I think we should make a bet as to how many posts will this generate before a mod closes it or no one responds to it anymore, and the person who gets the closest gets a prize from the Bike Forums.

It'll probably always be here in some form. Mods like to stick off-track threads that drift into helmet territory here. May as well put it all in one place where people know there be dragons rather than letting it spill into the rest of the forums (worse than now, that is).

What I find disgusting about the anti helmet cult is when cyclist such as myself that have been in accidents and report that our helmets prevented some injury, the cult immediately make sport of it. They just cant truck anyone with real world experience disproving their view. They spew "studies" that claim helmets are of no use at all. Yet in the REAL WORLD those of us that have been saved some injury know better.

Well, usually you and others who post in kind are as wrong as the bare-head brigadiers: you and your ilk really can't say what injuries were or might have been prevented; but they can't really say it did nothing at all, or even that it did not work exactly as claimed.

You're usually as wrong as you think they are.

Yup.

ncon

In my case I was knocked over side ways at a low speed. I hid the side of my helmet on the pavement. There were scratches and gravel dents on the side of my helmet. If I had not been wearing a helmet my ear and the side of my face would have the gravel in wounds. Also I was not knocked senseless.

So what is your excuse?

Oops, sorry I missed it -- didn't mean to double post.

The best thing about that site is that the author demostrates how to strongly state a position without denigrating the opposing viewpoint -- very effective method of persuasion and advocacy. Reminds me to elevate my own communications. Sometimes.

six

More personal attacks do not further the debate. Personal attacks are resorted to when someone cannot refute facts.

+1 But unfortunately that is almost always the end result of most/any disagreement on the web...

I come from a country with an average of more than 1 bike per person, it has the least amount of biker fatalities per mile traveled and helmets amongst commuters, by far the largest group, are non existent.
I can tell you that to make biking safer in the US you should not worry about helmets, instead look at improving infrastructure and above all create awareness for bikes in trafic. One of the best ways to do that is to get more people on the bike, unfortunately big pro helmet campaigns rely on fear to get people to wear helmets and that doesn't help to get more people riding their bikes.

Thank you for the breath of sanity.

Now, prepare yourself for the onslaught from the Culture of Fear.

I think that there is one thing we can all agree on: it is in general safer to ride with an helmet than without (provided you won't enter into more reckless behavior because of wearing a helmet). I wear one when cruising along at 20+ mph on my road bike, I just don't see the necessity to wear one when commuting at 15 mph taking it easy on the hybrid bike.

But this is a choice everyone can and should make for themselves. People should just be aware that the helmet contributes very little to bike safety and can even decrease safety if:

* we start riding more recklessly with helmet
* drivers give you less space as you seem less vulnerable with helmet
* promoting helmet use leads to less people on bikes as it makes people afraid and misunderstand the risks of riding a bike. Just the health problems from this decrease in exercise already outweigh the health benefits from using a helmet.

quote from Canadian doctor DeMarco: "Ultimately, helmet laws save a few brains but destroy many hearts"

I am still not saying that one shouldn't use a helmet if they want to, it is just the fear that is put into people by active pro-helmet movements that is causing harm.

:eek::twitchy::D Careful there now, commonsense, well thems there words in red is fighting words around here... :innocent:

Actually, I don't agree with that. First, there is the fact that helmets increase the rotational component of a crash, thus increasing your risk of DAI; and secondly, there is the somewhat more complex argument (but one supported by the data nonetheless) that (a) the most protective variable in keeping cyclists on the road, but (b) wearing helmets causes people to perceive cycling as more dangerous than it is (cycling is actually quite safe), leading to (c) demands that people wear helmets, either social or legislative, reduce the number of cyclists, which takes me back to (a).

In other words, the more people that wear helmets, the more people think cycling is dangerous, thus fewer people cycle, thus increasing the danger for the remaining cyclists because their are fewer cyclists on the road.

So I am against the recommendation that people should wear helmets, because it is poor public health policy. However, if an individual wants to wear one, I really don't care one way or the other, because cycling is already pretty safe.

In your point (a) "in" should be "is"?

My point that you quote is only that for the same type of crash you will be better off in general wearing a helmet. I am saying the same thing as you mention under (a) and (c).

I understand that there are situations where a helmet makes the damage worse but are you saying that if you know you are going to fall and hit your head you would prefer not wearing an helmet?

:rolleyes:

Yea, I do believe that is basically what the anti-helmet bunch is saying... I made up a test in my post 3810, to see what hurts more when you hit your head on the pavement, wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet, but nobody is doing it/has done it to prove the helmet-less theory... :rolleyes:

EDIT; Or at least you would be better of in a crash without a helmet than with a helmet... ???

After 35 years of riding bicycles, my chances of falling on my head while JRA are on par with the chances of such while jogging. No helmet while jogging either.

I wear a lid while racing bicycles, though.

No head bashing or helmet bashing required. Dontcha know that ruining helmets is bad for the environment? The main problem with these helmet/head bashing contests is that they presume head/helmet bashing is a normal part of everyday bicycle riding. If it is for you, then you're doing it wrong.

I'm not a gun owner, but if i thought I was going to be robbed I'd like to have a gun on me. Same goes for accidents and helmets.

If I thought I was going to be robbed I'd go somewhere else. And if I thought I was going to crash my bicycle and land on my head I'd stay home.

And I pointed out to you that the test had already been done, and gave you chapter and verse. At which point you claimed you were too scientifically illiterate to understand such studies.

So you have, in fact, posed a question to which you admit you cannot understand the answer.

Or, as I suspect is closer to the truth, the answer contradicts your beliefs, so you claim ignorance to ignore it.

I had read that post, but it seems like arguments are being mixed up. For me it is clear that in general I would prefer to have a helmet if I know I am going to fall while on the bike, while climbing a ladder, while running, while in bath... However that is not an argument for the necessity to always put on a helmet during such activities, that should be an individual risk/return trade off that everyone should make for themselves. It just seems that the risks of riding a bike are overstated, not in the last place because of campaigns to get people to use helmets.

However the claim that one would prefer not having a helmet when falling is quite surprising...

In your analogy, a bicycle helmet is the equivalent of an unloaded gun.

I still don't understand from your answer if you believe that in general you are better of without a helmet when you fall, so if you know you are going to fall, would you prefer not having a helmet?

Although correct, that is not the point.