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
05-28-13, 02:33 PM
#5376
Senior Member
This is from a site written by professional risk management scientists and edited by a director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Centre:
I.e.
- If you are wearing a helmet because you think that it reduces your chances of dying in a cycling accident, you are NOT being rational
- If wear a helmet to cycle but not to walk, you are NOT being rational
So why are you wearing a helmet? Either because you didn't know the facts, or because you are scared and the helmet has an irrationally great benefit for you psychologically. The problem with the second is that it indicates you are "risk compensating" - which means that you are taking risks that you wouldn't without the helmet. If you are scared riding in traffic, take a course or read a book like Robert Hursts and learn some survival skills that actually work.
I.e.
- If you are wearing a helmet because you think that it reduces your chances of dying in a cycling accident, you are NOT being rational
- If wear a helmet to cycle but not to walk, you are NOT being rational
So why are you wearing a helmet? Either because you didn't know the facts, or because you are scared and the helmet has an irrationally great benefit for you psychologically. The problem with the second is that it indicates you are "risk compensating" - which means that you are taking risks that you wouldn't without the helmet. If you are scared riding in traffic, take a course or read a book like Robert Hursts and learn some survival skills that actually work.
And why do I fall more often when cycling? Because I'm taking more risks when cycling than when walking, because I ride bicycles for fun and I walk to get from place A to place B.
So, neither of your presumptions is true, and neither of your conclusions is true. Seems like you didn't really think all this through, did you?
05-28-13, 02:56 PM
#5377
Senior Member
I fall down more often when on a bicycle than when walking (5+ falls cycling vs. 0 falls walking in the last five years or more) and when I fall, I'm more likely to hit my head when falling from a bicycle than when walking. I'm wearing a helmet when cycling because it hurts less when you hit your head while wearing a helmet, and because there's less blood.
And why do I fall more often when cycling? Because I'm taking more risks when cycling than when walking, because I ride bicycles for fun and I walk to get from place A to place B.
So, neither of your presumptions is true, and neither of your conclusions is true. Seems like you didn't really think all this through, did you?
And why do I fall more often when cycling? Because I'm taking more risks when cycling than when walking, because I ride bicycles for fun and I walk to get from place A to place B.
So, neither of your presumptions is true, and neither of your conclusions is true. Seems like you didn't really think all this through, did you?
05-28-13, 03:21 PM
#5378
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,611
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,275 Times
in
867 Posts
No one on this forum appears to be arguing that anybody shouldn't wear helmets. That there is such an argument being made is only a loony strawman argument of one or two posters on this thread.
05-28-13, 03:37 PM
#5379
Cycle Dallas
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Posts: 3,777
Bikes: Dulcinea--2017 Kona Rove & a few others
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
4 Posts
05-28-13, 03:49 PM
#5380
Senior Member
Beg to differ, I remember being bent over more than a few times by some of the non helmet guys saying that not wearing a helmet is actually safer than wearing a helmet and people shouldn't wear one. It's the main reason I'm still here to try and tell the other side... From post 3722 to 4203 mainly, lately it's been more like it's not worth wearing a helmet because the risk is soo small... Maybe it is, maybe it isn't...
05-28-13, 04:05 PM
#5381
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Posts: 8,100
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: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1381 Post(s)
Liked 1,793 Times
in
909 Posts
I think you all need helmets to protect yourselfs from tumbling over each other.
05-28-13, 04:21 PM
#5382
Other Worldly Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: The old Northwest Coast.
Posts: 1,540
Bikes: 1973 Motobecane Grand Jubilee, 1981 Centurion Super LeMans, 2010 Gary Fisher Wahoo, 2003 Colnago Dream Lux, 2014 Giant Defy 1, 2015 Framed Bikes Minnesota 3.0, several older family Treks
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked 135 Times
in
52 Posts
I just got back from a group ride where one of the guys had a pretty bad fall (i'm still in kit as I type this even). I was behind him as we were going downhill on a wet road about 25-30mph. He applied the brakes due to a sharp corner coming up. One of his tires locked up and the bike seemed to jump sideways out from under him.
