Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 14825763)

Hmmmmm--------I must have hit a nerve!!!

Originally Posted by rekmeyata (Post 14826302)

I'm sure you did, you can tell when a person tries to insult someone by saying nothing intellectually.

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 14826771)

The fact you're defending ryda doesn't help your credibility much, FYI. Even the helmet advocates seem to not want to touch that with a 10' pole.

Originally Posted by bandit1990 (Post 14827896)

Glad to see this thread is still going. Can we please get to the "chicken before the egg" argument? How about "paper vs. plastic"? Stop trying to change anyone's beliefs about the benfit/non-benefit of wearing a helmet. Seriously...no one is going to affect anyone's belief in the benifit/detriment of wearing a helmet. But keep going!

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 14828052)

This is empirically false. If you can look up my archived posts in the old helmet thread, your evidence is there.

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 14828052)

This is empirically false. If you can look up my archived posts in the old helmet thread, your evidence is there.

Originally Posted by bandit1990 (Post 14827896)

Glad to see this thread is still going. Can we please get to the "chicken before the egg" argument? How about "paper vs. plastic"? Stop trying to change anyone's beliefs about the benfit/non-benefit of wearing a helmet. Seriously...no one is going to affect anyone's belief in the benifit/detriment of wearing a helmet. But keep going!

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 14828052)

This is empirically false. If you can look up my archived posts in the old helmet thread, your evidence is there.

Originally Posted by bandit1990 (Post 14828103)

Really? Wearing a helmet is better than not wearing one? Provide evidence that wearing one will decrease the incedence of concussions. Oh yes, you can't. Youe have some belief that helmets can provide protection....there are over 1000 posts that refute your position. No one on this thread can give an argument either pro or non helmets. Pissihng in the wind. Have fun.

Originally Posted by Myosmith (Post 14816313)

This finding, while interesting, says absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of a helmet. It basically says that even if the head injury could have been reduced or prevented, the patient would have died from other injuries unrelated to the protection or lack thereof offered by a helmet. Indeed if the patient had no head injury at all, he/she still would have died. Other questions that would have to be asked include:

- what percentage of the victims were properly wearing bicycle helmets at the time of the accident?
- if there had been no other potentially fatal injuries to consider, what percentage of those who were not wearing a helmet could reasonably have been expected to survive if they had been?
- of the 8% that died of head injury alone, what percentage of them might have survived if they were wearing a helmet?

A problem I see in many helmet debates is that arguments seem to lump all head injuries into two categories, fatal and non-fatal. There are a wide range of head injuries ranging from a painful bump or getting your bell rung, a whole range of concussion injuries, skull fractures and intracranial bleeds. The purpose of a helmet is to prevent or lessen the severity of injuries from impacts to the head. If a rider sustains a concussion while wearing a helmet, one should not assume that the helmet did not work, but rather ask how severe the concussion might have been without it. You can also ask just so much from a helmet. If you lose control at 40+ mph on a steep mountain downgrade and clip an oncoming truck before smashing headfirst into the guardrail, you are probably going to die with or without a helmet.



This I would like to see a properly conducted study on as the potential to increase neck injuries is sometimes overlooked when designing head protection.

Originally Posted by bandit1990 (Post 14828103)

Really? Wearing a helmet is better than not wearing one? Provide evidence that wearing one will decrease the incedence of concussions. Oh yes, you can't. Youe have some belief that helmets can provide protection....there are over 1000 posts that refute your position. No one on this thread can give an argument either pro or non helmets. Pissihng in the wind. Have fun.

Originally Posted by Mithrandir (Post 14828913)

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...URCE=BRGENHOME


You are wrong. Science proves it. It could be 1000 or 10000 posts who disagree, but that's the funny thing about facts; facts don't care if you agree or not. Facts are facts no matter what people believe.

Originally Posted by skye (Post 14829405)

No, wait. I just found the abstract. Even more stupid than I thought...

"To test the effect of an impact injury, each skull was outfitted with a standard children's bicycle helmet and suspended upside down on a carriage of the test apparatus. The skull and helmet were released in free fall from heights ranging from 6 to 48 inches, landing on a flat steel impact anvil."


Stop the presses! Helmets may be effective at reducing impact (though not reducing risk of brain injury) if you fall less than four feet while standing still and land on a perfectly flat surface!!!


Honestly, you couldn't get a more stupid study than this. This study does nothing -- and I mean absolutely 0 -- to increase our understanding of helmet ineffectiveness or brain injury.


There is a lot more that's truly bad about this study, but I'm laughing too hard right now to talk about it. Maybe later. But if you're going to try to use a study as monumentally stupid as this to support your position, you're going to have a bad time of it.

Originally Posted by Mithrandir (Post 14829555)

You clearly have no idea how physics works. But by all means, continue to give out horribly misinformed 'advice' that will get people killed.

Originally Posted by bandit1990 (Post 14828103)

Really?

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 14828674)

I... wasn't making a statement about the usefulness of helmets.

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 14829713)

atbman

I would be willing to bet if helmet saved 6 lives a year, those 6 believe that wearing a helmet is a good deal. I would hazard a guess tho that helmets save more than 6 lives, and countless injuries.

Originally Posted by Mithrandir (Post 14829555)

You clearly have no idea how physics works. But by all means, continue to give out horribly misinformed 'advice' that will get people killed.

Originally Posted by bandit1990 (Post 14831004)

Really. You're wrong. You made the following statement in post #3625:

"Cycling is safe enough that helmets are truly optional, without conclusive evidence for or against either way."

Glad to know that you are now convinced that helmets protect, or maybe they don't protect. Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally Posted by skye (Post 14829395)

And the fact is that this study did not even concern itself with the main cause of TBI, which is rotational injury; so how they could have reached this conclusion, I have no idea. I haven't had a chance to read the whole study yet, but from the reports alone, I'm ready to guess that it is laughably bad.

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 14832775)

Where do you get a figure for rotational injury where bicycle related TBI is concerned?