Advocacy & Safety - Is believing in helmets akin to believing in god

A point of curiosity has been raised by a couple of posts regarding the nature of skepticism (by user Trombone) and helmet life saving notions being compared to the value of believing in prayer and god imparting a chance of "saving" lives, such as described by the concept of Pascal's Wager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager), which states that if you "believe" or "wear", behaving so has everything to gain, and nothing to lose, then why not do it?


Please forgive any odd choice of options, but the poll tool only allows 10 choices so I realize some people may feel excluded, please post all comments.

My argument w/r/t helmets is this. Sure, they offer limited protection, but I find claims that they make things worse not credible for the most part. So because I can get a helmet cheap (~$15) that fits well, and it probably gets me *some* protection, I choose to use it.

I suppose this is like the Catholics in Mexico that also practice devil worship, playing both sides.

I wear a helmet because it improves my odds in many collisions and falls, no faith required. I grant that if I die because someone ruptures my spleen with their hood ornament, my helmet is not going to save me. OTOH, I broke a helmet in two when I slammed my head into a truck running light, and I'm pretty sure I would have sustained a severe injury had I not been wearing that helmet. I also got 28 stitches on the back of my head due to my chain slipping when I was sprinting without a helmet. Almost any helmet would have kept me from sustaining that injury, even a leather hairnet. If I had to pay cash for the treatment I received due to that injury, it would have bankrupted me at the time.

interesting concept! I guess I apply Pascal's Wager in this way: I believe that due to my route, riding style, traffic, local laws and environmental factors, I have very little risk of any accident, therefore I behave as though I'm not in enough danger to need a helmet.... so I don't wear one. I think that works?

when faced with a bonk on the noggin, for protection, would you choose:

a) a stiff bout of prayer
b) some reassurance about how, statistically-speaking, you really shouldn't be hurt or, at the very least, not in that way
c) a helmet.

There's no doubt there are helmet proponents that preach with the zeal of religion.

Faith (aka - extremely poor evidence) is often cited as the reason for their belief

I don't use a helmet out of belief. I use one because I was persuaded by evidence.

If you don't use one because the evidence hasn't persuaded you to do so, that's cool.

Kevin

I bought, and started wearing, a Bell Biker helmet in 1983 because it was obvious that wearing a helmet would save my life in an accident. I've been wearing helmets of increasingly modern vintage since then. Along the way I've come to question just how effective they are. I still wear a helmet because there is some usefulness, and I feel somewhat naked without it. Except when I was vacationing in the Netherlands where I did not wear a helmet. I don't think that anyone choosing to not wear a helmet is being stupid or reckless.

Speedo

I see bike helmets every day, but I still have to see god. So I believe in helmets. I believe in god because there is as much evidence for god as there is evidence for no god. If there is no god, I will be in no worse situation when I die if I had believed, but if there is a god, I will be in trouble if I hadnt believed.

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


Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.[1][2] ...As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."

Faith is often used in a religious context, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality, or else in a Supreme Being and/or said being's role in the order of transcendent, spiritual things.

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true.[5] It is the belief and the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her authority and truthfulness.[6]


soooo, because someone says it's true, it is?

soooo, because someone says it's true, it is?

Sounds as if you're describing all the self-righteous nuts here on A&S.

-Kurt

well, some nuts...

I wear a helmet, though I'm realistic about the level of protection it offers. I think there is no god, or need for one. Besides, religon cuts into the spare time available for cycling.

I once answered the front door, not realising the Jehova's Witnesses were paying their routine call :cry: When they asked if I was religeous, I responded that I was a practising cyclist :)

Those JWs annoy the hell out of me.

I wear a helmet because i'm bald and don't want scars if I hit my head on something.

I wear a helmet because my mommy told me to in 2nd grade.

I find that hair is a poor protecter of the head from injury. Helmets may not be the best, but something to dissapate the energy is more useful than nothing.

...I once answered the front door, not realising the Jehova's Witnesses were paying their routine call :cry: When they asked if I was religeous, I responded that I was a practising cyclist :)

Did they then strap on a lid and ride away?

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i250/ASIWSguitar/mormon.jpg

Did they then strap on a lid and ride away?

