SlackerInc

Again, Six jours: you sound like the people who tell stories of their grandpa who smoked twelve packs a day and lived to the ripe old age of 102. Tiresome. Furthermore, this is a bicycling forum; if you wish to advocate for wearing helmets in motor vehicles you are free to find a motor vehicle forum and do so. The only germane issue here is whether or not it is safer for bicyclists to wear a helmet when they ride.

SlackerInc

Quote:

Originally Posted by chasm54

Whatever the mechanisms, the data is clear. Wearing helmets has not made a contribution to the public health.

Cite, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chasm54

They're probably good at preventing superficial injuries in low-speed falls, which is pretty much what they are designed for.

If your head hits the pavement/concrete (as mine did), even a low speed fall is not likely to involve only "superficial" injuries if you don't wear a helmet. A "low speed" fall on a bike is going to be from a greater height, and at a significantly greater speed, than someone falling when they are running to catch the bus or whatever. And if you don't think someone falling and smacking their head on the concrete curb when they are running is likely to cause a concussion at least, you are pretty optimistic.

As I say, if people want to take the risk, and they are competent adults who are making an informed decision, that's fine. But I'm not going to let you get away with whitewashing that risk and thus causing people to make an uninformed decision.

Since I'm asking for a cite, how about quid pro quo. This is from a peer-reviewed study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...98905253202101



I'd say that's pretty conclusive. And honestly, it's sort of hard to believe this is the kind of thing I'd even have to provide research findings to prove. It's pretty much common sense, and should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of, well, physical reality.

Rx Rider

thanks

SlackerInc

you're welcome

chasm54

You think it conclusive because you know nothing about the subject and haven't even bothered to read the references provided at length in various posts in this thread. The study you have quoted is notorious for having been discredited years ago. The "regression analysis" undertaken by the researchers was based on assumptions about helmet effectiveness rather than real-world data and their conclusions were, as a result, essentially meaningless. For a useful resource linking to most of the research on the subject, and containing helpful analyses of that research (including of the Australian data I referred to earlier) try https://www.cyclehelmets.org/. You will find that what you think must be obviously true is far from obvious, and frequently untrue.

For a start, bicycle helmets are pretty useless at preventing concussions. Even their manufacturers won't claim that they do this. Read, and learn.

rekmeyata

Nascar helmets? I think cars should all go with the NASCAR safety stuff, complete roll bar cage, five point harness system, window nets, seats attached to the tubular roll cage at several points, Lexan windshield, fuel cells, helmet and a fire suit with all the rash of auto fires lately. If a NASCAR car can keep a driver relatively safe at a 200mph impact then it would be no problem at a 65mph impact.

Then on bicycles we should install air bags on the handlebars, so when we crash we land on a big pillow. Or better yet have the air bags built into our biking kit and in the event of accident we get enveloped in a air bag and we just bounce along like a big beach ball.

And require all these changes by making them a law.

trek79fx

june 27th 2008 at age 51, I was struck dead on from the rear by a drunk driver doing over 50 mph. My neck was broken in 2 places, my right shoulder blade broken in half and my right side was crushed into my left side - but my head was intact - even though my helmet was split in 1/2 AND peeled upwards like a orange peel. Today 4 yers later I am riding my bike to work again and taking it on 5o miler on the weekend. So i agree with "shawmutt" just wear them or not and be done with it - whatever you decide remember me and remember my helmet allowed me to type this response 4 years later.

rekmeyata

I for one thank God you're still alive. But you started a fight, those that don't believe in helmets will ask you to prove the helmet worked. Yeah, I know, weird, but that's what is around here. Just like me putting my helmeted head through a side window breaking the window and crushing and cracking the styrofoam and cracking the plastic shell of the helmet...they all think I would have been ok without the helmet!!

SlackerInc

Are some of you being purposely disingenuous, or just not comprehending my posts well? I have repeatedly said I am not advocating for a law to mandate helmets for adults. Therefore the Australia study is irrelevant, as are any other studies arguing for a confounding effect of helmet laws. (Good discussion here.) I am only arguing that when an individual gets in a crash, their head will be significantly more protected from brain injury if they are wearing a helmet than if they are not. Not a controversial assertion!

I wonder: do you also believe that it's safer to be shot wearing a sweater vest rather than a Kevlar vest? Safer to play football or hockey without a helmet or pads? Safer to skydive without a parachute? LOL

SlackerInc

Yet only 1 in 6 of those answering the poll question said they don't wear helmets. I guess it's the classic case of a noisy minority dominating online debates (sort of like the frenzied acolytes of a certain Texas congressman whose name rhymes with "Don Hall", LOL).

chasm54

The comprehension difficulties are all yours. It is a controversial statement. It must be, given that all the real-world data indicates that more helmets has not correlated with fewer serious head injuries. Therefore the obvious conclusion is that helmets don't do what you think they do. And the Australian data is relevant, becasue it provides clear evidence that when almost everyone wears a helmet, head injuries continue to happen at much the same rate as before. Which makes your assertion that helmets protect against brain injury not merely controversial, but most likely wrong.

Silly. The issue is not whether parachutes or kevlar vests do what they are designed to do. The issue is whether bicycle helmets afford significant protection. The evidence suggests not.

SlackerInc

Except for, you know, the actual data that says the opposite, like the New England Journal of Medicine study, in which case you dismiss it or make excuses. Show me a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable medical journal that contradicts that one and we can talk. Until then, you remind me of nothing so much as a petulant child who closes their eyes, plugs their ears, and chants "NYAAH NYAAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!".

ETA: The World Health Organisation says:

sudo bike

Why would it be irrelevant? It still helps address whether wearing a helmet actually helps by... ya know, studying the effects of what happens when people have to start wearing helmets. That doesn't disappear when it's because of a law. In fact, I'd say that's about the perfect time to start studying practical, real-world effects of helmet use.

