Except that it can be clearly proven that smoking damages lungs. You're assuming that by simply wearing a helmet, it protects your noggin. This hasn't been clearly proven. In fact, there is evidence that when helmets are worn, injuries increase.

No. No I don't.

Or highly likely.

Or perhaps the people claiming that helmets are effective should be required to explain why fatal crashes have doubled.

Aw, I don't remember the exact figure, but it's around a 5% increase.

However, the fatal crashes in pro cycling typically happen at speeds that are very high, and a difference between 60 km/h and 63 km/h is unlikely to make that big a difference.

Edit: What I wrote aboute "increased speed" referred not to the increased speed of the pro races but to the difference in the effect of a helmet at 20 km/ respectively 60 km/h. Sorry about the confusion.

That's not what I "required". I tried to show you that you offered no explanation, and in light of that, I offered an alternative, plausible explanation which is in line with what we know about the capacities and drawbacks of helmets. I have now also explained why it probably doesn't have anything to do with the speed. As for the number of crashes, I have no idea. But look at older footage of the Tour, the Giro etc. Plenty of crashes.

(Or look at the Youtube-video I linked to showing Fuente's descent. You may remember that he and Merckx crashed at one time at high speeds.)

That's what I've been saying all along, those that don't wear helmets will die, it's just natural selection at work...those that are dumb will die off eventually leaving only the higher IQ people. So I'm all for those people not wearing helmets, go for it!

Yes. It says something about how we should approach statistics. Have you for just ONE moment considered that the reason might not be that it's because they're intelligent but because they typically belong to a social class with a generally different life style and different risk assessment (AND have bought into the myths about the life-saving helmets)?

Beautiful parody :D

You should look at the numbers of cycling fatalities, specifically what portion occur because of collision with a motor vehicle. The risk is significantly different. Even if it was the only difference (which I don't believe it is) it is a very significant difference.

Ah, you see you missed my point, and that's my point.

Only somebody completely clueless about average speeds in the TdF could post something that stupid.

I wear a helmet because it's law in my city and makes me feel a bit more safe, psyche-wise at least. It could be useful someday, or block my view from some imminent danger coming from the side some other day, who knows.


However, it'll do pretty much nothing, should a truck decide to run over my torso. Or my head, for that matter.

/thread.

Unlikely.

:roflmao2:

First approach would be to ask the poster of the snippet of helmet-IQ "info" to provide a reference a little more substantial than the vague and unsubstantiated "Studies show..." It takes very little IQ to post rumors and fabrications about "studies" and even less to believe them without question.

I'll throw this into the mix from another thread:

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment...4&d=1341533985

His "helmet was absolutely smashed" but his only injury was a broken left leg. And to answer the question I had, no, that's not a pedestrian crosswalk; it's a dedicated bicycle path.

While there is a lot of debate about the methods used to determine helmet safety, this is a pretty clear example of a helmet at least helping prevent a more serious head injury.

It may be clear to you that the picture confirms your pre determined conclusion/opinion that smashed helmets mean serious head injury without.

But thanks anyway for posting the URL for the thread. I don't normally read anything on that list. It was interesting and provided some good/useful information about insurance coverage limitations.

it is a clear example of a circumstance in which the helmets limits have been exceeded (those limits are exceeded beyond simple falls - helmets are not intended for impacts with motor vehicles)

As much as people would like to thnk otherwise, once a helmet has exceeded its limits, it can't help

I tend to think it's a perfect example of a helmet doing what a bicycle helmet is designed to do. The rider is thrown from his bike, goes upside down and lands on his head. Is this not basically the standard of which bicycle helmets are tested. That being, dropped upside down from a few feet. The rider says he suffered no head injury, yet the helmet was destroyed. I'd say the helmet did it's job.

A helmet is tested by a simply drop only. It is not tested by a drop that involves an acceleration outside of the force of gravity acting upon the drop.

A helmet is destroyed when it passes it's maximum capacity. This happens at far lower forces than most people think.

I agree, bicycle helmets have limits of protection and one would provide little to no protection if your head were to bounce off the windshield of a vehicle at 35 mph, or even much less perhaps, but won't you concede that in the subject crash, the helmet probably provided some measure of protection considering the rider suffered no head injury?

I think it's reasonable to expect a helmet to protect within the area tested (1 to 2 inches above the bottom-most portion of the helmet - a very small area indeed) up to it's tested capacity (a straight line, linear blow up to 12mph).

But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the director of the largest facility in Europe that tests helmets to make sure they meet standards:

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

Or, apparently similar to a bicycle rider that is struck by a motor vehicle broadside at low speed, where the rider is thrown inverted and strikes his head on the ground.

not really. Passed it's capacity, a helmet bottoms out and can offer no more protection. Cyclists survive such impacts without helmets all the time. The presence of a broken helmet is no proof of anything other than the helmet passed it's limits

I know someone that put their head through an SUV windshield. Their jaw and some teeth were broken. Nothing else. I know someone else that was struck from behind and somersaulted over the vehicle onto their head. Scalp lacerations were the only result. Obviously the fact that were both carrying mastercards in their wallets protected them. Wouldn't you concede that?

You can't be serious? Show me some pictures of how they had their heads up there ass at the time of the accidents and maybe and I'll concede that the card in their back pocket may have provide some protection to their heads.

I'm going out on a limb (the one that supports a head) and I'll say that a head covered with some styrofoam will have less damage then one without if it meets a hard surface (concrete ,asphalt, car, tree). I've watched them drop eggs off two story buildings, and the ones in some sort of packaging tend to do better. Doesn't make sense to argue that point. The point most non-helmet people have is that they've chosen not to use one when they ride in low risk situations.

safety IS the reason I don't wear a helmet. the noise a helmet creates makes it impossible to hear anything else. faster than 40 mph and it's just one long LOUD whistle. 50- 60 mph and hearing loss would be a larger concern. you can argue how a foam hat can save lives all you want, but I'm not eliminating my second most used sense for safety, for safety equipment.