Originally Posted by corrado33

... However, wearing a helmet makes BIKING more dangerous. They sited a "study" (I haven't read it.) where they found that cars tend to pass helmeted bikers more closely than non-helmeted bikers, increasing the risk of getting hit.

This is one of their conclusions.
Research has failed to show any net protective value of bike helmets.
...

Originally Posted by corrado33

Alright guys.

Let's take a step back and try to discuss this without resorting to insults or emotions. I don't care who started it.

Originally Posted by corrado33

Let's try to move this thread into a direction where we post studies and rational, unbiased, websites on the problem at hand. (Or at least websites that admit their biases.)

I'll start.

Here's the study that EVERYONE and their mother get's the helmets are 85% safer statistic (even though that's not what the study says.)

https://www.med.illinois.edu/m2/epid...ctions/3-5.pdf
Hopefully you'll be able to see it, since I'm at a university I have better access than most. If you actually bother to read the study more than the abstract (and you have any sort of experimental training.) you'll see that the study was conducted poorly and the conclusions that were drawn were...dubious and a bit reaching. Many sites agree with me on these points.

Now, here's a safe cycling website discussing helmet use and also has a few notes about this study further down the page.

https://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html

Some of the interesting things on this page.

Helmets DO make falls a bit safer. However, wearing a helmet makes BIKING more dangerous. They sited a "study" (I haven't read it.) where they found that cars tend to pass helmeted bikers more closely than non-helmeted bikers, increasing the risk of getting hit.

This is one of their conclusions.
Research has failed to show any net protective value of bike helmets.

We all have opinions strongly laced with emotions and experiences. Let's try to keep those out of the discussion and read what scientists and people more level headed than we are have to say.

EDIT: So I don't seem biased, here's a site advocating for the USE of helmets. They DO admit their bias however.

Should I Wear a Bike Helmet?

Originally Posted by Tiglath

. . . Mod edited out deleted post . . .

Originally Posted by wphamilton

I have to more than a little skeptical, both about their conclusion and about the study. Your cited page linked to this press release about the study.

My reasons:
* no link was established between the closer passes and greater likelihood of accident
* The difference was only three inches, which not only may be insignificant but also may be within the margin of measurement error. For example, most people wobble that much.
* the average passing distance was 4.4 feet for cars, more than 4 feet even on the "close" passes. It is more than dubious to claim that the "close" 4-foot pass increased his danger.
* He was struck twice from an exposure of only 2,500 passes. Clearly, he's doing something wrong.
* There was no control in his experiment, and only one rider
* His conclusions are unwarranted. “This study shows that when drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin for error they leave is affected by the cyclist’s appearance,” said Dr Walker. He has no reasonable basis to assume that the passing distance is a deliberate margin of error, nor that it is affected by appearance.
* Another error, "By leaving the cyclist less room, drivers reduce the safety margin that cyclists need to deal with obstacles in the road" He assumes without grounds that the three inches less space reduces what cyclists "need" to avoid road hazards.
* The most egregious mistake "Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place.” which was not established, nor even suggested by his results
* He continues with stereotypical reasoning without offering justification

** and finally the study has been refuted in peer review, for example
Bicycle Helmet Wearing Is Not Associated with Close Motor Vehicle Passing: A Re-Analysis of Walker, 2007
"After re-analysis of Walker's data, helmet wearing is not associated with close motor vehicle passing. The results, however, highlight other more important factors that may inform effective bicycle safety strategies."

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

...more broken promises, I bet.

Originally Posted by Tiglath

...It merely criticize a BEHAVIOR, not people. Which is the right thing to do. People's arguments are game and can be demolished if you can, but people themselves must be respected just as the way you expect to be. Learn the difference.

Originally Posted by Tiglath

It's not your behavior that is offensive, it's your smell.

Originally Posted by Tiglath

I look forward to not talking to you again.

Originally Posted by wphamilton

I have to more than a little skeptical, both about their conclusion and about the study. Your cited page linked to this press release about the study.

My reasons:
...
** and finally the study has been refuted in peer review, for example
Bicycle Helmet Wearing Is Not Associated with Close Motor Vehicle Passing: A Re-Analysis of Walker, 2007
"After re-analysis of Walker's data, helmet wearing is not associated with close motor vehicle passing. The results, however, highlight other more important factors that may inform effective bicycle safety strategies."

Originally Posted by tractorlegs

Ladies and gents, a reminder that the Helmet Thread is subject to the same rules as the rest of the forums. Yeah, it's rough, but we cannot tolerate personal insults. Keep it objective and no more personal attacks. Thanks - -

Originally Posted by tractorlegs

Hahahahahahaha (snort) hahahahahaha - - I'm laughing so hard you made me snort

3A you'll never get rid of me, I know where all your holes are

Originally Posted by Tiglath

My take with strangers is: You treat me well, I treat you better. Try to rain on my parade, I piss all over you. Any questions?

