chipcom 

I don't care if he is Gunga Din, the best he can do is speculate. At least you seem to finally realize that in this response, because you used the word "could" instead of "would"

Glad some guy on the internet could knock some sense into you.

chipcom 

well shucky darn, I guess I am a failure being an organ donor. 40+ years riding in traffic, still stingy as Scrooge with my organs. Better send in them ghosts. I prefer Ken Kifer as the Ghost of Cycling Past...but hopefully some cute lil honey for the Ghost of Cyling Present?

UberGeek

Ok, for sake of argument, let's say it's a 50% chance that it would have prevented the fatal injury (It's most likely closer to 90% or so, given the type of injury, location of impact, and speed of impact).

A 50% chance of survival is MUCH better than a 0%.

rydabent

I really wonder, how many people on this forum really think about their helmet after they put it on and are riding?

chasm54

What I said was that if one of our new contributors read a sample of the hundred pages in this thread, he'd find a host of reasons given for why not to wear a helmet. If you want mine, all you have to do is read my posts. Towards the start of the thread you'll find a few of those, or you can simply scroll up and read my more recent contributions.

UberGeek

I don't... Once it's on, I forget I'm wearing it. Then again, mine is properly fitted, so it doesn't feel like I'm wearing anything.

rydabent

chasm

Well-----------maybe you could distill the host down to 3, would that be too much trouble.

chipcom 

I got no problem with that. My problem was with this notion that this guy or anyone else could predict the shoulda, woulda, couldas with certainty.

"a helmet can protect your head from injury" - true statement

"a helmet will protect your head from injury" - not so much

"a helmet might have saved <name here>" - true statement

"a helmet would have saved <name here>" - not so much

chasm54

Yes it would. Why would I repeat myself to save you the bother of looking for yourself?

I-Like-To-Bike

"Found effective"? Effective at what? Who measured what? Or is this claim of "effectiveness" just some guy yapping on the Internet? I suspect so given the following rhetoric.

Definitely the mark of some smug guy on the internet who likes to yap nonsense.

UberGeek

From case research from the ER at Darnall Army Community Hospital as reducing the seriousness of head injuries that were incurred since it's enacting (Army wide, BTW).

It has had similar findings across army installations, that helmet use does reduce the seriousness of head injuries sustained; and does NOT reduce the numbers of cyclists (Or runners, since they are required to wear reflective material, ie vest or belt); and it doesn't reduce the numbers of motorcyclists either.

The military has a neat-o little feature with it's case studies: All cases of accidents occurring on post are REQUIRED to be reported to the medical staff there. So, we eliminate the "well, non-helmet users just don't go to the hospital", because all of them need to be seen, or at least reported to the DoM.

It was also found that reflective vests reduce the number of accidents occurring, for both bicyclists and motorcyclist on military installations. Again, since all accidents have a single reporting site when they occur on post, it eliminates many of the variables from such case studies.

So, you'll find it's not much "yapping on the internet", and more seen and read the research behind the mandates put down from the Department of The Army.

Take it for what you will. I invested at least $80K for my brain. So, a $35 helmet is cheap insurance. If you don't value your head enough, fine.

Speedo

I think I'm formulating a corollary to Godwin's law for helmet forums. When on the ropes in an internet argument, helmet evangelists always appeal to Darwin.

Interesting. Could not would. You're coming around weedhopper...

Speedo

UberGeek

Formulate what you will. People who value the location of their brain being inside of their skull takes steps to keep it's location there.

smh... I love internet medical experts...

Speedo

I made no claim of medical expertise. I pointed out the impossibility of knowing the outcome of an event had the pre-circumstances changed. No need for medical expertise for that.

Speedo

Speedo

Oh, I missed this one. You ARE coming around.

What if it's 1%, or 0.5%? You don't have any idea what percentage it is. We do know that it's low form the mandatory helmet studies. Everyone needs to make the helmet decision for themselves. To weigh the lowish effectiveness against the costs. We make these risk reward decisions for all aspects of our daily lives. Why it is that people who make a rational decision not to wear a helmet are vilified and called organ donors is a mystery to me.