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i250/ASIWSguitar/mormon.jpg

That is the Mormons. The JW's show up with a child as an attempt to curb the worst verbal abuse.

Years ago (1950s) one JW showed up at the door and immediately started spouting scripture to my father, an agnostic. He had also positioned his foot so dad could not close the door. After a short interval dad opened the door a little wider, quoted back "Even the devil can quote scripture" and slammed the door forcefully enough so that if the JW had not gotten his foot out of the way rapidly he would have regretted it.:lol:

A point of curiosity has been raised by a couple of posts regarding the nature of skepticism (by user Trombone) and helmet life saving notions being compared to the value of believing in prayer and god imparting a chance of "saving" lives, such as described by the concept of Pascal's Wager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager), which states that if you "believe" or "wear", behaving so has everything to gain, and nothing to lose, then why not do it?


Please forgive any odd choice of options, but the poll tool only allows 10 choices so I realize some people may feel excluded, please post all comments.

This is hilarious. Substituting one word for another word that has nothing to do with the first word and is in no way analogous to it. Did you actually read what you linked to?

I assume by your quotation marks around the word "saving," that you are referring to Pascal's Wager in a derogatory way - probably because someone who follows the Wager would not have true faith in religion and hence would likely not be "saved" by god. I don't see at all how practicing a religious faith despite lacking belief in it, and hence possibly living in hypocrisy and sin, can be compared to wearing a helmet despite doubting its ability to save you in an accident.

The moral problem with the Wager regards hypocrisy and faith despite a lack of faith - the faith that would save you is in fact feigned by you, hence destroying the value of the Wager. As far as I know, my helmet is not endowed with its powers or lack thereof because of my faith in it. You can't just take a philosophical argument like this and apply it to something as trivial as a helmet. Sorry if I sound insulting, but I just wanted to explain clearly how your comparison absolutely fails.

That is the Mormons. The JW's show up with a child as an attempt to curb the worst verbal abuse.



Ha ha! that's true. The poor little fellow they were dragging along on this occasion looked thoroughly miffed. But then so would I if my parents ruined every Saturday morning dragging me through the streets.

There's no catagory for me in the survey...

...being a Christian who doesn't protest(ant) against the Catholic Church and who doesn't wear a bicycle helmet. ;)


Greg

This is hilarious. Substituting one word for another word that has nothing to do with the first word and is in no way analogous to it. Did you actually read what you linked to?

I assume by your quotation marks around the word "saving," that you are referring to Pascal's Wager in a derogatory way - probably because someone who follows the Wager would not have true faith in religion and hence would likely not be "saved" by god. I don't see at all how practicing a religious faith despite lacking belief in it, and hence possibly living in hypocrisy and sin, can be compared to wearing a helmet despite doubting its ability to save you in an accident.

The moral problem with the Wager regards hypocrisy and faith despite a lack of faith - the faith that would save you is in fact feigned by you, hence destroying the value of the Wager. As far as I know, my helmet is not endowed with its powers or lack thereof because of my faith in it. You can't just take a philosophical argument like this and apply it to something as trivial as a helmet. Sorry if I sound insulting, but I just wanted to explain clearly how your comparison absolutely fails.

You have missed the analogy. Helmets' life saving efficacy is a matter that is not thoroughly demonstrated through reason, some cyclists wager on it as though the life-saving efficacy is truth, because so behaving has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

For honestly devotedly religious people Pascal's wager should be ridiculous, but the inquisition, among other events, has demonstrated that religious people do not require honesty when humans pledge to god. All religious people seem to want to hear is the word.

So yes we ridicule followers who behave as those of Pascal's wager, and many helmeteers use the exact same argumentation against MHL opponents (wearing a helmet won't hurt you, so why wouldn't you, on the off chance that it will save your life?)

You say the point of PsW is related to hypocrisy and faith, but if you reread Wikipedia's lead, you will understand that PsW was a philosophical turning point for probability theory, pragmatism and their function in the decision making process.

And finally, if you wish to not see the analogy, that's your prerogative.

