Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

The helmet thread

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.
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

Old 05-30-13, 01:33 PM
  #5451  
Senior Member
 
meanwhile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MMACH 5
Please show me where I said or even implied any of that.
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.

You're acting as if the helmeteers have decided that a helmet allows them to go dive in front of cars and head-first off of bridges.
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.)

Last edited by PhotoJoe; 05-30-13 at 05:43 PM.
meanwhile is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 01:45 PM
  #5452  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,849

Bikes: 27 speed ORYX with over 39,000Kms on it and another 14,000KMs with a BionX E-Assist on it

Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
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? https://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Last edited by 350htrr; 05-30-13 at 02:08 PM.
350htrr is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 02:07 PM
  #5453  
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Posts: 3,777

Bikes: Dulcinea--2017 Kona Rove & a few others

Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by meanwhile
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.
...
That is an outright lie. I never said that.
Originally Posted by meanwhile
...
No, you believe this because you are too stupid to read what I have written.
...
Again with the name calling? How do you think this helps your argument?
Originally Posted by meanwhile
...
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.
...
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.
Originally Posted by meanwhile
...
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.)
More insults.

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.
MMACH 5 is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 02:24 PM
  #5454  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr
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? https://www.helmets.org/stats.htm
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
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 02:30 PM
  #5455  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Here's an interesting perspective from one Law firm on bicycle helmets




[h=1]Recently, I was involved in a Vancouver bicycle accident and suffered a mild traumatic brain injury. I was wearing a bike helmet, so how could this happen?[/h]
Click the link below to find out the exciting answer
https://www.mccombwitten.com/faqs/rec...-brain-inj.cfm
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 02:48 PM
  #5456  
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Posts: 3,777

Bikes: Dulcinea--2017 Kona Rove & a few others

Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr
Here's an interesting perspective from one Law firm on bicycle helmets
Click the link below to find out the exciting answer
https://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.
MMACH 5 is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 03:07 PM
  #5457  
Just Plain Slow
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 6,026

Bikes: Lynskey R230

Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Enough of the name calling. Meanwhile - please leave this thread.
PhotoJoe is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 03:17 PM
  #5458  
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Posts: 3,777

Bikes: Dulcinea--2017 Kona Rove & a few others

Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 5 Posts
I posted this last month. It's long but worth the time.
It's available online now:
https://www.bicycling.com/senseless/

Originally Posted by MMACH 5
I just got the June issue if Bicycling Magazine and there's a story called "Senseless." It's about the history of bicycle helmets and why they likely don't protect us as well as they could. The story has stuff in it that could rile up both sides if the issue. Which I tend to think of as a pretty good sign of fairly accurate content.
It's a good read. I recommend it for all interested in helmet safety.
Sorry, I can't find a link it online (maybe they'll make it available when the next issue comes out).
MMACH 5 is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 03:19 PM
  #5459  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,849

Bikes: 27 speed ORYX with over 39,000Kms on it and another 14,000KMs with a BionX E-Assist on it

Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr
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
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...
350htrr is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 05:11 PM
  #5460  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by MMACH 5
...sudo bike...and I had a rather extended discussion about shifting the goalpost a few months ago.
Which apparently bounced off you without making any impact whatsoever.
Six jours is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 05:25 PM
  #5461  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr
Yes I was told, and to me it doesn't matter WHY, a person got into the accident,
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,...**
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 05:42 PM
  #5462  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,849

Bikes: 27 speed ORYX with over 39,000Kms on it and another 14,000KMs with a BionX E-Assist on it

Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr
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...

Last edited by 350htrr; 05-30-13 at 05:45 PM. Reason: spelling
350htrr is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 05:44 PM
  #5463  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MMACH 5
I don't support helmet laws. I have spoken out against Dallas' helmet law as a member of a bicycle advocacy committee.
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.
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 05:50 PM
  #5464  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr
Who cares... I'm sure there are "risk takers" in both groups ..
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: https://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S...649-9/abstract
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 05:57 PM
  #5465  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,849

Bikes: 27 speed ORYX with over 39,000Kms on it and another 14,000KMs with a BionX E-Assist on it

Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
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... Those numbers aren't my "opinion" they are from "experts"... Just like any other poll... 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. https://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....

Last edited by 350htrr; 05-30-13 at 06:42 PM.
350htrr is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 06:07 PM
  #5466  
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Posts: 3,777

Bikes: Dulcinea--2017 Kona Rove & a few others

Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr
...
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.
...
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.
MMACH 5 is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 06:13 PM
  #5467  
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Posts: 3,777

Bikes: Dulcinea--2017 Kona Rove & a few others

Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Six jours
Which apparently bounced off you without making any impact whatsoever.
My helmet must have deflected it.
MMACH 5 is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 07:27 PM
  #5468  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,849

Bikes: 27 speed ORYX with over 39,000Kms on it and another 14,000KMs with a BionX E-Assist on it

Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr
You have ...again... missed the point. Make a list of the things that a risk taker will do,
talking to you,...**
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...
350htrr is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 09:38 PM
  #5469  
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 8,696

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

Liked 258 Times in 208 Posts
Originally Posted by meanwhile
You don't.



These posts were actually the ones you seemed to be answering - ironically you didn't quote the post (or even give a number) you were whining about. (Again, a smarter person would not have put himself in a position where he looks like a hypocrite..)




Nope. Those links are to the BHRI - run by Europe's leading helmet test engineer and co-editted by professional statisticians - and a "blog" run by the director of the University Of Michigan's Risk Science Institute. And all of them in turn reference papers and studies.

Again - this reading thing is hard for you, isn't it?



Except for reducing rotation, you can not make helmets tougher without making them much heavier. Motorcycle helmets and downhill helmets are at the limit of what is possible, and in each case providing protection at, say, 20mph, requires

1. A full face design

2. A weight of around a kilo

3. A cost of around $600

Standards won't change significantly, because helmets that are cheap, light, and effective are technologically impossible - otherwise motorcyclists would already be wearing them.

Also: given virtually every cyclist with a fatal head injury also has a fatal torso injury... is there any point to spending $600 on a helmet, even if you are willing to do so and commute wearing a full face design?

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.
rekmeyata is offline  
Old 05-30-13, 09:52 PM
  #5470  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
I've had more intellectual conversations with 2 year old's then I've had with you.
I'm guessing they more than held their own.
Six jours is offline  
Old 05-31-13, 09:00 AM
  #5471  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
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.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 05-31-13, 09:16 AM
  #5472  
Senior Member
 
meanwhile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr
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? https://www.helmets.org/stats.htm
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.)

Last edited by meanwhile; 05-31-13 at 09:21 AM.
meanwhile is offline  
Old 05-31-13, 09:17 AM
  #5473  
Senior Member
 
meanwhile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr
Just because I don't agree it doesn't mean I missed the point
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.
meanwhile is offline  
Old 05-31-13, 09:26 AM
  #5474  
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Posts: 3,777

Bikes: Dulcinea--2017 Kona Rove & a few others

Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
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.
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.)
MMACH 5 is offline  
Old 05-31-13, 09:29 AM
  #5475  
Senior Member
 
meanwhile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr
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...
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.

Those numbers aren't my "opinion" they are from "experts"...
Yes, but so what? The figures are the experts, but the lack of intelligence you have applied to misunderstanding them is your own.
meanwhile is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.