I should add that I am geniunely sorry that your GF had this accident and that I hope she recovers well and doesn't get scared of biking. Best wishes to you both.

Sure:

The accusation I made has been backed up with me replying to your posts exhibiting this tendency multiple times in this thread. It's there if you want to go look for it; I'm certainly not going to waste my time doing it.

To that end, and what really prompted me to launch into this whole thing, you said:
So, same thing: you too lazy to go look? 'Cause if you want to play in this sandbox...

PS, while you're looking, find out where I called you "intellectually dishonest," as you claim I've said in this most recent post. Because I sure didn't use such a term in the past couple pages...

Skye, what a hypocrite you are. You ask others to look things up upthread, then claim I have not cited peer-reviewed research when I have done so upthread more than once. Since you are either dishonest or unable to figure out what is going on, I'll just have to ignore you rather than let you continue to troll me.

Slacker, dude, I just looked through your entire post history (not that long; you just joined up). You make reference to an unspecified NEJM article and to a governmental policy manual. The latter is not peer reviewed research, and as far as the former goes, all you did was wave the name around.

So, no, you have not posted a single useful item to this thread except for your tantrums. Thanks for moving the conversation forward.

how many pages back have you bothered to read? you might find a lot of data both pro and con if you had, you might have even been able to keep the debate on and about helmets. air speed, skydiving and prohibition is not on topic and is how trolls debate. just saying. what's next? smokers and surgeon general warnings?

Thank you for the wishes. We just got home from spending 6 hours at the Hospital. Surgery to fix the fractures is tommorow, but the good news is she'll recover fairly quickly and says she isn't afraid, and is actually looking forward to getting on a bike again.

Give it up man, they will run you into the ground to make you look like fool that doesn't know what their talking about, even though you got 99% of the scientific and medical field behind you. There are far more scientists and doctors that support wearing helmets then there are of the same supporting climate change be created solely by the efforts of man and his pollution, but they would rather believe that and not the helmets!

Even the helmet manufacturers wouldn't agree with that. Bicycle elmets attempt to ameliorate the impact by increasing the impact duration (King, Yang, et al, IRCOBI conference, 2003). A cracked helmet has neither increased the duration of the impact nor reduced peak acceleration because, well, it cracked.

Yes it does, and you aren't even aware of it. Risk compensation behaviour is primarily unconscious, like breathing. I'm not going to bother citing that, it's Psych 101.

I'm a strong believer that public health policy should be based on logic and analysis rather than anecdote and faith. I think it's fine to wear a helmet if that's what you want to do. But to go around promoting helmet use, when there is an absence of data supporting the claims made about them is, to my mind, reprehensible. You are putting other cyclists at risk by spreading misinformation.

This article, of which you only have the abstract here, is why so many incorrectly state that helmets are so effective. The study compares apples to oranges. It is composed of 2 groups, those with helmets and those without. The group with have a reduction of serious injury rate quoted as 89 percent. In this group of helmeted kids you have suburban, supervised ( by parent), daytime riding helmeted kids and no accident reported was with a motor vehicle. In the un helmeted group with higher rate of injury you have unsupervised, largely urban, often nighttime riding and multiple car-cyclist events. This study is crap, even though in the NEJM and is used in virtually every citation of helmet safety.
I do not wear a helmet, for many of the reasons cited in this thread. I have, in over 40 years of cycling, fallen many times, have had several high speed down hill crashes and one car-cycle crash- all with many extensive abrasions and cuts, never once injuring my head. Now I also ride a motorcycle and would not go fifty feet at any speed without one. Why the difference? Unlike cycling whole population studies which show no measurable effect with mandatory helmet use except decreased participation, motorcycling studies show an immediate increase in fatality rate of 30 % and 60 % serious head injury rate when laws requiring use are eliminated and a corresponding decrease when they are required. If the cycling helmet showed such data, I would wear one. As it is, the bicycle helmet is the only cycling accessory that does not do what it is advertised to do ( at least by distributors and stores as you will never see a helmet manufacturer say their product saves lives or prevents head injury).
I have no acrimony over this, I do not judge helmeted wearers as idiots for wearing one. I do find it odd how many strangers seem so concerned about my safety and yell out " where is your helmet"? Perhaps they should slow down and we could have a friendly discussion free of rancor and insult.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/elvik.pdf

"Once helmeted, cyclists might feel better protected and adopt more risky riding behaviour. While this cannot be ruled out, there is no direct evidence for it and performing a convincing study of such behavioural adaptation would be very difficult. The issue remains unresolved."

http://i.pbase.com/o5/04/557904/1/68...DNL3h.pwnd.jpg

It's definitely individual choice. As rekmeyata indicates, you can believe the rantings of anonymous Internet posters who are the equivalent of Flat Earthers (or birthers, to use a more contemporary reference), or you can believe authoritative experts like:

The NIH:

The AMA:

WHO:

CDC:

NHTSA:

But hey, sure: maybe all those experts were wrong, and "skye" and his/her gang are right! Maybe the government-mandated performance tests are rigged due to a conspiracy of bike helmet manufacturers bribing them, or something. Suuuure, could be...but I wouldn't bet on it, especially not with your brain--or your life--at stake.