Actually there is a huge ****ing difference between using a helmet and believing in a deity. It's called SCIENCE!
I'm sorry but I'm more likely to take the advice of a brain surgeon over some moron who can't actually back up their reasoning behind helmets being useless.

I believe 79% of the people who take this poll are nonbelievers.

I believe cyclists who don't wear full face helmets are not true believers.

:)

Actually there is a huge ****ing difference between using a helmet and believing in a deity. It's called SCIENCE!
I'm sorry but I'm more likely to take the advice of a brain surgeon over some moron who can't actually back up their reasoning behind helmets being useless.

I've never heard anyone argue helmets are useless. The arguments I've heard are that the typical 'helmet' road cyclists wear does not provide as much protection as is touted and that typical road cycling is less dangerous than driving a car and almost as safe as walking; that wearing a helmet for one of these activities and not for the others makes little sense.

But... in matters of faith science and statistics are of little use.

Actually there is a huge ****ing difference between using a helmet and believing in a deity. It's called SCIENCE!
I'm sorry but I'm more likely to take the advice of a brain surgeon over some moron who can't actually back up their reasoning behind helmets being useless.

Except science says that you're wrong...

Board of editors - including Europe's leading helmet test engineer and a flock of statisticians - http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1121.html

Summary of research:



http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1016.html

What is the balance of advantage?

If wearing a helmet is the difference between you having the confidence to cycle (or to cycle more) or not, you should wear one! The health benefits of cycling outweigh greatly any negative consequences of helmet use.

On the other hand, if wearing a helmet makes it likely that you will cycle less, then the balance of advantage is cycling without a helmet.

If helmet wearing is unlikely to affect the amount you cycle, you may like to consider the following. Interpretation of the data can be controversial, but examination of the wider evidence from places where helmet use has become significant suggests that the following are reasonable conclusions:

* If worn correctly, a cycle helmet may afford some protection against minor, largely superficial, injuries to the head.
* A helmet is unlikely to offer protection against more serious or life-threatening injuries.
* You are more likely to hit your head in a crash if you wear a helmet.
You may be more likely to crash in the first place, particularly if a helmet makes you feel better protected.
* A helmet may increase the very small risk of the most serious brain injuries that lead to death and chronic intellectual disability.
* The likelihood of serious head injury when cycling is extremely small, and hugely outweighed by the health benefits of cycling.

In all cases you should regard learning to cycle skilfully as your most effective defence against injury of any kind.

Note: Reference to choice in wearing a helmet clearly does not apply where helmet use is mandatory.
And in other things you should know: a brain surgeon isn't a scientist - these guys are (very skilled) technicians. They're not trained in experimental method or even basic statistics. (One medically authored paper on cycle helmet effectiveness multiplied by TEN in a crucial spot.) Plus in key court cases in the UK eminent neurosurgeons ***who have actually looked at helmet performance data*** have refused to testify that wearing a helmet is likely to make a difference in an accident. Eg



http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

So in at least one case now, a
High Court has decided that the
balance of probability was, in
the matter before the Court, that
a cycle helmet would not have
prevented the injuries sustained
when the accident involved
simply falling from a cycle onto
a fl at surface, with barely any
forward momentum.
In this same case, the QC under
whose instruction I was privileged
to work tried repeatedly to
persuade the neurosurgeons
acting for either side, and the
technical expert opposing me,
to state that one must be more
safe wearing a helmet than would
be the case if one were not. All
three refused to do so, claiming
that they had seen severe brain
damage and fatal injury both with
and without cycle helmets being
worn. Cycle helmets, in their view,
were too complex a subject for
such a sweeping claim.

"In 1997, 813 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles, an increase of 7 percent over the previous year. Of these, 31 percent were riders younger than 16 years old and 97 percent were not wearing helmets." 97% were not wearing helmets. How exactly does someone come to the conclusion that more cyclists get in accidents when the wear helmets because they feel safe?

Meanwhile: Perhaps you've never heard of ThinkFirst. I do believe if that neurosurgeon were called to the stand he would have testified. And the article that you keep posting doesn't actually have any data to back up it's claims.
Danarnold: The walking is more dangerous et-cetera claim is very tired.

