Advocacy & Safety - Does Wearing A Helmet Save Lives.

I personally always wear a helmet when riding. Dates back to motorcycling days so I feel naked on two wheels without one.

None the less I found the Wikipedia article on bicycle helmets interesting and it raised some questions in my mind about how effective they actually are. Read the whole thing yourself and see what you think. It seems to me to be even handed but still raise some interesting questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

It kept me on my bike after I came too close to an overhead beam. That was close enough for me to say that yes, my helmet saved me from injury.

Are you asking the question, or just trying to justify your own position?

Only fools quote Wikipedia.

-Kurt

...Only fools quote Wikipedia.

The reliability of Wikipedia, compared to both other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is often assessed in several ways, including statistically, by comparative review, by analysis of the historical patterns, and by strengths and weaknesses inherent in the Wikipedia process.

Because Wikipedia is open to collaborative editing and can be edited anonymously, assessments of its reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003 (not long after Wikipedia started in 2001, see History of Wikipedia) found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly--so quickly that most users will never see its effects"[1] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities."[2]

Studies suggest that Wikipedia's reliability has improved in recent years, and it is increasingly used as a tertiary source.

An investigation by Nature magazine in 2005 suggested that for scientific articles Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors."[3] However, the accuracy and validity of Nature's research has been disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia ;)

If you fall and hit your head, obviously wearing a helmet can decrease your risk of head injury. Helmets do not, however, have any impact on your chances of falling, getting hit or having any other accident that might cause a head injury. It's really that simple.

Oh yeah, some say that wearing a helmet makes you look like a real cyclist. I won't even bother to comment on that bit of horsepucky.

Back to the original question. My analysis is strictly personal observation, not statistical. When I fell, I broke off a 4" chunk of my helmet instead of my head. It answers the question for me.

... Read the whole thing yourself and see what you think...

trouble is, too many people have preconceived ideas and can't see that there are 2 sides to every story.

If you have an open mind, some of the information may open your eyes. The promotion of helmets over the last 20 years has only given one point of view and it's been repeated so often, most people don't even think about it, they just assume that's just the way it is. The article gives more information (with reliable data) and explores a deeper look at the issue.

I happened upon most of the information listed in the article before I even knew of Wikipedia. When I read it, I thought that's exactly what I would have written, if I were to sum up what I had learned thus far.

Back to the original question. My analysis is strictly personal observation, not statistical. When I fell, I broke off a 4" chunk of my helmet instead of my head. It answers the question for me.

Actually, good point. Maybe there could be a clarification here. The title (a question) is, does wearing a helmet save lives, and the OP asks we read the wiki article and see what we think.

I'm guessing what's being asked is, based on the wiki article, does a helmet save lives, not based on personal observation, does a helmet save lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia ;)

That's like saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.

I think the basic argument is this:

For an individual, the person is better off to wear a helmet. It won't prevent all injuries but it will prevent more than it causes.

For the population, many people won't ride a bike if helmet use was mandatory, and various statistics have been amassed supporting one side or the other with regard to health benefits of cycling in general would offset the number of lives saved by helmets in various scenarios. That debate is like trying to achieve peace in the Middle East.

That's like saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true...

Hence, the winki face (and you've gotta love the validity of Nature's research being disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica!)

Still, there are 100 reference pages listed if you want to check the validity of the article and it's good to get different perspectives, don't you think?

109 references listed on the helmet page.

That's like saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.

Not quite. Wiki information is scrutinized and corrected by millions of people. I have yet to read anything on wiki that caused me to question the validity of the information given. The bible on the other hand...

This doesn't answer the question, sorry, but I'm gonna throw it out there anyway;

Helmets make riding more comfortable. They keep the sun off your head and, with a decent bill, out of your eyes. Add to that the possibility of avoiding head injury and it's a done deal for me.

A win-win situation.

But to actually answer the question, doohickie did it quite well. For an individual there seems little doubt. For a large population, it's murky.

Isn't the question about what wiki presents and not the question based on a personal stance?

