I actually would like to know what makes the anti helmet zealots tick. I have one theory----they are the hairy chested types that want to project an image, but really know they should be wearing a helmet.
So they post all the anti helmet diatribes that become a sounding board for like types. That way they are seeking and find reinforcement of their flawed judgement.

You want to make this all about the "good news" quote.

All I'm trying to point out is your misleading citation. Publicist was playing this off as "good news" when he was still alive -- you want to make this out as if the publicist was saying this is good news after he died. Which is so obviously not the case, based on the link you provided.

But it is typical of the way the bare-head brigade enjoys misrepresenting citations, studies, pulling things out of context, etc.

So you also support misrepresentation of quotes from legitimate sources...?

Seriously?

Here's the full quote you clipped:

"In other words, they are not saying quite what you say they are saying; rather, they are disputing the positive effects of mandatory helmet laws, which most agree with...

How many cyclists die, world-wide, any given year, due to helmet induced rotational brain injuries...?

He does that frequently.

No one has any idea. It's a speculated problem. There isn't any evidence that shows it occurs in the real world with any sort of regularity. And many of the anti-helmet camp don't appear to have any problems with helmet use when mountain biking. I guess there's a magic effect that doesn't cause rotation injuries mountain biking.

I keep wondering about the rotational injury thing and it seems it would have a bigger affect the faster you were going when it occurred.
going 10 mph doesn't seem there would be enough force to worry about, where as 40-50 would worry me. but then at those speeds the limits of the helmet's protection have been exceeded. I would argue the faster you go the less you would "need" a helmet, at least the beer cooler variety. I wouldn't mind wearing a heavier, hotter, uglier helmet that worked. it's why I wear one in the winter when I have to go slow.

does anyone else notice how many children ride with a helmet blocking their vision or off to the side, beret style because the straps are so loose? I used to stop and ask the parents if I could adjust them for them, but no more, when the kid falls off the bike the parents will praise the helmets and their wise decision to use them. I won't have to hear it, so I probably shouldn't even care.

Read it again big boy. The publicist assumed his helmet prevented "long-term damage", when it didn't. The "good news" was based on an assumption that was wrong. It wasn't "good news" at all.

My post (and link) was all about the whacked-out logic people have about helmets, which is all about the "good news" quote. I didn't misrepresent it.

First of all,
definitely helmet on every ride (unless you are riding on your trainer in the living room)
Same way you put your seatbelt on in a car.

Good helmet too. Not an expensive one (that is not the point here) but safe and comfortable,
remember you are always the "weakest link" on the road, when things go sour, you should protect your head,
even when your arms get some traction.
Speaking of helmets, Giro Aeon has been the best one I ever had (had Uvex, Specialized (even though I am a fan), bell)

I hope that is what the thread is about (I was a bit confused intially)

I appreciate that this thread s very long and it may be asking too much to request new posters to read it all before participating. But surely even a cursory examination would have told you that it is not just soliciting opinions on which helmets to use.

Since you're in Australia, how about giving us your opinion on why introducing mandatory helmets laws seems to have failed to make Australian cyclists - those that remain, anyway - any safer?

No, they are saying exactly what he said they were saying. Read the first fourteen words of the passage quoted. Their opposition to MHLs follows their assessment that helmets may not be especially effective.

An even better question: How many cyclists die, world-wide, any given year, due to head injuries?

A: Damn few.

Apparently my post #3102 hit too close to home for members of the anti helmet cult to even want to discuss it.!

You just said that the the "rotational injury" argument is specious.

You don't really have a problem with specious arguments. As long as they support your position.

Anyway, most cyclists, world-wide, are likely riding rather slowly too. If you were really interested in reducing injuries, you'd be for mandatory limits to bicycle speed!

===================

The arguments against helmets are all over the place.

While the arguments for helmets is not very strong. The arguments against them are no better.

Yes, what these forums really need is more snark. Seriously, in my short time here all I see is a bunch of unhappy snarky people who have nothing better to do than be smartasses. Many of you have no intention of having an actual conversation.

Apparently you don't read or don't like the explanations that have been posted numerous times. Essentially, people can't be bothered to keep posting stuff for you to ignore.

why would you be confused? just because your post is the only one with a helmet recommendation in six pages?

that's good advice to remember BTW, and now as I have responded to your post as is customary in the helmet thread I'll need to insult something about you, did you have a preference? future offspring? your mother? perhaps you'd like it to remain about you and your IQ. do let me know. and welcome to the BF.

The same number that are saved by them probably.

No one knows.

Assertions to the contrary are dishonest.

Apparently it's now 5%.

I found that one of the local bike shops is having an evening ride. Their facebook page says, "HEADLIGHTS, TAILLIGHTS RECOMMENDED AND HELMET IS REQUIRED!"
Seems strange to me, since headlights and taillights are required by state law and helmets are not.

Welcome to the Internet. :D

And that headlights and taillights help prevent a collision from occurring with a car, something often fatal; a helmet is only designed to help after a crash, and not with a car.

That's the basic problem: all the frenzied and disproportionate promotion and mandating of helmets distracts from other safety aspects which actually make a difference.

Could be a reason why helmet laws seem to make little or no impact on injury rates, focus on helmets distract from more effective methods of injury prevention, those methods often ignored because of the faith placed in helmets to prevent injury.

Not only that, but I thought the reason why all the organized rides require a helmet is because of "insurance reasons". At least that is what they say. I am not a lawyer, but wouldn't allowing people to ride without state required equipment void the policy and open up a lawsuit?

Nothing sadder than a troll who can't get people to talk to him.