Speedo

chipcom 

This is such horsepucky. If it were true, you'd be wearing a helmet on more than just a bicycle. But you don't, so please tone down the over-the-top rhetoric before I begin having flashbacks to my days in politics.

Six jours

If he'd drowned, would you then decide swimming is a very dangerous pastime and insist that everyone always wear a life vest in a pool? Or would you view it as a very unfortunate but isolated incident?

Six jours

When I was a paramedic there were several occasions when I told people they'd had their lives saved by their helmets. Of course, just like you and your wife, I had absolutely no training in understanding how (or if) helmets worked, so was just talking out of my ass.

Six jours

For the same reasons you don't wear one while walking, most likely.

UberGeek

Sure there is. When a expert trauma surgeon sees the point of impact, they can make a very close guess as to what would have saved a life.

And, I never claimed that mandatory helmet laws should be enacted. I'm not sure how calling someone and organ donor is "vilifying" them. Organ donors save lives.

I wear a life vest when on open waters; in a car I wear seat belts; when shooting I wear safety glasses; when hunting, I wear blaze orange; when I was in the military, I wore a k-pot; when I'm out jogging/walking I wear a reflective band; when working with sheet metal I wear gloves; when soldering, I wear goggles.

I tend to use safety equipment. I don't care if others don't. Again, natural selection works well.

No, but he'd had drowned in open water, I'd advocate life vests while on open water. "Dangerous" is a matter of risk levels vs. acceptable risks.

If he'd drowned in a pool with no lifeguard (Or, at the very least a second person there), I'd advocate using the buddy system (Always take a friend).

It's a common sense approach to safety.

It's funny, this same argument goes round and round in the motorcycle groups too.

I think instead of eschewing helmets as "dangerous" to use, we need to engineer better helmets (Like, with slid skins to reduce torsional effects, or better crush padding).

UberGeek

While walking, your speed of impact is most likely much less.

Level 2

I'm with you on the helmet thing but you're not going to convince these guys/gals. They will rely on the law of large numbers to justify their position everytime. In your father's case the law of large numbers didn't matter because he was one of the exceptions. My condolences. Many on this thread decide to take increased risk and you and I decide to mitigate that risk. The thing that I still don't understand/believe from the anti-helmet crowd is the "downside" of helmets. Bicycle helmets do not decrease range of motion or line of sight. They are very light weight, have excellent air circulation and aren't priced out of reach for most people. Is it just a vanity thing?

UberGeek

Funny enough, I don't believe in mandated helmet usage. I believe everyone should accept the risks, and decide for themselves what is acceptable risk levels.

Myself, I don't accept the risk of an easily preventable injury. So, I wear a helmet. I don't accept that risk for my children. My wife, she can make up her own mind.

Everyone on this forum, and every cyclist on the road? Make up their own minds as to the acceptable risk levels of wearing vs. not wearing a helmet. We don't legislate shooting glasses, or safety goggles for hobbies, so we don't need to legislate helmet laws.

There are some issues with wearing a helmet, such as torsional injuries, which every accident involves. However, torsional injuries tend to be more treatable than objects embedded into skulls, or serious skull fractures.

And, legislating helmet use does, in some circumstances lower ridership. But, in others, it doesn't (Such as mandated helmets on military installations). There's no "right or wrong" answer here, unfortunately.

Level 2

Self realization is empowering isn't it? Don't worry dahut, if you and I were on a group ride and you hit your head without a helmet I would call 911 for you at least. Then I would post the anecdotal story here preceded by "He would have been saved if..."

Just out of curiosity, what would metric would you recommend I use to determine idiotic behavior rather than my own judgement?

Level 2

Ditto. See my post(s) on page 99. I disagree with mandatory laws on helmets but I still don't get the haters that try and convince us not to wear them.