Obviously, some have hard enough heads that they do not need a helmet...

I must have missed that post. Please point out the post # or URL for the post where beezaur certainly made a decent case.

I've read the beginning and then saw how big this thread was, so jumped to the end (sorry to skip over all those words of wisdom).

This is a very complex subject to discuss as there are consequences far beyond the individual rider who may be permanently disabled or not as a result of their accident, helmeted or not, including future burdens on society and loss of potential workforce.

Personally I always wear a helmet as I would like to reduced my chances of having a seriously head injury, but I also moderated my riding with self preservation in mind.

In the only serious accident I have had (where a driver opened their car door into me) my helmet was miraculously completely unmarked. I still wouldn't be without one.

Helmets and other safety equipment are responsible for more accidents than any other invention. They effectively make people think it is acceptable to do very dangerous things and feel that they are 'safe'. People should be more responsible for their actions and not take unnecessary risks.

Obviously, some people quote selectively in order to save themselves the trouble of actually addressing the argument...

Again I would like to point out that NOT ONE member of the anti helmet cult have posted what they expect to gain by talking people out of wearing a helmet.

How about one straight answer!!!!!!

+1

BTW, I used to be a heavy smoker---3 packs a day at one point. I did not die. I think everyone should smoke.

I'm not a member of the so called "anti helmet cult", but it's been suggested many times in this thread that helmets make it look as if cycling is dangerous and detours people from taking up the sport. It has been suggested that more cyclists would make cycling safer as motorists would be used to dealing with them on the roads and would give them more respect.

His longer ones a couple pages back, where he listed his (supposed) credentials and the basis for his ability to judge why he thought the helmet did what he thought it did.

Not saying he's right -- if you go back, maybe even to the post you quoted, you'll note I said that it's just the same old "Saved me!" "No it didn't" situation where neither side is any more correct than the other -- just saying his view is a bit more informed than usual when people come here making such claims regarding having crashed with a helmet.

Are you saying that his helmet didn't work exactly as he claimed, that it didn't save him from further injury?

Actually, no. While this hypothesis is tossed around in here quite a bit, it has been discredited as irrelevant regarding bike safety within a helmet skeptic study, previously cited in this thread.

Actually, it doesn't seem that anyone's trying to talk anyone else out of a helmet, just that the bare-head brigade takes issue with others trying to talk people into helmets.

You understand the difference, yes?

Suggested, but far from proven, which is the litmus test the bare-head brigade uses. In places where mandatory helmet laws are in place, yes, cycling rates decrease, and that's a bad thing safety-wise. But there's nothing in print indicating that ridership decreases where helmet use is heavily encouraged. In fact, despite the heavy-handed encouragement toward helmet use prevalent in the USA, ridership is up in many locales.

OK, I'm getting more intrigued and have read more of this thread. One good link was http://bhsi.org/negativs.htm which was a nice collection of ideas.

I have to say that all of the anti-helmet claims seem very flimsy and based on the 0.000001% cases where the helmet might make the injury worse. You know, the case that also required the perfect alignment of the planets to make the momentary gravitational fluctuation necessary to give the rare conditions.

What I'm not convinced about is why anyone would argue about it. I don't think there should be a law to make helmet wearing mandatory, but I also don't think wearing seatbelts should be mandatory. To me it seems a bad idea not to wear a seatbelt, just as it seems a bad idea not to wear a helmet, so I wear a seatbelt and a helmet (not necessarily at the same time).

If you don't believe in them, don't wear them. If you do feel that they will provide you with an advantage in an accident, then wear one.

It got dented, he didn't get hurt. He said it and I have no reason to doubt that. This anecdote is no more "a decent case" or credible argument supporting the risk reduction power of a bicycle helmet for this individual in this instance, or more importantly, for the general public, than the cases/arguments/anecdotes provided by the likes of rydabent or 350htrr.

I seriously doubt his credentials for making any credible argument about measuring or analyzing bicycling risk and its mitigation, given his reliance on making vague reference to unnamed grab-bags of information found somewhere on the Internet. He may be a self proclaimed expert on some topic, but provides no "decent case" to indicate it is helmet risk reduction capability.