He slammed to the ground and skidded/rolled pretty darn far. Road rash all over his body, possible broken hip (he is 70 years old but super fit). front left of his helmet was broken. He couldn't remember anyone's names and kept asking to call his wife multiple times after we had already called her (and an ambulance). Definitely he has a concussion. Who knows how bad it would have been without his helmet.
For anyone Oahu local who reads this it was Frank Smith - the owner if Island Triathlon and Bike.
He slammed to the ground and skidded/rolled pretty darn far. Road rash all over his body, possible broken hip (he is 70 years old but super fit). front left of his helmet was broken. He couldn't remember anyone's names and kept asking to call his wife multiple times after we had already called her (and an ambulance). Definitely he has a concussion. Who knows how bad it would have been without his helmet.
For anyone Oahu local who reads this it was Frank Smith - the owner if Island Triathlon and Bike.
Hope he will check out ok. My training partner is convinced being in good shape and muscle tone mitigated my tumble & injuries and promotes healing though at 58 I heal a tad slower than at 21. Bone bruises take time. I got a new helmet out of the deal instead of nasty scalp lacerations. Shredded my jersey..damn.
__________________
Make ******* Grate Cheese Again
Make ******* Grate Cheese Again
05-28-13, 05:59 PM
#5383
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I ride in the most dangerous city in the nation, maybe the world for cyclists (according to Bicycling Magazine). I've crashed once, solo and bounced my helmet on the pavement. Did the helmet mitigate my injury? Since the helmet cracked, and that is how it absorbs and dissipates force, I will say yes, it probably absorbed most of the energy that would have been transferred to my skull.
1. Helmets do NOT absorb energy by cracking! They absorb energy by liner compression, WHICH REQUIRES AN UNCRACKED SHELL. If you are getting to set yourself up as a forensic witness, at least do some research:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...47008514,d.d2k
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...47008514,d.d2k
..The amount of energy taken to crack a shell is trivial. This is one of the things that lazy people who don't do research don't get: when a helmet is overloaded, it no longer subtracts the energy it is designed to absorb from a crash - instead the shell fails with about 5-10% of the energy taken for liner compression, the liner splits instead of compressing, and you get about zero benefit.
2. The idea that because something absorbed SOME energy it absorbed MOST of it is just a failure of basic logic and arithmetic
05-28-13, 06:00 PM
#5384
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Two recent reports.
https://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/3/191.full
https://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1186.pdf
One interesting conclusion you can make for yourself. The greatest positive reason for an adult to wear a helmet is training their young (<16 years) child/grandchild/niece/nephew to wear one in those high risk years. Of course...once teenage hormones kick in all bets are off. No one on this forum appears to be arguing that young children shouldn't wear helmets.
https://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/3/191.full
https://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1186.pdf
One interesting conclusion you can make for yourself. The greatest positive reason for an adult to wear a helmet is training their young (<16 years) child/grandchild/niece/nephew to wear one in those high risk years. Of course...once teenage hormones kick in all bets are off. No one on this forum appears to be arguing that young children shouldn't wear helmets.
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1250.html
A helmet law for cyclists under 18 was introduced in Alberta, Canada, on 1 May 2002.
[h=4]Edmonton – 59% reduction in children’s cycling by 2004[/h] Cyclists were counted in Edmonton (a city in Alberta), in 2000 (pre-law) and 2004 (post-law). The percentage of cyclists under 18 fell from 26% in the pre-law survey, to 15% post-law (Hagel et al, 2006), suggesting that the law discouraged substantial numbers of youngsters from cycling. Compared to adults who were not required to wear helmets, children’s cycling (<13 years) fell by 59%, with a 41% reduction for teenagers aged 13-17 (Hagel et al, 2006).
At the time, great concerns were also expressed that injuries per cyclist had increased after the introduction of Alberta’s helmet law (BHRF, 1055).
[h=4]Wider surveys – 56% reduction in children cycling and 27% reduction in teenagers, by 2006[/h] Comprehensive survey results were published in 2011 in a PhD thesis (Karkhaneh, 2011). The data were collated from observational studies of Albertan cyclists in several cities, involving 330 hours of pre-law observations in 2000, and 313 hours of observation post-law in 2006.