It's very true that helmets won't help in 100% of all accidents. Some things can happen and whether you are wearing a helmet or not you your accident can certainly be fatal if you are for example hit by a semi-truck at 60 mph. But there are plenty of times when a helmet would help and there are plenty of statistics that show this. Concussions can be avoided by helmet use and in many falls a helmet is going to take the blow for you. Many but not all is still something worth thinking about. A personal example I'll use is I was going downhill at 28 mph and hit a sandy patch which sent me sideways. I hit my head at that speed with my helmet on and I was still completely ok. No scrapes, no bruises, nothing was wrong with my head. The helmet on the other hand was pretty crunched and dented and scraped up.

...Perhaps you've never heard of ThinkFirst...

you mean the organization that is funded by a helmet manufacturer using research paid for by the helmet industry?

"In 1997, 813 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles, an increase of 7 percent over the previous year. Of these, 31 percent were riders younger than 16 years old and 97 percent were not wearing helmets." 97% were not wearing helmets. How exactly does someone come to the conclusion that more cyclists get in accidents when the wear helmets because they feel safe?


Studies on risk compensation. There is a similar effect in wearing seatbelts and using other protective equipment. It's never simple. There were plenty of references in the original Helmets cramp my style thread. Hopefully they haven't been lost.



Meanwhile: Perhaps you've never heard of ThinkFirst. I do believe if that neurosurgeon were called to the stand he would have testified. And the article that you keep posting doesn't actually have any data to back up it's claims.
Danarnold: The walking is more dangerous et-cetera claim is very tired.


I wouldn't be so quick to put all your faith in ThinkFirst. They have lots of good advice on bicycle safety, but they also make the: "85-88% of critical head and brain injuries can be prevented through the use of a bicycle helmet." claim. That's been discredited by large population studies. Helmets probably put a dent in the head injuries numbers, but it isn't 85-88%.



It's very true that helmets won't help in 100% of all accidents. Some things can happen and whether you are wearing a helmet or not you your accident can certainly be fatal if you are for example hit by a semi-truck at 60 mph. But there are plenty of times when a helmet would help and there are plenty of statistics that show this. Concussions can be avoided by helmet use and in many falls a helmet is going to take the blow for you. Many but not all is still something worth thinking about. A personal example I'll use is I was going downhill at 28 mph and hit a sandy patch which sent me sideways. I hit my head at that speed with my helmet on and I was still completely ok. No scrapes, no bruises, nothing was wrong with my head. The helmet on the other hand was pretty crunched and dented and scraped up.

But you don't know what would have happened if you hadn't been wearing a helmet. Maybe the same result. You just don't know.

Speedo

Just to let everyone know...first sign of this thread debating religion rather than helmets, off to P&R it's gonna go.

what happens when someone debates about helmets religiously?

:twitchy:

...I wouldn't be so quick to put all your faith in ThinkFirst. They have lots of good advice on bicycle safety, but they also make the: "85-88% of critical head and brain injuries can be prevented through the use of a bicycle helmet." claim. That's been discredited by large population studies. Helmets probably put a dent in the head injuries numbers, but it isn't 85-88%...

It's even been discredited by it's own authors. The authors changed the studies results after it had been shown they didn't assess the injuries between the two groups correctly. Any reference to the 85/88% reveals a gross ignorance of the study

Common sense has told me that helmets work. Common sense hasn't had anything to say about religion...

"In 1997, 813 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles, an increase of 7 percent over the previous year. Of these, 31 percent were riders younger than 16 years old and 97 percent were not wearing helmets." 97% were not wearing helmets. How exactly does someone come to the conclusion that more cyclists get in accidents when the wear helmets because they feel safe?


By comparing alike groups rather than reasoning - I use the word losely - as a statistical ignoramus.



Meanwhile: Perhaps you've never heard of ThinkFirst. I do believe if that neurosurgeon were called to the stand he would have testified.


What you believe doesn't matter. A link to a source might.



And the article that you keep posting doesn't actually have any data to back up it's claims.


Well, doh! It's a short FAQ entry. You're supposed to read the other stuff on the site once you see that expert opinion tells you that you're wrong. Do make some effort.