Even if you have a problem with wiki, I'm not sure if there's a problem with the basic concepts presented by wiki, Criticism of current standards; new designs, if cycling risky enough to require helmets, Are helmets useful, desirable and undesirable effects of their use, looking at Time-trend analyses and case-control studies. looking at supporters and opponents of their use as well as legislation and culture surrounding them.

Looks like a window into seeing what a lot of people who have spend a lot of energy looking into the issue have seen

But to actually answer the question, doohickie did it quite well. For an individual there seems little doubt. For a large population, it's murky.

For an individual a helmet may increase the chance of rotational injuries. It may also increase the chance of the head being jolted. So it's murky for an individual too. There is no clear evidence one way or another for either individuals or populations. The population data is probably more reliable though and suggests that helmets provide little advantage.

The other questions (about the effects of widespread helmet use and their effect on individuals in the population) are separate.

So, the whole thing is complete unclear and anyone expressing certainty about it is either smokin' or blowin' smoke. If you like them then feel good about wearing it. If you don't then enjoy yourself without it. It's no one else's business.

Yes, helmets save lives. How many I do not know.

Does a helmet save more lives then learning how to ride your bike safely? Again, I do not know but suspect not.

It CAN save a life or protect from serious injury but every situation is different and some accidents are so violent the helmet more than likely not help too much.

Call me Captain Obvious.

I wear one. Although as a kid growing up no one wore helmets. NO one. I took my fair share of falls and crashes too. jumping over creeks, flying up ramps, etc.

I'm easier to break today! Hell I'm 51 now.

Yes, helmets save lives. How many I do not know.


It CAN save a life or protect from serious injury...

from the article:

Are helmets useful? Desirable effects of helmet use

No randomized controlled trials have been done on the subject. The evidence comes from two main types of observational study. Most of the literature that mentions helmets refers back to a small number of these studies, rather than itself providing primary evidence. Overall, according to CTC, the UK's national cyclists organisation,

"the evidence currently available is complex and full of contradictions, providing at least as much support for those who are sceptical as for those who swear by them."

from the article:

Are helmets useful? Desirable effects of helmet use

No randomized controlled trials have been done on the subject. The evidence comes from two main types of observational study. Most of the literature that mentions helmets refers back to a small number of these studies, rather than itself providing primary evidence. Overall, according to CTC, the UK's national cyclists organisation,

"the evidence currently available is complex and full of contradictions, providing at least as much support for those who are sceptical as for those who swear by them."


So they should get 2 people, one wearing a helmet and one not wearing a helmet and slam their heads against the pavement and see which person has the least injuries? That would be controlled. Right?

I think there are enough real cases available to determine that an injured person wearing a helmet could have died or been seriously injured if they were NOT wearing one. This isn't rocket science.

Should you wear a helmet? Yes

Does a helmet save more lives then learning how to ride your bike safely? I really don't think so, at least by my observations of the number of wrong way road and sidewalk cyclists.

So they should get 2 people, one wearing a helmet and one not wearing a helmet and slam their heads against the pavement and see which person has the least injuries? That would be controlled. Right?

I think there are enough real cases available to determine that an injured person wearing a helmet could have died or been seriously injured if they were NOT wearing one. This isn't rocket science.

No but AFAIK there haven't been any comprehensive studies, nor real world testing. Any reportable statistic is suspect unless they are all being reported and being reported using the same criteria. The bulk of the evidence on both sides of the argument is pretty much anecdotal and not much more than that, most of the so called studies that I have read are based on flawed research and flimsy evidence. Can helmets prevent injuries? Absolutely! Will they prevent all injuries Absolutely not! Until they have comprehensive testing of helmets, like they have with seat belts and other safety gear, they have no rhyme or reason to make them compulsory, they only thing they have is fear mongering.

Aaron:)

So they should get 2 people, one wearing a helmet and one not wearing a helmet and slam their heads against the pavement and see which person has the least injuries? That would be controlled. Right?

I think there are enough real cases available to determine that an injured person wearing a helmet could have died or been seriously injured if they were NOT wearing one. This isn't rocket science.

not that it matters (and in fact it really doesn't because it only involves anecdotal information) but I have had 2 people describe to me a fall that happened to each that sounded very much like the falls were almost entirely equal except one of the persons had a helmet on and one didn't. Both ended up with the same grade of concussion and one had a broken helmet and one had an extra abrasion on the forehead.

