No, you believe this because you are too stupid to read what I have written. In your last post, when you said that it is irrelevant that 95% of fatal head injuries in cycling are accompanied by fatal torso injuries.

What I have said is

- 95% of fatal had injuried are accompanied by fatal torso injuries

- Virtually all of the remaining 5% of fatal injuries are inflicted by speeds beyond the limit a helmet works at - ie above 12mph

- Helmets only work in very low speed accidents and virtually no deaths - or serious injuries of any kind - occur in these

So in summary, logically, THERE IS NO WAY A HELMET CAN SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF SURVIVAL. Which is confirmed by real world studies of helmet law consequences, etc.

So my position is no that I think you will dive in front of car, but that you are a silly or weak man who refuses to look facts in the face. Which is probably better for you, but less entertaining for me. The real danger to you is that while you are obsessing with your foam hat you are neglecting real safety - but this is a very slight risk, because cycling injuries are so rare. A greater risk is that you are facilitating helmet laws - which normally halve the number of cyclists, which actually DOES increase risk (for reasons that you are probably not smart enough to understand.)

So meanwhile, why did 69.6% of the cyclists that died did not wear helmets, while only 11.3% of cyclists who died wore helmets? http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

That is an outright lie. I never said that.
Again with the name calling? How do you think this helps your argument?
We don't live in a world of absolutes. Will a helmet make a difference in an accident? Maybe it will. Maybe it won't. We all assess and mitigate risk as we see fit.
More insults. :rolleyes:

If YOU had read what I have written, you'd see that my foam hat is a last resort. Safety is multi-layered with helmet coming in at the very bottom of the list.

I don't support helmet laws. I have spoken out against Dallas' helmet law as a member of a bicycle advocacy committee.

You've been told this before: they're probably risk takers who are drunk.

In the current climate of fear-mongering, there are probably two groups of people that bicycle without helmets:

1) people who are are educated and honest enough to read and understand the studies
2) people who don't give a flying f***

There are studies suggesting that a significant proportion of #2 are impaired at the time of the accident. These famously include some of the helmet pushers.

https://theconversation.com/crash-da...de-drunk-11944

Here's an interesting perspective from one Law firm on bicycle helmets




Click the link below to find out the exciting answer
http://www.mccombwitten.com/faqs/rec...-brain-inj.cfm

A succinct explanation of bicycle helmets' shortcomings. I'm surprised to see it shared by a lawyer. :)

Enough of the name calling. Meanwhile - please leave this thread.

I posted this last month. It's long but worth the time.
It's available online now:
http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/

Yes I was told, and to me it doesn't matter WHY, a person got into the accident, what matters in this instance is the TOTAL number of people that was or wasn't wearing helmets out of those 50,000 or so that had head injuries severe enough to go to emergency, that would indicate more clearly how helmets perform in real life... Unfortunately it doesn't say...

Which apparently bounced off you without making any impact whatsoever.

You have ...again... missed the point. Make a list of the things that a risk taker will do, then start looking for correlations between their death rate and X.

X = {no-helmet, drinking, unprotected sex, no-insurance, listening to Beirut, riding through red lights, talking to you,...**

Who cares... I'm sure there are "risk takers" in both groups and they probably even out. We are talking about the average N American bike rider here and how many of them visited the ER with a head injury and died, The only thing missing is how many wore helmets when they crashed and how many didn't, you need that to get an idea of why there was soo many more helmetless bicyclist dying as compared to helmeted as to the ratio that is showd on that site for the 50,000 to mean anything as to whether helmeted injured persons may be safer/or not, than no-helmeted persons... As for the ones that didn't die you also need that number with the seriousness of their head injuries too...

And your posts going back some time back that up.

But Meanwhile does have some valid objections to what you suggest: you're asking him/her to prove that a particular helmet did not in some freaky circumstance save someone once. That's an impossible challenge ... in the same way that you can't prove that my homeopathic sport drink (essence of car diluted to Avogadro's number squared) didn't help me when I bounced off a convertible 20 years ago.

I think a fair person looking at the evidence would conclude that it is unlikely that bicycle helmets save their wearers from death, brain-injury and dismemberment. Claims of "look at my cracked helmet... I would have died" are simply lies. Whether or not the people making those unverified claims mean them to be so they are taken as evidence for why there should be helmet laws by the usual busy-bodies that cannot just stay home and do their macrame or make model boats.