It's very true that helmets won't help in 100% of all accidents. Some things can happen and whether you are wearing a helmet or not you your accident can certainly be fatal if you are for example hit by a semi-truck at 60 mph. But there are plenty of times when a helmet would help and there are plenty of statistics that show this. Concussions can be avoided by helmet use and in many falls a helmet is going to take the blow for you. Many but not all is still something worth thinking about. A personal example I'll use is I was going downhill at 28 mph and hit a sandy patch which sent me sideways. I hit my head at that speed with my helmet on and I was still completely ok. No scrapes, no bruises, nothing was wrong with my head. The helmet on the other hand was pretty crunched and dented and scraped up.

Good for you. I'd wear a helmet for mountain biking too - it's one of the times it will be most effective. Kudos for wearing the helmet properly so that it didn't come off - you're in a minority.

Otoh if you hadn't been staring so hard at the speedo (28mph exactly? not about-30?) you might not have come off.

Plus I bet you were wearing SPDs or something similar. Same thing happened to me last week - but on a track where gravel had been spilt - and I just dabbed my foot and my Lava Dome and I were away. BMX platform pedals, you know. Now *there's* a safety edge. The time in my life I came closest to death was with a diesel slick on a slanting downhill bend in Sydney with a juggernaut right behind me - I'd have been in no danger at all with BMX pedals, and the pedaling efficiency loss would have been minute. Now a law making everyone use BMX pedals instead of ones that lock to fancy shoes - that would be worth passing!

Kudos for wearing the helmet properly so that it didn't come off - you're in a minority.

When I was watching the Tour de France this year there were plenty of opportunities to see close ups of Andy Schleck (http://images33.fotki.com/v1140/photos/1/1292031/6143489/rechtAndySchleckAmstel20088512-vi.jpg) wearing his helmet. I wonder how much faith Andy has in his helmet?

Speedo

We send in you and John. :p

Lord help them then.

meanwhile: It's funny that you critique someone for not searching deeper into a site whose article you post but require them to post links to you rather than researching yourself. Doesn't it work both ways?
Here is the problem with people like you, you make uninformed conclusions. I never said I was mountain biking. I actually never mountain bike. I was on solid pavement.
I'm well aware of the inaccuracies of the "88% claim" but while the numbers may be off that doesn't automatically mean that helmets then offer no help against brain injuries. Even if it came down to be closer to 50% prevention that is better than zero.
I completely understand why people are against helmet laws but to argue that helmets themselves are of no use to anyone is beyond stupidity. I don't believe you should be forced to wear a helmet if you don't want to but none of you naysays can actually back up your claims that helmets are useless.

I'm well aware of the inaccuracies of the "88% claim" but while the numbers may be off that doesn't automatically mean that helmets then offer no help against brain injuries. Even if it came down to be closer to 50% prevention that is better than zero.
I completely understand why people are against helmet laws but to argue that helmets themselves are of no use to anyone is beyond stupidity. I don't believe you should be forced to wear a helmet if you don't want to but none of you naysays can actually back up your claims that helmets are useless.

I'm not sure who you are arguing with here. Who said helmets are useless? You seem to be making the common mistake among helmet zealots that anyone who questions the value of a helmet is saying that a helmet is no use.

One of the problems that we face in the helmet issue is that many (most?) people made up their minds about helmets before really probing their usefulness. I first started wearing a helmet before any of the large population studies were done. If you reach a point where you have a very strong belief in something, it's kind of jarring when somebody comes along with some actual results that question your belief. A poster above said they wear a helmet because it was "common sense". It's only common sense to them because they have a (possibly unfounded) belief in the effectiveness of the helmet. I'm not entirely sure of the motivation of the OP, but there is a lot of quasi-religious feeling about this issue. Heck, my own motivations for wearing a helmet don't really make any sense.

It was you who pointed to the ThinkFirst site as if it was the source of all truth and beauty. Now you're disavowing what they've got on their site. You agree that it's not 85-88%, so you pull another number out of thin air, 50%, to make your point. Of course 50% sounds good, but you have no real reason to state with certainty that it's 50%. You made that up. What if it's 1%? What if it's 0.0001%? The problem is that we don't know what it is, but you have such a strong belief that it must be a big number, that you claim the mantle of SCIENCE and criticize others for questioning your belief.