The only difference between the two was one had an abraision and one was out $80, but that's not what thios thread is about is it? It's about what wikipedia has presented and they presented CTC's position that "the evidence currently available is complex and full of contradictions, providing at least as much support for those who are sceptical as for those who swear by them." but you already knew about that and wanted to go off topic, right?

...AFAIK there haven't been any comprehensive studies, nor real world testing. Any reportable statistic is suspect unless they are all being reported and being reported using the same criteria...

off topic but related to your point,

from the helmets cramp my style thread,



not necessarily. I've been a ski patroller for six years and I've seen my share of head injuries with and without helmets.

There's little evidence to show that helmets help in the worst crashes. I'm no longer convinced helmets save lives for the following reasons.

There have been two very compelling and well received papers in the ski industry in the last three years, one, the Sugarbush Whitepaper, and the other out of Sweden (I don't recall the name). They also found that skiers with helmets were far more likely to be involved in lethal wrecks, persumeably due to the superman factor. I know I feel naked and ski more cautiously without my ski helmet.

In the former case, all injuries involving care in the US with National Ski Patrol are documented in the exact same manner on every ski slope across the country. Bikes don't have that. This yields a much stronger data set. The paper came to the conclusion that ski helmets don't offer any assistance in the types of crashes that kill skiers and they offer minimal protection for things like slip and fall concussions. Ski wrecks and cycling wrecks are very similar as are the helmets, as are the speeds, the things they impact, etc.

IMHO, the only thing a bike helmet will help with are superficial injuries and possibly penetrating injuries where you have a high force applied over a small surface area, like a skull impacting the edge of a curb. The evidence that cycling helmets save lives is largely anecdotal and when people see a damaged piece of styrofoam they assume the same would have happened to their skull.

I can tell you that despite the above, ski resorts rent helmets now on a huge percent of beginner packages because of liability concerns as well as the huge increase in revenue streams. And beginners will automatically think skiing is dangerous and opt for the helmet, even though the likelihood of head injury while skiing is absurdly low. Helmets are marketed and are, imo a self perpetuating and self-reinforcing problem.

As noted in my original post I do wear a helmet personally. I found it interesting though that there is apparently so little good evidence that they truly save many lives and that one of the biggest factors for rider safety seems to be the number or density of riders in an area, as for example in Holland and Denmark as noted in the article. Probably a matter of driver awareness as they are used to looking for bicyclists. Could also be related to the fact that most European commuter/shopping riders tend to ride at lower speeds, at least from my observations when I visited there many years ago.

As for head abrasions and such I would presume that a helmet helps in which case maybe we should go to BMX/Downhill full face helmets, the ones that look like a motorcycle dirt rider's helmet.:D Heavier and hotter however but I might pick one up for winter use.

I remember working with a bike rider years ago who did commute while wearing a full face motorcycle helmet after being hit by a car while riding. That was pre ventilated MX helmets being available but he said he would rather be hot than dead:eek:

I suspect that helmets save a few lives by their use. Mostly children.

But I suspect many, many, many more cycling deaths are averted because people who do not want to wear helmets simply give up biking.

If you are below the age of 30, you can get away with reflexes and superior healing ability. After 40 I suggest a helmet, you are much more likely to get into an accident a 20 yr old would have swerved around and missed.

Adding weight to your head can make some injuries much worse.

Hence, the winki face (and you've gotta love the validity of Nature's research being disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica!)

Still, there are 100 reference pages listed if you want to check the validity of the article and it's good to get different perspectives, don't you think?

109 references listed on the helmet page.

The Nature study *is* extremely flawed. Which means that you have to take each wiki article as you find it. And the bicycle helmet article is very good.

Apparently Britannica doesn't have a bicycle helmet article, so I can't compare them. :)

my helmet saved my life (or version i currently enjoy) 12/99....
where else will you place rear view mirror anyway?

