, and video cameras. |
Originally Posted by CB HI
(Post 14244797)
Those are not really added safety aspects, other than the visor to block the sun from impacting a riders vision. And for the visor safety, a ball cap provides as much protection. The only advantage of the helmet in this case is the greater air flow over ones head and some helmets have adjustable visors that are nice.
Mounting lights or a camera to a helmet adds weight in an unbalanced location which adds significant rotational forces on ones neck in an accident, making the weighted helmet much less safe than a ball cap. Plus, yes, the rotation. Although I'd hope the attachable gizmo makers ensure these things break away relatively easily under a glancing hit. |
Originally Posted by meanwhile
(Post 14245327)
In reality, someone who is in accident and who doesn't incur serious brain damage, and who then ASSUMES that the helmet was responsible, is in fact merely silly and a tinge hysterical, NOT a liar.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:46 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.