The fact that he knew to look for liner deformation of the shell, rather than "muh helmut craked!" is a step up from the usual claims...

If his credentials and analysis regarding the physics and material science are to be believed or even pondered, then I disagree: again, a step up from claims like rydbent, 350htrr, and most others put forward.

Not that it means I or anyone else should take what he says at face value or that his helmet protected him as he claims; he could very well be wrong. So could anyone who doubts his conclusions, like you.

And I'm not talking about the "gotcha!" sausage-fencing Skye and RazrSkutr wanted to engage him in regarding helmet foam density, rotational forces, or anything like that--only about his analysis of his own crash and post-crash helmet.

It is not doubt about his his conclusions/anecdote about the benefit of his helmet on that one incident;

I doubt that he has any credible basis to draw ANY conclusion about helmet effectiveness in reducing risk of bicycling injury. Any conclusions drawn from the so-called evidence (non-existent in this case) presented by him and others of his ilk are suspect and not even worth answering. Especially as this crowd of flat world believers has shown itself as resistant to logical or rational thought.

I can understand how me saying helmets can help in a crash can be poo-pooed, but how can you discredit & ignore these numbers? And their conclusions about how much better/safer wearing a helmet is as compared to not wearing a helmet... It's not like the numbers are even close. http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Did I say anything about his general conclusions? No, I did not. Did I say I support such? Again, no. All along, I've only been referencing his crash and resulting analysis, nothing more. But now I see what's going on -- since he took his balls and went home, you're just itching for someone to fight his battle.

That's not going to be me. Feel free to keep ranting, though. And for someone who feels it's not worth answering, you're about three or four posts deep already...

You asked me a question, I gave you an honest answer. You respond with the above. I'm done with your nonsense.

You answered my question in the first line, and I appreciate that. Continuing with the next paragraph as part of your reply to my post implies that I was somehow championing his further assertions. Which I was not. That needed to be addressed.

the issue is no matter how casual the ride or how slow, if you are in the street, you are surrounded by the cell phone talking, fast food eating,makeup applying, idiots that many drivers today are, you never know when someone is going to drive into you and send you flying, I drive an old Lincoln towncar ( think sherman tank) and they drive so bad around here, they scare me driving, it's much worse on the bike, I really don't care if the law says I have to wear one or not, why WOULDN'T you wear one, it might keep your brain in one piece, live to ride another day.

Because I use my bike practically and I am out and about with it all day, a helmet is really inconvenient for me. In Fresno summers, I end up much sweatier if I don a lid. Helmet hair is always fun to deal with, too. And toting around yet another thing all day with me isn't appealing; they steal them if you lock them to your bike here. Couple that with evidence seeming to suggest both that cycling is about as safe as walking, and shaky evidence that helmets actually provide anything more than protection from minor injury, and I think it's pretty obvious. The same reason I expect neither of us ride with body armor; we both decided the benefit gained is relatively small compared to the inconvenience. If you're in a situation that a helmet isn't inconvenient to bring along, then that might tip the balance and change your choice. But I think hoping a helmet will save your life in a car crash is wishful thinking at best.

I'm not trying to talk people out of wearing a helmet. I'm explaining why I think wearing one is unnecessary, at best, and potentially problematic, at worst. What I would like to talk people out of is, first, the idea that cycling for pleasure and transportation is intrinsically dangerous enough to require protective clothing; and, second, the illusion that in the rare event of a serious accident, a helmet is likely to make much difference.

The health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a huge margin. It is therefore damaging to the public health to present cycling as dangerous, when it really isn't. Helmet sales depend on presenting cycling as dangerous.

Straight enough answer?

Come on brother, if you don't wear some head protection in Fresno the sun is going to boil your brain...

I'd say wear a hat, but a hat may increase chances of DAI resulting in TBI because of possible increase in angular forces transmitted to the head in the event of a crash.

Amazing how a few ounces of Stryrofoam will save your life if you are struck by a car. Frankly, I am surprised that you do not wear the Miracle Hat 24/7. Sounds like it should do a credible job preventing cancer and heart disease too.