Speedo

There is no similarity to the two concepts.

I believe in WEARING the helmet, simply because not doing so last October 22nd would have rendered me either a drooling idiot half-vegetable, or dead. Asphalt is harder than bone.

If you don't wear a helmet, and live a long life, good for you. Glad you enjoyed your ride.
If you don't wear a helmet, and die young, well, the gene pool is better off without you. Sorry.
If you wear a helmet, and live a long life, good for you. We are in the same boat (so far).
If you wear a helmet, and die young, sorry, don't know what else you could have done.

If you believe, or don't...it's not my business. Take it up with The One I believe will be asking you about it one day.

There is no similarity to the two concepts.

I believe in WEARING the helmet, simply because not doing so last October 22nd would have rendered me ...

here we have the foundation of the concept. Belief, in absence of evidence, based on faith.

"In 1997, 813 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles, an increase of 7 percent over the previous year. Of these, 31 percent were riders younger than 16 years old and 97 percent were not wearing helmets." 97% were not wearing helmets. How exactly does someone come to the conclusion that more cyclists get in accidents when the wear helmets because they feel safe?

This tired old stat has been cited before. Do you have a ref. to the complete study? I doubt it, because if you had you would realize how flawed it is in that it does not account for the variables that any competent study would, e.g., age, experience. The only way to make a meaningful statement about any of this is to control for age, riding ability; what percentage of riders at each demographic were wearing helmets or not. Your cherry picked quote is meaningless.




Meanwhile: Perhaps you've never heard of ThinkFirst. I do believe if that neurosurgeon were called to the stand he would have testified. And the article that you keep posting doesn't actually have any data to back up it's claims.
Danarnold: The walking is more dangerous et-cetera claim is very tired.



Your rhetorical style is so inept it is hard to take you seriously. You said "I do believe if that neurosurgeon were called to the stand he would have testified." Duh. Yes if called to the stand he would have testified. To what?! :D

Regarding the pedestrian/cycling comparison,

Here's just one (of many) quick cite from Wikipedia:

"Ordinary cycling is not demonstrably more dangerous than walking or driving, yet no country promotes helmets for either of these modes.[34] "The inherent risks of road cycling are trivial... Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled; a mile of walking must be more "dangerous" than a mile of cycling..." The proportion of cyclist injuries which are head injuries is essentially the same as the proportion for pedestrians at 30.0 % vs. 30.1 %.[35]"

I cant vote because I wear a helmet but my religion isn't listed. But as the old saying goes, "God helps those who help themselves". I believe that God may act in my behalf if I'm involved in a crash, not that he will. That's why I wear at least that much protective gear.

meanwhile: It's funny that you critique someone for not searching deeper into a site whose article you post but require them to post links to you rather than researching yourself. Doesn't it work both ways?


This is silly: I provided a link to a well-indexed site with a search engine and sufficient details on the editors/authors to show that their opinion was that of experts. If someone wanted more on a specific point he could have obtained it in seconds. This is the opposite of not providing a link at all and just stating that some un-named person connected with an organization would in the opinion of the airhead posting say X. I provided adequate linkage, the you(?) none.



Here is the problem with people like you, you make uninformed conclusions. I never said I was mountain biking. I actually never mountain bike. I was on solid pavement.


I over-estimated you. My apologies! You should definitely buy those BMX pedals.

However I'm a bit puzzled how you managed not to see that a road was covered with that much sand - my grey pebbles on a grey pebble road on a grey day I can excuse, but you do seem to have been rather a muppet. Like I say, I over-estimated you - sorry!



I'm well aware of the inaccuracies of the "88% claim" but while the numbers may be off that doesn't automatically mean that helmets then offer no help against brain injuries. Even if it came down to be closer to 50% prevention that is better than zero.


Because someone has said helmets provide an 88% benefit and they were wrong you can't then conclude that the benefit was almost that high! The balance of actual valid studies is exactly what I quoted in the source you object to (on the grounds that it required you to perform the painful task of reading more articles on the site if you wanted to know more) - i.e. that helmets help somewhat in a low risk accident, probably make accidents more likely, and probably make bad 'uns badder.