None the less I found the Wikipedia article on bicycle helmets interesting and it raised some questions in my mind about how effective they actually are. Read the whole thing yourself and see what you think. It seems to me to be even handed but still raise some interesting questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

I'd say that wikipedia entry is good and fairly even-handed (it's slightly biased in a particular direction, in my opinion).


No randomized controlled trials have been done on the subject.
There might be ethical reasons for the lack of such studies!


I think there are enough real cases available to determine that an injured person wearing a helmet could have died or been seriously injured if they were NOT wearing one. This isn't rocket science.
I suspect that accumulating this data is much, much harder than you realize. Not only are the events fairly rare, there is no real process to collect the information in one place.


For the population, many people won't ride a bike if helmet use was mandatory, and various statistics have been amassed supporting one side or the other with regard to health benefits of cycling in general would offset the number of lives saved by helmets in various scenarios. That debate is like trying to achieve peace in the Middle East.
In the US, I suspect that the people who would not ride with a mandatory helmet law, don't ride much anyway (that is, there is little "health benefit" that would be lost). Keep in mind that no US state has a mandadory helmet law for adults. There are some localities (many in WA) that do and some state (and national?) parks do.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/helmet_laws.html

==========


not that it matters (and in fact it really doesn't because it only involves anecdotal information) but I have had 2 people describe to me a fall that happened to each that sounded very much like the falls were almost entirely equal except one of the persons had a helmet on and one didn't. Both ended up with the same grade of concussion and one had a broken helmet and one had an extra abrasion on the forehead.
So, you piss on people who present anecdotal stories and you say it doesn't matter but you use two to support your position??? If they don't matter, it doesn't make any sense to mention them! Either all anecdotal stories are irrelevant or they all are relevant. You can't cherry pick the ones you like!

...So, you piss on people who present anecdotal stories and you say it doesn't matter but you use two to support your position??? If they don't matter, it doesn't make any sense to mention them! Either all anecdotal stories are irrelevant or they all are relevant. You can't cherry pick the ones you like!

Just showing Tommyr how useless an anecdotal story is, particularly in context of the thread.

I'm sure that he'll agree now. :rolleyes:

Are you asking the question, or just trying to justify your own position?

Only fools quote Wikipedia.

-Kurt

I did not quote anything and disagree about your total condemnation of Wikipedia. Many of it's articles are excellent as I have found from looking up items in my other hobby of Astronomy and verifying them elsewhere. Did you even bother to read the article or is your post merely a automatic reaction to the mention of Wikipedia? Do you have a better source on the subject? If so then please post it.

Like everything on the internet, including here, there is little or no censorship so things need to be judged on their apparent merit, such as your response.

I also would note that I did not take a position. As I stated I do wear a helmet but based on the Wikipedia article I wonder about the effectiveness of doing so in a life threatening head injury situation.

Yawn , my helmet has definitely saved me from injury. As for other cyclists ? Well ````

The whole issue is too murky. Too many variables, too. Casual weekend MUP riders vs. skilled road cyclists vs. drunk mountain bikers. Add in rotational injury increases, risk compensation, and the whole thing gets really noisy.

I notice the risk compensation a great deal. I can tell I push things more with a helmet on, even though I notice this happening. It's pretty silly.

Context makes such a difference in how we think about things. I was coming off Foothills Parkway in the Smokies yesterday and noticed that I felt under-dressed because I didn't have pants with armor in them. Caused me to chuckle - I was riding my motorcycle. But my speed was the same or less than when I come down that route on my bicycle, virtually naked, which feels right. If I come off either one I'm in the same boat!

Can't see there's any real answer to the question. Certainly helmets will help for certain kinds of injuries under certain circumstances. These circumstances may be so rare as to present more overall risk because of the additional noise and reduction in situational awareness.

Look at motorcycling stats. Read those a bit and it's pretty clear that the two big scenarios causing serious injury and death are: 1) drunk rednecks on dirt bikes and 2) guys making a short range night-time beer run. The squids on their new Ninjas figure in there somewhere, too. Enough people lie in those categories that the real effects of protective gear on the rest get kind of murky. Certainly the big cruiser class is under represented.

