View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
178
10.66%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
94
5.63%
I've always worn a helmet
648
38.80%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
408
24.43%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
342
20.48%
Voters: 1670. You may not vote on this poll
The helmet thread
10-10-12, 09:52 AM
#3651
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 8,686
Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1125 Post(s)
Liked 249 Times
in
200 Posts
10-10-12, 11:32 AM
#3652
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
10-10-12, 12:30 PM
#3653
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
I guess I must train myself to believe only members of the anti helmet cult are right. Everyone elses post are to be discarded out of hand. It make no difference that in real life situations where people attest to the fact that their helmet prevented injury. In fact we will be treated to name calling and insults telling us how stupid and wrong we are.
10-10-12, 01:37 PM
#3654
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 2,401
Bikes: 2012 Surly LHT, 1995 GT Outpost Trail
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...URCE=BRGENHOME
A new study from Illinois Neurological Institute and Bradley University found what most cyclists probably already knew — bicycle helmets are effective to prevent or minimize injury in a crash. Scientists found that helmets can reduce acceleration of the skull in a crash by as much as 87 percent.
10-10-12, 02:52 PM
#3655
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 8,686
Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1125 Post(s)
Liked 249 Times
in
200 Posts
10-10-12, 03:48 PM
#3656
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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!
10-10-12, 04:35 PM
#3657
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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!
10-10-12, 04:49 PM
#3658
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
10-10-12, 04:51 PM
#3659
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
10-10-12, 07:57 PM
#3660
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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!
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.
10-10-12, 08:27 PM
#3661
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Posts: 2,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
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.
- 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.
10-10-12, 09:26 PM
#3662
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 2,401
Bikes: 2012 Surly LHT, 1995 GT Outpost Trail
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
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.
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.
10-11-12, 05:00 AM
#3663
Senior Member
https://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.
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.
10-11-12, 05:08 AM
#3664
Senior Member
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.
"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.
10-11-12, 06:36 AM
#3665
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 2,401
Bikes: 2012 Surly LHT, 1995 GT Outpost Trail
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
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.
"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.
10-11-12, 07:33 AM
#3666
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
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.
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.
10-11-12, 08:44 AM
#3667
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Allston, MA
Posts: 171
Bikes: Trek 720 (touring, 1981 (?) model); Trek 7.3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
10-11-12, 12:45 PM
#3669
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
"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.
10-11-12, 12:53 PM
#3670
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Bay area, Florida
Posts: 217
Bikes: '09 Diamondback Insight 1, '05 Trek 3700 ( now a hybrid street/cross trail bike), (Vintage model) Kent Supreme 10 speed road cruiser, BMX (just for fun), Trek Multitrack 720 and a homebuilt recumbent low-rider.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I feel dizzy just reading some of these posts. Maybe the fact that I wasn't wearing a helmet on my ride yesterday, has affected my brain.
10-11-12, 12:56 PM
#3671
Senior Member
Wrong as usual. The Australian study showed that increased helmet use actually increased mortality and morbidity.
10-11-12, 09:35 PM
#3673
Senior Member
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.
"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.
That's not the post I was referring to. The one I was talking about is the one where I said, "OK, at first? I was all like, helmets are so totally rad! They'll, like, totally protect me if a dump truck nails me at 90mph while I'm blowing a stop sign." And the bare head brigade chimed in with, "Nuh-uh! A helmet totally wouldn't help like that and here's some studies showing why." "No whey?!?" "Whey!"
So yeah, went from being a totally ignorant helmet wearer to being an informed helmet wearer. In marked contrast to your first claim.
10-11-12, 09:40 PM
#3674
Senior Member
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.
10-12-12, 05:32 AM
#3675
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Posts: 7,648
Bikes: Miyata 618 GT, Marinoni, Kestral 200 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina, Miyata team Ti, Santa Cruz Highball
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1606 Post(s)
Liked 2,570 Times
in
1,218 Posts