The survey showed a large and significant 56% decrease in children's cycling, confirming the large decrease in children’s cycling noted in the Edmonton survey, 2 years earlier. The greatest decreases were at schools (68% decrease), on commuter routes (41% decrease) and in residential areas (37% decrease).
With only 44% as many children cycling, there should have been only 44% as many injuries – i.e. 44% of 1676 = 744. The observed post-law number of injuries – 1676 per year – is 2.37 times higher than would have been expected for the amount of cycling. In contrast, the safety of adult cyclists (who were not affected by the law) improved.
A helmet law for cyclists under 18 was introduced in Alberta, Canada, on 1 May 2002.
[h=4]Edmonton – 59% reduction in children’s cycling by 2004[/h] Cyclists were counted in Edmonton (a city in Alberta), in 2000 (pre-law) and 2004 (post-law). The percentage of cyclists under 18 fell from 26% in the pre-law survey, to 15% post-law (Hagel et al, 2006), suggesting that the law discouraged substantial numbers of youngsters from cycling. Compared to adults who were not required to wear helmets, children’s cycling (<13 years) fell by 59%, with a 41% reduction for teenagers aged 13-17 (Hagel et al, 2006).
At the time, great concerns were also expressed that injuries per cyclist had increased after the introduction of Alberta’s helmet law (BHRF, 1055).
[h=4]Wider surveys – 56% reduction in children cycling and 27% reduction in teenagers, by 2006[/h] Comprehensive survey results were published in 2011 in a PhD thesis (Karkhaneh, 2011). The data were collated from observational studies of Albertan cyclists in several cities, involving 330 hours of pre-law observations in 2000, and 313 hours of observation post-law in 2006.
The survey showed a large and significant 56% decrease in children's cycling, confirming the large decrease in children’s cycling noted in the Edmonton survey, 2 years earlier. The greatest decreases were at schools (68% decrease), on commuter routes (41% decrease) and in residential areas (37% decrease).
With only 44% as many children cycling, there should have been only 44% as many injuries – i.e. 44% of 1676 = 744. The observed post-law number of injuries – 1676 per year – is 2.37 times higher than would have been expected for the amount of cycling. In contrast, the safety of adult cyclists (who were not affected by the law) improved.
Last edited by meanwhile; 05-28-13 at 06:27 PM.
05-28-13, 06:04 PM
#5385
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I fall down more often when on a bicycle than when walking (5+ falls cycling vs. 0 falls walking in the last five years or more) and when I fall, I'm more likely to hit my head when falling from a bicycle than when walking. I'm wearing a helmet when cycling because it hurts less when you hit your head while wearing a helmet, and because there's less blood.
And why do I fall more often when cycling? Because I'm taking more risks when cycling than when walking, because I ride bicycles for fun and I walk to get from place A to place B.
So, neither of your presumptions is true, and neither of your conclusions is true. Seems like you didn't really think all this through, did you?
And why do I fall more often when cycling? Because I'm taking more risks when cycling than when walking, because I ride bicycles for fun and I walk to get from place A to place B.
So, neither of your presumptions is true, and neither of your conclusions is true. Seems like you didn't really think all this through, did you?
05-28-13, 06:16 PM
#5387
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
- Only 10% of recovered helmets OVERALL show liner compression; all of these studied had intact shells
- The poster's helmets showed shell splitting, so the odds are - well, just remote - that it provided a benefit.
Logic is hard for you, isn't it?
...and unless you're reading with an agenda already in mind, it could simply be a statement that the crash was bad enough that the rider should very well have received a concussion, helmet or no. Especially if the shop person exclaiming about the situation is aware that helmets do little or nothing where concussion mitigation is concerned.
POC, Lazer, and Scott are all manufacturing helmets with the licensed MIPS system. Chances are he was not wearing their offerings, but far cry from "No road cycling helmet is."
"Minor" to "moderate" types of head injury are where helmets actually do provide some protection... Moderate but not serious injury could include laceration, abrasion, and impact damage that the recipient might find rather traumatic, but which an emergency room tech/doc would not classify as serious.