What's more interesting to me is the serious crash / mile rate for different classes of cyclists. I don't have a clue how to get this information. High-mileage tourists. High-mileage performance cyclists. MUP riders. Urban commuters.

I would not be surprised if more accidents and injuries per mile occurred among MUP riders than any other use, and that helmets really help in the average low-speed MUP crash.

I did not quote anything and disagree about your total condemnation of Wikipedia. Many of it's articles are excellent as I have found from looking up items in my other hobby of Astronomy and verifying them elsewhere. Did you even bother to read the article or is your post merely a automatic reaction to the mention of Wikipedia? Do you have a better source on the subject? If so then please post it.

Like everything on the internet, including here, there is little or no censorship so things need to be judged on their apparent merit, such as your response.

I also would note that I did not take a position. As I stated I do wear a helmet but based on the Wikipedia article I wonder about the effectiveness of doing so in a life threatening head injury situation.

It's kinda funny that it seems you've be accused of something you don't/didn't do (forgo a helmet / take a stance) by someone who seems to have not read the article when all you've asked is to read the article, and give an impression of it.

Didn't I post something about those who won't read or consider the information in the article because of a preconceived stance?

I don’t know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.

Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.

;)

-Kurt

I don’t know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.

Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.

;)

-Kurt

Love it!!.:D Closed minds are empty minds.

I would not be surprised if more accidents and injuries per mile occurred among MUP riders than any other use

I sort of doubt that this is true simply because so many crashes involve cars. Of the 15 fatalities in my state last year, 14 definitely involved cars, and the fifteenth *may* have involved a car.

Not quite. Wiki information is scrutinized and corrected by millions of people. I have yet to read anything on wiki that caused me to question the validity of the information given. The bible on the other hand...

Someone already pointed out Wiki has gotten better in the past few years. I recall at least 2 cases where items were wrong or at the least misleading, both that relate to cycling. I forget the rider for one. Wiki siad he is only the second rider to win a particluar 2 of the monuments in one year. I was surprised I thought Eddy would have for sure. Turns out Eddy did, as did at least a few others. On htat one I made the one word correction. The other could be called right, but was at the least grossly misleading. The Wiki On Merckx said that if there was a white Jersey for best young rider in '69 he would have won it. True, but it implies he did not win the white in '69. It turns out that at that time the white was the combo jersey and Merckx won at least 4 of them. (For 2 other years the question is not who would have won, it is if hte jersey was awarded).

I did not quote anything and disagree about your total condemnation of Wikipedia. Many of it's articles are excellent as I have found from looking up items in my other hobby of Astronomy and verifying them elsewhere. Did you even bother to read the article or is your post merely a automatic reaction to the mention of Wikipedia? Do you have a better source on the subject? If so then please post it.

Like everything on the internet, including here, there is little or no censorship so things need to be judged on their apparent merit, such as your response.

I also would note that I did not take a position. As I stated I do wear a helmet but based on the Wikipedia article I wonder about the effectiveness of doing so in a life threatening head injury situation.

Same way I use Wiki. It is an excellent source used that way. In a few cases a Wiki article has turned out to be just about the only place I could find to get started. It then provides a few other keywords that let be confirm or deny the rest of the wiki article.

I sort of doubt that this is true simply because so many crashes involve cars. Of the 15 fatalities in my state last year, 14 definitely involved cars, and the fifteenth *may* have involved a car.

Fatality accidents are not the same as accidents. And yes MUPs often have the highest rate of accidents by any measure used. Years ago I came across a study (really wish I had kept it) where bike paths had both the highest and lowest accident rate. MUPs highest, Bikes only lowest.

my helmet saved my life (or version i currently enjoy) 12/99....
where else will you place rear view mirror anyway?

Handlebar end :p


But seriously
In response to the OP. I would say that the Wikipedia article is noticably biased in presenting the negative view on helmets. As others have said, this is a contentious issue, with rather hard drawn lines between the for and against camps. That said, it is hard to prove in general that increased helmet useage would reduce cycling fatalities. Of course specific cases can be used to demonstrate either side of the debate.
What seems absurd to me that this should have become such a big issue, and have stirred up such heavyweight political force and legislative rulings for a fringe activity. In my opinion personal choice should be allowed to determine behaviour.

