Originally Posted by curbtender (Post 15043854)

Skye, what personel experience in a non-helmet accident do you draw your wisdom from?

Originally Posted by curbtender (Post 15043854)

Skye, what personel experience in a non-helmet accident do you draw your wisdom from?

Originally Posted by curbtender (Post 15044138)

Ask this guy if it helped... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3zir...layer_embedded

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 15045184)

As I have posted several time, "studies" are mainly done by someone with a preconcieved idea they want to prove. Isnt it amazing how their "studies" prove themselves right???

Originally Posted by skye (Post 15043804)

Try reading my previous response to you. What I thought was interesting was the way they segmented the types of injury. My intent was absolutely not to claim that this study's results had any pertinence to cycle helmet statistics. But, as I said before, what was interesting was how they seperated two types of head injury: skull injury and TBI.

All too often, people like you, either through stupidity or intentional obfuscation conflate those two. Like the idiot who just plugged in with the latest OMIGOD MY HELMET SAFED MY LIEF!! story. He took a knock on the noggin which didn't cause loss of consciousness and didn't even cause any concussion, yet if he hadn't been wearing his helmet, he would have been dead or eating out of a straw the rest of his life.

Besides being death-defyingly stupid, what that post highlighted was the all-too-common mixing of skull injury with TBI. Thus my post to try to show the difference between the two.

But you're so tied up in defending your point of view, even though it is supported by frighteningly little research, that all you can do is try and twist things around until they stop causing you cognitive dissonance. Don't worry, when you grow up enough to be able to objectively analyze the research, it will be all there waiting for you.

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 15041727)

...my point being that if we're comparing things based on the biomechanic aspects, we might as well open the door to any and all helmets as relevant. Yes? So why not include motorcycle helmets in this discussion? Even though, such comparisons get shouted down by the bare-head brigade any time the proven efficacy of motorcycle helmets is mentioned.

Originally Posted by skye (Post 15043804)

...
All too often, people like you, either through stupidity or intentional obfuscation conflate those two. Like the idiot who just plugged in with the latest OMIGOD MY HELMET SAFED MY LIEF!! story. He took a knock on the noggin which didn't cause loss of consciousness and didn't even cause any concussion, yet if he hadn't been wearing his helmet, he would have been dead or eating out of a straw the rest of his life.

Besides being death-defyingly stupid, what that post highlighted was the all-too-common mixing of skull injury with TBI. Thus my post to try to show the difference between the two.
...

Originally Posted by lostforawhile (Post 15047515)

done with this thread

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 15047343)

I'm OK with aspects of motorcycle helmets being compared to cycling helmets for relevance, providing it isn't taken itself as proof of effectiveness, which is exactly what I said for other helmet comparisons also. When you're dealing with such a narrow topic, you gotta take what you can get and see what might fit.

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 15047343)

Sure there is, but my point really was that there is no need for a sanctimonious attitude about it, which really drips from the paternal arguments about wearing a helmet. We all make sacrifices of safety for convenience every day; simply establishing that somebody is sacrificing safety is, therefore, a really dumb way to try and claim any sort of moral high ground. They do it too, along with the rest of the world. If I start wearing a motorcycle helmet while riding a bike, it doesn't put me in a position to deride those wearing bike helmets as "Darwin Awards" or for sacrificing their safety because they don't want to get hot (wusses). That's all I'm saying, really.

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 15049224)

Trouble is, most of the bare head brigade is more than willing to dismiss a study -- all of it -- based on minutiae which don't meet their rigorous requirements for serious consideration. Regardless if there are parts of that study which might be useful for discussion. And yet, here we have one of their charter members posting about football helmets, with the rest of the gang supporting this because it is only very, very tangentially relevant to a discussion about bike helmets? Sorry, no, complete BS post and defense of it.

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 15052691)

mmach

If you come to this thread and report that a helmet prevented injury, like it did for me, be prepared for name calling.

The anti helmet cult will assure you that you are stupid etc, and that real world happening are trumped by "studies"!!! With all the personal attacks on people that wear helmets, it pays to have a thick skin if you post anything favorable to helmets here.

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 15051722)

*shrug*, I disagree.

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 15052835)

I'd expect you to, but I don't include you in the fanatic group I'm talking about. Just the fact that you're willing to consider relevant facts from otherwise flawed studies puts you miles ahead of the True Unbelievers.

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 15055009)

I think we're more or less at about the same place on the issue, with slightly different opinions/personal conditions leading to slightly different choices.