05-28-13, 06:24 PM
#5388
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by robble 
I just got back from a group ride where one of the guys had a pretty bad fall (i'm still in kit as I type this even). I was behind him as we were going downhill on a wet road about 25-30mph. He applied the brakes due to a sharp corner coming up. One of his tires locked up and the bike seemed to jump sideways out from under him.
He slammed to the ground and skidded/rolled pretty darn far. Road rash all over his body, possible broken hip (he is 70 years old but super fit). front left of his helmet was broken. He couldn't remember anyone's names and kept asking to call his wife multiple times after we had already called her (and an ambulance). Definitely he has a concussion. Who knows how bad it would have been without his helmet.
- If he has concussion, the impact energy was past the limits cycling helmets are designed for
- When cycling helmets fail, the shell shatters before liner compression AND NO ENERGY IS ABSORBED
Really: gambling in a piece of safety equipment **without spending a few minutes researching what that equipment can do** is just stupid. Posting an example of an accident and saying "Imagine how worse it would have been without a helmet!!!" as if proves something is pretty damn silly too.
If you want to research the actual science, engineering and epidemology, see https://www.cyclehelmets.org/
05-28-13, 06:28 PM
#5389
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
05-28-13, 06:34 PM
#5391
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Beg to differ, I remember being bent over more than a few times by some of the non helmet guys saying that not wearing a helmet is actually safer than wearing a helmet and people shouldn't wear one. It's the main reason I'm still here to try and tell the other side... From post 3722 to 4203 mainly, lately it's been more like it's not worth wearing a helmet because the risk is soo small... Maybe it is, maybe it isn't...
Other than: the more acceptance of helmets, the more chance of helmet laws - and this leads to fewer cyclists. Which has a HUGE effect on safety.
05-28-13, 06:38 PM
#5392
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 8,880
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: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 934 Post(s)
Liked 150 Times
in
124 Posts
This helmet stuff makes me laugh, because some of you anti helmet folk are scared to death to ride in a thunderstorm yet your 10,000 times less likely to get struck by lightening then you are having an accident and striking your head! But you'll seek shelter or not go out at all in a T-storm but won't wear a helmet?! https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...7#post15678087 I find it all quite absurd.
05-28-13, 06:40 PM
#5393
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Then we must use excruciating agony instead!
Truthfully: most people here will always use helmets because they are scared, and helmets provide comfort. Few people are strong enough to let rationality override such a need.
Or in the words of one of the twentieth century's greatest philosophers: "If God did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep."
Truthfully: most people here will always use helmets because they are scared, and helmets provide comfort. Few people are strong enough to let rationality override such a need.
Or in the words of one of the twentieth century's greatest philosophers: "If God did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep."
05-28-13, 06:44 PM
#5394
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This helmet stuff makes me laugh, because some of you anti helmet folk are scared to death to ride in a thunderstorm yet your 10,000 times less likely to get struck by lightening then you are having an accident and striking your head! But you'll seek shelter or not go out at all in a T-storm but won't wear a helmet?! https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...7#post15678087 I find it all
Getting struck by lightening while riding a bike is 10000 times less likely to occur then hitting one's head in an some sort of accident, yet people won't wear helmets, but are afraid to ride in a thunderstorm...go figure.
05-28-13, 06:49 PM
#5395
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
11 Posts
Obviously you don't really believe that, because you only wear one while cycling. Beyond that, I'm not the one going around arguing that people should or should not wear helmets, so what I "understand" doesn't really have anything to do with it.
05-28-13, 06:50 PM
#5396
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 8,880
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: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 934 Post(s)
Liked 150 Times
in
124 Posts
Right, and not wearing a helmet is an example of smartness...ok then, I play the role of the wacko but you fit right in as a ventriloquists dum...
05-28-13, 06:54 PM
#5397
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
- So my argument is based on statements from helmet engineers and statisticians who have studied helmet effectiveness
- And your argument is based on Argument By Conclusion - usually regarded as the stupidest and most self evident of classical logical fallacies...