I completely understand why people are against helmet laws but to argue that helmets themselves are of no use to anyone is beyond stupidity.


I'm sure it must seem that way to someone too lazy to check sources. Lazy and stupid people like the universe to be simple - it's the only chance they have of understanding it.



I don't believe you should be forced to wear a helmet if you don't want to but none of you naysays can actually back up your claims that helmets are useless.

My dear fellow - ***Europe's leading helmet test engineer says that you're exactly wrong, based on decades of work testing helmets.*** You were given a link to a site with his work and you were too lazy to read it.

Ok lets ignore traumatic brain injuries, 60 mph truck accidents etc etc.

Most bike accidents are minor falls that don't result in any sort of major injuries. That said, head wounds are bleeders, they are uncomfortable. Ever try to sleep comfortably with 28 stitches in the back of your head? Not fun. I don't know about you guys but I don't want that and its WAY more likely for me to have a small stupid accident that will result in a really annoyingly uncomfortable injury that can be completely prevented by having that piece of foam and plastic on my melon.

Thats why I wear it, and I feel if you don't you're dumb.

But how many of those small stupid accidents cause head injuries, helmet or no helmet?
I've been riding for over 4 decades, helmetless for the most part, and what strikes me as dumb are people who think other people are dumb because they don't look/dress/act/fear the same as they do.

The 2 times in recent memory I had a stupid accident, one was riding a mountain bike, I missed a log by 1/4 inch with my helmet. If I had hit it, it would have created a nice gash if I had no helmet. The other was going over the bars during a race, and that one i hit my head very lightly on the ground, don't know if it would have caused an injury or not.

Point being with both its simple and cheap enough to wear a helmet, and I'm glad I did. Also Im a firefighter and prefer to bring you home to your wife and kids with everything intact, instead of with a hole in your head. Head injuries can get real bad real quick, and I'm NOT talking about the brain damage kind. I've seen the simplest stupidest injuries turn into long term problems for people, I just can't see any reason you wouldn't take this simple form of protection. Do you gain anything by not wearing one aside from not having to comb your hair at your destination?

So IMO its your perogative to do whatever you want, but its my perogative to think youre stupid to risk your health for absolutely nothing.

The 2 times in recent memory I had a stupid accident, one was riding a mountain bike, I missed a log by 1/4 inch with my helmet. If I had hit it, it would have created a nice gash if I had no helmet.

I think people who are incapable of understanding the concept that they can't know what would have happened in an accident if they hadn't been wearing a helmet are dumb.

Speedo

I think people who are incapable of understanding the concept that they can't know what would have happened in an accident if they hadn't been wearing a helmet are dumb.

Speedo

Try hitting your head on a solid log from 5 feet in the air, let me know what happens.

May not be able to tell exactly.. but its pretty obvious to anyone with an IQ above 52 that it wont be fun.

Fair enough...then it's my prerogative to think you're stupid for thinking cycling is that much of a risk that you need a helmet to do so. :beer:

FYI, at less than a quarter inch high, I hardly worry about combing my hair. ;)

I have way too much hair then! Its like a 2nd helmet ;)

I wear a helmet, though I'm realistic about the level of protection it offers. I think there is no god, or need for one. Besides, religon cuts into the spare time available for cycling.

I once answered the front door, not realising the Jehova's Witnesses were paying their routine call :cry: When they asked if I was religeous, I responded that I was a practising cyclist :)

That's awesome.

My roommate saw them walking towards the house one day and cranked up the gangsta rap he had playing on the outdoor speakers, they turned around and headed for the next house. The first thing he said to me was "hey!! I know how to make the jehova's leave us alone!"

That's awesome.

My roommate saw them walking towards the house one day and cranked up the gangsta rap he had playing on the outdoor speakers, they turned around and headed for the next house. The first thing he said to me was "hey!! I know how to make the jehova's leave us alone!"

dangerously close to p&r... i'm sure there's a monster how-i-beat-the-jw's thread there.