You are utterly wrong. Even the helmet manufacturers will tell you that the protection afforded by a helmet is trivial in the face of the forces involved in being hit by a motor vehicle. Look it up on their websites.Originally Posted by gsteinb
You are utterly wrong. Even the helmet manufacturers will tell you that the protection afforded by a helmet is trivial in the face of the forces involved in being hit by a motor vehicle. Look it up on their websites.
"I'm not crazy; I've just been in a very bad mood for forty years."
If you were smarter, or perhaps correct, you would be able to engage in debate in a useful fashion.
This is what I'm saying to you, yes.
Yes, it seems more dangerous. But in fact, bicycle helmets are specced to protect against exactly the sort of fall a pedestrian might suffer, namely a fall onto the pavement from seven feet at zero speed. That is the testing standard they are required to meet, you can look it up. But what kills both cyclists and pedestrians is being hit by cars. Helmets are largely irrelevant in those circumstances.
"I'm not crazy; I've just been in a very bad mood for forty years."
Your point is that a helmet only protects against lacerations...and I'm unable to debate in useful fashion?
I always thought it was just because they had a large protrusion of some sort that wouldn't allow the helmet to fit properly!
J/k...hard to argue with your logic. I think at this point I am so accustomed to wearing helmets from motorcyles and mtn bikes, which I fell for prior to road biking, that I just feel naked without it. But I see your point.
2011 Gunnar Sport, 2008 Trek Fuel EX 8, 1998 Cannondale F500
Just because helmets don't *always* save your life doesn't mean helmets *never* save lives
Yes but metastudies show that they are only 10% effective in preventing brain injury from blunt force trauma.
You know what's even less effective? Airbags.
A 5 mph reduction in road speed from 65 to 60 mph would prevent more deaths and injury that air bags and seat belts combined. It would be even better if they dropped the speed limit down to 50 mph because it would significantly reduce emissions, reduce road noise by upwards of 10dB and decrease gas consumption on top of significantly reducing permanent injury and death from motor vehicle accidents.
The only air bags that are worth the $3000-4000 it costs to install them are side-impact head airbags.
Science and statistics, especially in public policy, are always convenient because if we actually followed research down to following every recommendation... only about 15% of the population would drive cars, we wouldn't have school buses, we'd all live in 4-story to 8-story walk-ups and the marginal tax rate would still be 30% whether we had flat taxes or not.
That was quite a high-speed accident. It's unlikely that being "good at falling" would have helped any.
In 40+mph crash going down hill, really? (A helmet isn't likely to do much in this sort of case either).
Do you really think that people's heads are hitting the road because of a few extra inches?
Last edited by njkayaker; 09-09-11 at 09:40 AM.
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
Partially correct in the first count, fully in the second.
It's a strange phenomenon seen on these forums where people are just so convinced they're right, that the only reason you could possibly disagree with them is you don't understand them. Incredulously, they continue to repeat the same nonsense, even when it's obvious that you simply disagree.
I know what my point is. You don't have to repeat it. What you have to do is make a meaningful refutation. Give it a shot, you may like it.
Anti-helmet nazi's are welcome to ride however the hell they want on their own. Just bring it on the group ride so I have less chance of having to scoop your brains off the road.
I'm not sure if it's some weak attempt at irony or if you're genuinely blind to the fact that is exactly what you're doing. In either case carry on. You've been offered examples where folks were saved from serious injury beyond protection from lacerations.
As to the car I totally agree that should it be going fast enough very little is likely to protect one from serious injury. What could help on is from an awkward fall sustained by a slower moving car where the head strikes the pavement.
Anti-helmet Nazis? In my experience, those who argue against mandatory helmet laws tend to be anti-authoritarian. Nazis? How old are you? Do you have any idea of the meaning of the words you use?
"I'm not crazy; I've just been in a very bad mood for forty years."
My sentiments exactly.
3 accidents over 29 years and never a head injury, but without the helmet my skull would probably have been pulped!
DPN
You'll have to move the popcorn machine to A&S.
There is a lovely thread there called "Helmets Cramp My Style" that is just for the purpose of discussing the pros and cons of helmet wearing.
Thread closed.
Posting Permissions