It has served me well and it fits the Internet to a T.

Kind regards,

Tiglath

Originally Posted by Tiglath

It is not an easy methodology to do it right, but it's the only way to get reliable results.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

...hey, didja take the time to watch that jetbike video on the prior page ? That baby just went to the top of the Christmas list.
I think all I need is a cargo bike, a propane bottle, some kinda thruster control throttle, and a half a pint of vodka (courage).

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

...not a moderator here, actually one of the regular offenders. You might want to rethink this, but maybe not.

Originally Posted by rydabent

This is the forum of the worlds greatest cyclist known to man. They never crash and according to them never will. And-------------even if they do they will never hit their heads.

Originally Posted by MMACH 5

Real-world studies are fairly useless in regard to helmet use. Two reasons come to mind, right off the bat.

1. If someone has one of the rare crashes in which there is a head-strike and a helmet protects them from injury, they will not go to a hospital or report it to anyone. Effective helmet occurrences don't get calculated into the studies.

2. If someone has a crash while not wearing a helmet and they don't have a serious injury, they will not go to the hospital or report it to anyone (this includes the billions of people in Asia and Europe cycling without helmets. They have crashes too.) So the largest majority of bicycle crashes are never reported.

Only crashes with serious injury get calculated into any real-world studies. Not exactly reliable statistics there.

Originally Posted by corrado33

I guess I should make a little box with a long range distance finder that saves a number into memory every time a car passes, then compare results with/without a helmet. (My outer appearance doesn't change much from day to day.)

And I'd have to attempt to ride the EXACT same line every day.

Honestly, the whole idea is easy enough that I may just try it.

EDIT: Even though I mentioned an article that a few of you here have shot down (it's fine, I didn't even read it.), there are many other pieces of evidence on that page I posted from bicyclesafe.com (or whatever the link was.)

Another argument is that a helmet makes your head effectively bigger, meaning you're more likely to hit your (now bigger) head on something.

Another argument is that helmets reduce your ability to hear cars approaching from the rear. I can attest to this problem. I can hear much better without a helmet on.

Lastly, on that same page, they have a paper written (not peer reviewed) by someone at the "Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation". This paper brings a lot of data together regaurding injuries before and after helmet laws were introduced. It's an interesting read, and seems pretty unbiased. It seems like the main point is to disprove claims like "Helmets make cycling 85% more safe." Claims born from idealistic interpretations of scientific results.

Originally Posted by Tiglath

Good observation, but that does not stop people over-analyzing something that can be decide just by thinking about it.

There is an inherent risk of falling when you use only two wheels or two feet and must keep your balance at all times. Walking speeds do not present a great risk, but cycling speeds do.

When falling unexpectedly you simply don't know how it is going to be. You may have fallen many times with minor scrapes and the next time break your neck.

It mistifies me the way some people think. They think that if flipping a coin many times and getting only tails, means that a head will never appear. When in fact every flip is independent of all others and has the same odds.

The fact that you have cycled for 50 years without serious injuries, offers absolutely no guarantee about tomorrow. It does say that that the part under you control you do well, being a competent rider and choosing where and when to ride judiciously, but it makes no difference in the parts you do not control, like what others can do to you and the luck you will have.

Originally Posted by MMACH 5

I am a helmet nanny. I've had two crashes that involved head strikes. In one of those, I'm fairly certain that the helmet saved me from more severe injury.

Your implying that those who don't choose to wear a helmet are somehow incapable of thinking and your mistification at their lack of reason is insulting. So far, I'm afraid you've made only emotional pleas and done little for logically arguing a pro-helmet theory.

Originally Posted by Tiglath

Here we go again, putting enough words into my mouth (which I did not write) until you have a case against me. It's a grotesque rhetorical device. Is that all you can contribute?

You should pay more attention to the the thread. A few post back a fellow stated that he sees no need for a helmet because in fifty years or riding he never hurt his head.

His implicit argument is that fifty years of safe riding mean somehow that he has better odds of not having accidents in the future, and I pointed out that this argument is fallacious. At no point I said this guy is incapable of thinking. And yes it mystifies me because most people don't believe that their future luck depends on their past luck. So bloody what?

If you choose to see insults where none can be found, that is entirely your outlook, and has nothing to do with me. I see how victimhood looks attractive to many for its perks, but equating disagreement, even mystified disagreement, with a verbal attack is inane.

Originally Posted by Tiglath

Good observation, but that does not stop people over-analyzing something that can be decide just by thinking about it.
...

Originally Posted by Tiglath

...
It mistifies me the way some people think. They think that if flipping a coin many times and getting only tails, means that a head will never appear. When in fact every flip is independent of all others and has the same odds.
...