You can also ask yourself: even if you weren't weighing the authoritative opinions of medical experts who are leaders in their fields against anonymous Internet rants, which position tracks better to common sense? When both common sense and the overwhelming consensus of scientific and medical opinion all point to the same thing (wear a helmet), ask yourself how gullible you have to be to be talked into a contrary opinion by some posters on a message board who may not even be sincere but could just be trying to nihilistically stir up trouble, kind of like the people who invent destructive computer viruses. In this case they are perhaps trying to see if a meme that is absurd on its face (bike helmets make you less safe) can still take root among susceptible minds. Don't be a sucker, don't fall for it!

You managed to copypaste from a a few government bureacracies and a trade union, none of which really reach the level of scientific consensus. I'll give you two points for actually trying to add some content, though.

Next time, just post the bhsi url, and don't even try to pretend that you've done your own research.

Now, lets get back on track. Exactly what was wrong with the Australian and the New Zealand studies? You never came up with a good answer except for your assertion that somehow studying populations did not apply to people. Want to augment that argument?

Interesting that you are characterizing the people who are posting actual research and discussing it as "flat-earthers." Flat-earthers is a term usually used to describe people who are incompetent at understanding basic science. I think you might want to look in a mirror before trying that insult again.

At any rate, what was wrong with the statistical analysis of the Australia study that led you to dismiss its conclusions? Be specific.

SlackerInc can't. I'm sorry Skye, but you appear to be dealing with a monkey with internet access. Asking for an *explanation* of why they believe that helmets work is unfortunately beyond their ability. In the interests of humane compassion I urge you to desist from torturing this unfortunate simian.

Good stuff. Regardless of any disagreements we may have, that's good news.

One of my friends that went through the windshield of an SUV (without a helmet) took several months to regain confidence in traffic. Good luck to your GF.

That riding a bike is a remarkably safe activity akin to walking/jogging/running.

Common sense often is not common, and doesn't make sense :). Common sense would lead one to believe the Earth is flat, which is why it was thought so for many years. Science has shown us our initial impression was wrong.

*shrug* Look, you can wear one if you want, just don't be surprised when others aren't taken in by your fear-mongering. You've already seen studies and evidence posted that is contrary to what you are pushing... you can either choose to acknowledge that and realize maybe things aren't so clear-cut, or you can ignore it and continue to distort evidence to match your worldview. I, for one, am not saying helmets will hurt you and will have zero effect in helping you; I'm just saying the evidence is not clear that they do help significantly with anything other than mitigating minor injury. Take seat belts... evidence and studies have overwhelmingly shown seat belts to be effective. Why is it that, with bicycle helmets, the evidence has not been so one-sided? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact they just aren't as effective, if not ineffective?

Oh my gawd, you had to go bring up the facts to face down all the BS, why would you do that? what ya nuts?

Yep, this entire thread is a live version of "Fools on Parade". Just walk away and continue wearing your helmet. Ride Safe!

This.

The logical inference then is that the experts at CDC, NIH, etc., despite their Ivy league doctorates, are also "monkeys". That right? And what does that make you and Skye? LOL

The anti helmet cult claim that a cracked helmet failed. IT DID NOT it took energy to crack the helmet, so therefore it reduced the G-force energy to the head.

good thing we don't have styrofoam heads, we'd all be dead by now.

Indeed you are right--this is basic physics. Go try cracking a bike helmet by punching it, and see how much force the helmet would have to absorb to do this (yet we know we can hurt someone's head by punching it). Cars are even designed to have "crumple zones" for this reason: less kinetic energy is transferred to the passengers than would be if everything were designed to be stiff and resolute on impact.

That's an example not of logical inference, but of wild leaping to conclusions. Monkeys are good at leaping.

Several of your references that you cite take at face value the TRT'89 paper. That's nearly always the sign of complete incompetence and ignorance. You really should read it. It's generally a good idea to read the papers you cite. Otherwise you risk making yourself look extremely foolish. But it's obvious that doesn't bother you.

One interesting point raised by your splutters is this: it would appear that much of the material promulgated by organizations like the CDC, AMA and others is at best questionable. It's true that what you linked to above are mostly low-level summaries written by M.D.s (not those upon whom doctorates have been conferred by any instution), but it still disturbs me that they're so careless and makes me wonder what other information on their websites is of questionable quality.

How much energy is absorbed by a cracked helmet?

Why do engineers need to bother with measuring these "basic physics" thinga-majigs? They should just get guys like you to design everything instead of worrying about reality.

wow, when you start mixing apples and oranges you just don't stop. now car crumple zones and helmets are the same, oh but wait a half an inch of calcium fortified skull and a half an inch of foam are. . . different? and according to you the foam is tougher. have you ever punched either? the last body part I would ever take on with my bare fist is the skull. it's really remarkable how well the skull is designed to take blows. I have punched a helmet, soon after falling off my bike, cutting the skin on the back of my head and realizing the helmet didn't have a scratch on it. I destroyed that useless helmet in a fit of rage and it wasn't hard to do.

a cracked helmet might help minimize a blow to the head but unless it explodes it didn't do what it was suppose to do, transfer energy from the front of the impact to the rear of the helmet. want to know what else does that? hair, that's right hair. who would have thought hair and a skull could work in tandem to protect from a blow to the head, it must be magic.