Do you get why there is vibe to my posts suggesting that I look down on you?
05-28-13, 07:26 PM
#5398
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I know: it would have been exactly the same. Because:
- If he has concussion, the impact energy was past the limits cycling helmets are designed for
- When cycling helmets fail, the shell shatters before liner compression AND NO ENERGY IS ABSORBED
Really: gambling in a piece of safety equipment **without spending a few minutes researching what that equipment can do** is just stupid. Posting an example of an accident and saying "Imagine how worse it would have been without a helmet!!!" as if proves something is pretty damn silly too.
If you want to research the actual science, engineering and epidemology, see https://www.cyclehelmets.org/
- If he has concussion, the impact energy was past the limits cycling helmets are designed for
- When cycling helmets fail, the shell shatters before liner compression AND NO ENERGY IS ABSORBED
Really: gambling in a piece of safety equipment **without spending a few minutes researching what that equipment can do** is just stupid. Posting an example of an accident and saying "Imagine how worse it would have been without a helmet!!!" as if proves something is pretty damn silly too.
If you want to research the actual science, engineering and epidemology, see https://www.cyclehelmets.org/
let try a test.. you wear a helmet and let me hit you on the head with a hammer. then lets repeat the test without you wearing a helmet and lets see which one causes the most damage.
despite the name of that website you listed it is clearly a completely anti-hlemet biased site.. such as Monsantos website declaring how safe GMO foods are.
IF you don't want to wear a helmet then don't but don't insult anyone with any common sense by saying it won't help you when you slam your head into the pavement.
05-28-13, 07:28 PM
#5399
Cycle Dallas
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Posts: 3,777
Bikes: Dulcinea--2017 Kona Rove & a few others
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
4 Posts
You can say that, yes. However you would be wrong. Not in the sense of "I disagree with your opinion and think that you are wrong" but "You are talking provable bloody rubbish in contradiction of accepted, lab-tested science":
1. Helmets do NOT absorb energy by cracking! They absorb energy by liner compression, WHICH REQUIRES AN UNCRACKED SHELL. If you are getting to set yourself up as a forensic witness, at least do some research:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...47008514,d.d2k
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...47008514,d.d2k
..The amount of energy taken to crack a shell is trivial. This is one of the things that lazy people who don't do research don't get: when a helmet is overloaded, it no longer subtracts the energy it is designed to absorb from a crash - instead the shell fails with about 5-10% of the energy taken for liner compression, the liner splits instead of compressing, and you get about zero benefit.
2. The idea that because something absorbed SOME energy it absorbed MOST of it is just a failure of basic logic and arithmetic
1. Helmets do NOT absorb energy by cracking! They absorb energy by liner compression, WHICH REQUIRES AN UNCRACKED SHELL. If you are getting to set yourself up as a forensic witness, at least do some research:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...47008514,d.d2k
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...47008514,d.d2k
..The amount of energy taken to crack a shell is trivial. This is one of the things that lazy people who don't do research don't get: when a helmet is overloaded, it no longer subtracts the energy it is designed to absorb from a crash - instead the shell fails with about 5-10% of the energy taken for liner compression, the liner splits instead of compressing, and you get about zero benefit.
2. The idea that because something absorbed SOME energy it absorbed MOST of it is just a failure of basic logic and arithmetic
05-28-13, 07:33 PM
#5400
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
MEanwhile - That website you posted has this link to the "results" of a study under the sentence "UK law would lead to 253 more deaths according to assessment using WHO HEAT tool, while Government research finds no reliable evidence of helmet benefit."
Yet, if you track down the actual study it says "The project concludes that in the event of an on-road accident, cycle helmets would be expected to be effective in a range of real-world accident conditions, particularly the most common accidents that do not involve a collision with another vehicle and are often believed to consist of simple falls or tumbles over the handlebars"
Yet, if you track down the actual study it says "The project concludes that in the event of an on-road accident, cycle helmets would be expected to be effective in a range of real-world accident conditions, particularly the most common accidents that do not involve a collision with another vehicle and are often believed to consist of simple falls or tumbles over the handlebars"