For the record I do wear a helmet, though I can't really say I care for it even if it might be of benefit. I'll admit to occasionally nipping out without it on a short ride to the shops.

Ed

Sometimes even safety related things have unintended consequences. When my wife an I were living in Oregon, she was working at the local hospital in the broken necks and backs ward. During this time, the federally mandated 55mph speed limit came into effect. There was an immediate increase in people coming out of highway auto wrecks as paraplegics and quadraplegics. We ascribed this to the new speed limit.

People were driving at 65-70mph instead of 75-80mph, and were surviving the accidents as cripples, instead of dying. Not necessarily a good result. While this isn't a good argument for not wearing a helmet, it is food for thought. Be careful what you wish for. bk

Maybe I'm missing something, but the only reference to bicycle helmets saving lives on the wikipedia page is John Foresters suggestion that helmet wearing could save 300 deaths a year in the US.

As far as I can see, supporters promote the use of helmets as a strategy for preventing head injuries caused by bicycle crashes or falls. That's a far cry from claiming a drop in fatalities due to helmet use.

When it comes to legislation, I'd guess most jurisdictions are going to claim that helmets will save lives because it'd be a hard sell to say it'd be justified by mitigating injuries.

In my province, when the bill was introduced the first words out of the politicians mouth was,

"The purpose of the Bicycle Safety Helmet Act is to reduce accidental deaths and prevent permanent severe head injuries to cyclists throughout the province."

The link that joined helmets with saving lives was,

"Head injuries caused three-quarters of all fatalities and wearing a bicycle helmet reduces the risk of head injury by 85 percent and brain injury by 88 percent. Most deaths could be prevented by wearing approved bicycle helmets."

Of course the drop didn't happen, the death rate has remained the same and we can see the obvious flaw in logic and mistakes made when quoting the 85/88% figures. I don't think the legislatures would say that now, and I wonder why cops hand out no helmet tickets on separated bicycle facilities except, perhaps to meet their quota, when it's motor vehicles that kill cyclists and the intent of the bill was to save lives.

Is there any other reference on wikipedia where it says bicycle helmets save lives?

Maybe I'm missing something, but the only reference to bicycle helmets saving lives on the wikipedia page is John Foresters suggestion that helmet wearing could save 300 deaths a year in the US.

Thats a good point



As far as I can see, supporters promote the use of helmets as a strategy for preventing head injuries caused by bicycle crashes or falls. That's a far cry from claiming a drop in fatalities due to helmet use.

When it comes to legislation, I'd guess most jurisdictions are going to claim that helmets will save lives because it'd be a hard sell to say it'd be justified by mitigating injuries.

In my province, when the bill was introduced the first words out of the politicians mouth was,

"The purpose of the Bicycle Safety Helmet Act is to reduce accidental deaths and prevent permanent severe head injuries to cyclists throughout the province."

True, but that is the political way of things isn't it? The language and arguments used for a campaign or bill will be the most persuasive that can be devised by the protagonist to get their desired result.

We are not helped by a broader public perception (at least in the US) that cycling is almost certainly lethal. Things are not much better in the cycling subset - witness all the "they are out to get us" threads on this forum.

Ed

...We are not helped by a broader public perception (at least in the US) that cycling is almost certainly lethal. Things are not much better in the cycling subset - witness all the "they are out to get us" threads on this forum.

Ed

and that's part of the wiki page

"Proponents of helmet compulsion may tend to quote figures for the (large) total number of head injuries or injuries of any kind; opponents may be more likely to produce estimates for the (low) risk of serious injury per cyclist."

In reading the Hansard transcripts during the passing of the bill, there were tremendous exaggerations on the "dangers" of riding bikes and "toll" of injuries that "can be avoided"

Of course, the vast majorities of these injuries were extremely minor. The wiki page says, "Bicycle crashes and injuries are under-reported, since the majority are not serious enough for emergency room visits." This just kills me. An injury that is not serious enough, even for a parent who will over-worry about everything when it comes to their child, to seek medical attention is an injury that is a learning tool.