Actually, a pretty controversial assertion. Have you seen the studies that cast doubt on helmet effectiveness at doing just what you suggest is not controversial?

I wonder: Do you consider riding a bike as dangerous as being shot or skydiving?

As to football... yeah... me and pretty much every kid growing up played football without a helmet and didn't concern ourselves too much. Pros do, sure. Pro drivers also wear helmets while commuters don't, so there ya go... whatever that was supposed to prove.

rydabent

trek79

Be prepared to be piled on by all the anti helmet cult. Anyone such as you or I who has had a helmet help protect them are subject to all sorts of posts telling us how stupid and uninformed we are.

rekmeyata

Oh no, not real statistics again. I want only false statistics about how helmets don't work...wait, we're already doing that...never mind. Besides those statistics you show is a government conspiracy to get us to wear helmets due to big corporations wanting your money to put a silly helmet on your head that does absolutely nothing except keep bugs from messing up your hair.

SlackerInc

Because those arguments against helmet laws primarily focus on the effect of the laws in discouraging overall bicycle use, meaning reduction in the health benefits, increasing the numbers of cars on the road (as more people choose to drive instead of bike), and reducing visibility of cycling (the "critical mass" concept). None of that is relevant when, in the absence of a law compelling her to do so, an individual cyclist when setting out to ride chooses either to wear a helmet or not wear one.

Being shot? Clearly not (that was obvious hyperbole). Skydiving? Well, depending on which stats you believe, it takes as little as 80 miles or at most 270 miles of bicycling to run the same risk of dying as one skydiving jump. The average skydiving enthusiast jumps just under nine times a year; so a cyclist who averages 20-40 miles per week (not much for most of us, wouldn't you agree?) does indeed face a comparable risk of death as the average skydiver. Strikes me that your relative risk perception may be skewed, and that you owe the skydivers an apology!

You played tackle (not touch) football without a helmet? That might explain some things. FYI: No, "every kid" does not do that. I didn't, my friends didn't, my acquaintances didn't, my kids don't.

sudo bike

Sure, so that aspect doesn't apply. Got it. That doesn't invalidate everything else because it deals with things you might be uncomfortable with.



Ya don't say, huh?

Uh-huh. Well, while you continue arguing how safe sky-diving is when you compare it to the death-defying feat that is riding your bike to the corner store, I'm going to hop on my death machine (AKA: bicycle) and run some errands. Without a helmet. See, I'm a real daredevil like that. For my next feat, I shall climb stairs while holding a death machine! Man, I could start charging people for the thrill of watching that!

... yeah. Real risk-taker, I guess.

*shrug* Sorry you "lived" a bubblewrapped life.

sudo bike

*shrug* Stats and studies go both ways. Fact is, there is enough evidence to the contrary to call into question sweeping claims that are made about helmet efficiency, if not prove them ineffective. You would think it would be clear cut if they were so obviously effective. The fact that it isn't should at least reflect that maybe they aren't as effective as we thought, even if they do still have some degree of usefulness.

rekmeyata

That's because it's a government conspiracy to get us to buy helmets.

chasm54

Whereas you remind me of an ignoramus who is so secure in their prejudice that they simply ignore any evidence to the contrary.

I have already explained the flaws in the study you quoted, which is not based on actual data but on assumptions about what difference helmets might make. I have also referred you to a source of lots of peer-reviewed evidence which challenges your comfortable assumptions, but of course you haven't bothered to read any of it. I'll try again. Read through these. then come back prepared to actually discuss the evidence, as opposed to merely voice uninformed opinion.

Rx Rider

cult? you guys started a cult? did I miss the meeting? WTH . . . did you order t-shirts yet?

Rx Rider

wow, went from 'I think helmets are great' to insulting at a child's level in record time. do you really think insults work to your advantage?

LesterOfPuppets

What kind of bike do you ride that puts your head higher than when you walk/run? Mine usually have my head quite a bit lower.

"low speed" and "significantly greater speed" are contradictory.


If helmets are used for all bike rides, helmets for all runs and walks is right around the corner. Wear them if you want but no laws, no organ donor admonitions, etc, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

Since I'm asking for a cite, how about quid pro quo. This is from a peer-reviewed study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...98905253202101

I'd say that's pretty conclusive. And honestly, it's sort of hard to believe this is the kind of thing I'd even have to provide research findings to prove. It's pretty much common sense, and should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of, well, physical reality.

The conclusion blurb there seems to strongly support helmets for kids on bikes.I can get behind helmets for kids on bikes and helmets for inexperienced cyclists of all ages. For me personally most rides are about as dangerous as jogging, I'll do both sans helmet. I still lid up for group rides, hardcore MTB rides and other spirited riding.

Six jours

And you sound like someone who's desperate to avoid thinking too hard.

SlackerInc

Quote:

Originally Posted by sudo bike

*shrug* Sorry you "lived" a bubblewrapped life.

I'll take bubblewrapped over bashed up (or dead) any day. I didn't climb trees as a kid either. But I at least knew people who did! I never knew anyone who played tackle football without a helmet, except in deep, fresh snow (and I declined to join them btw).

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets

What kind of bike do you ride that puts your head higher than when you walk/run?

My bike looks just like this one, except dirtier and scratched up. I'm 5'10", but I'd say my head is more like seven feet from the ground when I ride.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets

"low speed" and "significantly greater speed" are contradictory.

Not when "low speed" is used as a relative term--which is why it was in quotes. Think of a "low speed aircraft" for example, that still goes significantly faster than a bike.

I actually agree with most of Lester's post, btw. Remember, I myself often ride without a helmet when my kids aren't around! I don't kid myself that I'm not taking a risk, however.