Yes, that's right... "who cares?". Apparently you and I do or we wouldn't be posting here. The big difference is that apparently I do care about truth and evidence and you don't. You'd rather just spout your opinion while ignoring what people have already tried to find out about this complicated topic.

A humbler, honester person would just read some of the copious references and start to wonder if their certainty that a piece of beer cooler will save cyclists from certain death is perhaps flawed.

Here's another reference you won't read or understand: http://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S...649-9/abstract

You trying to dismiss 70% dead as compared to 12% dead in a year as higher risk taking by one group isn't very factual either... :p Those numbers aren't my "opinion" they are from "experts"... Just like any other poll... :rolleyes: EDIT; As to this site, like I was saying... Both helmeted and UN-helmeted group has people that do risky things and they "probably" average out sooo what does this mean? Not much, JMO. :innocent: http://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S...649-9/abstract I might not be as humble as you would like people to be , But I am honest/believe I'm honest, whatever I say I believe, even tho I "may" be wrong.... :beer:

If I was asking meanwhile to prove anything, it was unintentional. I was trying to point out that torso injuries, as severe and deadly as they may be, have little to do with helmets.

My helmet must have deflected it. :) :)

Just because I don't agree it doesn't mean I missed the point, sometimes I do ignore the point just like some other people do... ;) Make sure you strap on a helmet before banging your head against the wall if talking to me bothers you sooo much... :innocent:

You know what, I'm done with you, I have better things to do then to have a non intellectual discussion with a 2 year old. In fact, I've had more intellectual conversations with 2 year old's then I've had with you. Have a nice life living the life of a two year old.

I'm guessing they more than held their own.

Ran into this today.

Apart from the sidebar neglecting relative risk as a reason to go lidless, and the first sentence assuming a simple fall is a "major crash", most of what's said are things I've said for years.

Fear is still the main selling point. if the author wasn't worried about major injury and death falling on cyclists, he probably wouldn't be in the market for a new helmet for his daughter.

This seems like a good question if you have no science training - actually it's something that you should have learned in high school, but science education in schools is usually poor. Otoh, the answer would be quite obvious to someone of reasonable intelligence and common sense if they thought for a few minutes...

The reason is that you are not comparing identical populations.

In fact, most cycling accidents occur to a very small group of people who indulge in several high risk behaviours. Such as

- Riding while drunk

- Riding the wrong way

- Riding at night without lights

- Jumping on and off sidewalks on busy roads

This small subset of people do not wear helmets. And the guy who runs the site you linked to knows this, because it has been pointed out by statisticians time and time again - but he still uses the figure to mislead people. (That's a VERY well funded site btw, hint-hint..)

If this still isn't clear to you, consider breasts:

- Male and female cyclists ride about equal miles in NYC

- They wear helmets at equal rates

- But men make up 80 to 90% of the deaths (while having almost 0% of the breasts)

Now, by your "logic" one would conclude that breast are the ultimate cycling safety device, and that every cyclist should get implants or hormone therapy. But in reality... that small group of people who take silly risks and do most of the dying are male, and it's the behaviour of this subgroup that explains the figures, not Magic Breast Power.

(..And if you had made a minimal effort to do proper research, rather than relying on a helmet company astroturfing site, you'd have known the above.)

That's true. What does mean that you missed the point is what you wrote. Trust us: you couldn't it the point if it was the size of a whale, painted orange, and lying on your lap. You. Do. Not. Do. Point.

I shared this last month but I'll share it again. :)
Part of what stuck out to me from that story is that helmets have a "sweet spot" for protecting your noggin. If you don't strike your head hard enough to compress the styrofoam, you'll get almost no benefit from the helmet. However, the styrofoam's ability to absorb energy has a limit, so if you strike your head too hard, the benefit degrades rather quickly.
(The author also covered rotational injuries and discussed bicycle helmets' shortcommings in that regard.)

This is pure Fail. Why is this "dismissing" and why isn't it "factual"? (And the actual word you meant was "correct" btw.) You do understand that Argument By Conclusion is automatically correct? In fact, it is utterly correct that the large part of deaths are due to high risk behaviors - that's why men between 18-30 incur more deaths than women as an entire group.

Yes, but so what? The figures are the experts, but the lack of intelligence you have applied to misunderstanding them is your own.