A wiki is only as accurate as the last person who edited it.

In several key areas, Wikipedia is so inaccurate as to be laughable. About the only thing I would trust from Wikipedia is the Fleetwood Mac discography. Everything else is a crapshoot.

Wearing a helmet seems as though it helps - though I have to wonder why it is that so many helmet riders can trot out brazillions of cases where their 'helmet saved them', invariably falling on their head more often than I fall on every part of my body combined.
Telling people that they have to wear a helmet, however, hurts.

I don't need to read anybody's research or arguments to make a decision anymore. I have no idea if helmets have or ever will save my life, but I'm quite confident that they have prevented some nasty head injuries in the past. Therefore, I will keep wearing them.



Not quite. Wiki information is scrutinized and corrected by millions of people. I have yet to read anything on wiki that caused me to question the validity of the information given. The bible on the other hand...
Do you know how many versions of the Bible there are, and how many interpretations of each version people make? Not to mention the non-Christian people who scrutinize it. But I digress, I see your point and it makes sense. Still, I have seen quite a few cases where wikipedia articles had questionable content. Most of them were opinions instead of just facts, but there were a select few incorrect facts that I have found. I only found such mistakes in my own field of expertise, of course. I did try to correct one, but it was corrected by the time I could get back to the computer that day.

The biggest reason teachers don't want wikipedia as a source is because you really shouldn't quote it. Chances are, you're actually quoting someone else's published source and don't realize it. Yes, I know they are usually anotaded, but adding one more avenue opens up more risk of misquoting and a loss of consistency.

One does have to wonder what the motivation is for those who seek to bring legislation to enforce an individual to change a behaviour that, unmodified, would only affect the individual, not society as a whole.
Traffic laws, in general are intended to keep all road users safe i.e. mandatory compliance with traffic lights. Disregard them and you risk harm to others as well as yourself. However, if I choose not to wear a helmet, my actions do not pose a risk to other road users, even if I become involved in an accident. Of course its possible that wearing a helmet in that accident might save my wife* the trouble of feeding me through a spoon thereafter, but that is a different argument far removed from traffic law.

You could just as easily argue that drivers would have great potential benefit from wearing a helmet - I wonder what studies there are on head injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents. And a big plus: At least it would stop them holding a phone instead of the steering wheel :D.

Ed

*She insists that I wear a helmet, though on the few times we've ridden together, she refused to wear one herself....

I don't need to read anybody's research or arguments to make a decision anymore. I have no idea if helmets have or ever will save my life, but I'm quite confident that they have prevented some nasty head injuries in the past. Therefore, I will keep wearing them.

and that, in a nutshell, is the best argument for helmet-wearing: personal experience and choice.


I have seen quite a few cases where wikipedia articles had questionable content. Most of them were opinions instead of just facts, but there were a select few incorrect facts that I have found. I only found such mistakes in my own field of expertise, of course. I did try to correct one, but it was corrected by the time I could get back to the computer that day.

and again, this is the point of wikipedia: if you see something that is wrong, fix it. if you can't fix it, delete it. if it does not have a citation, it is wrong. if you don't do these things, stop complaining about wikipedia -- it's not something built for you, it's something built by you.

I don't know about the whole helmet thing. Sometimes I stick one on. Sometimes not. {shrug**

But on the Wikipedia point: it strikes me that it isn't any better or worse than any other publisher. If the complaint is that any random person can make edits --- and I assume the complaint is that you don't know anything about the person making the edits --- then the same complaint applies to newspaper editors, book publishers, etc.

How many people have thoroughly vetted a publishing house before buying their books? Why not? Who's making the decisions at the publishing house? What's their background? What are their political leanings and prejudices? Really they're mostly just people with jobs who may or may not be particularly proficient in the matters about which they edit and publish (unless it's a book about editing and publishing, perhaps).

Anyway, the way I see it, you should investigate lots of sources and learn to pick up on rhetorical tricks, faulty logic, ambiguous language, etc. It's a lot of work, but there ain't a one-stop-shop of knowledge anywhere out there.