|
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 15768361)
Ok, that statement is worth my responding
|
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 15766110)
I dont give a rats arse ABOUT my speling.
|
Originally Posted by sudo bike
(Post 15769249)
"Why Ed, does this mean we're not friends anymore? You know Ed, if I thought you weren't my friend... I just don't think I could bear it!"
|
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 15765074)
"Bicycling accounts for about 2% of all head injuries, so not cycling still leaves you vulnerable to the other 98% - hardly perfect protection. And if you stop cycling you might well be doing more of some of the other activities such as driving and walking that contribute to the head injury numbers."
Exactly, so why subject yourself to a 2% greater chance? Besides the data you refer to cannot be accurately determined because they lump head injuries in bicycle accidents as motor vehicle/traffic accidents, in that vein the percentage is 17.3% which ranks that category in the top 3 reasons for head injuries; and of the top 5 causes for head injuries bicycling is rated #2; see: http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/0...avoid-them.htm So your data is incorrect. Your previous claim was that stopping cycling would provide perfect protection from head injury - clearly it would do nothing of the kind. Furthermore you'd be likely to substitute other activities, such as driving, walking, etc. that also have some risk of head injury. Most importantly, those who stop cycling are likely to reduce the total amount of exercise they do which increases the risk of far more common health risks such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, etc. BTW, the statistics on percentage killed while helmeted vs. unhelmeted are all based on the FARS database which was brought into question by an analysis by Riley Geary www.adventurecycling.org/default/assets/resources/riley_geary.pdf No idea if their data has improved more recently, but it clearly had serious flaws in the past. |
Originally Posted by prathmann
(Post 15769963)
Just because the data you found is inconclusive since it lumps bike accidents together with other causes does not make the data I was using 'incorrect.' I was going by the number of brain injury deaths per year of all causes (56000 according to Kraus, J. F, and MacArthur, D. L. (1996) Epidemiologic Aspects of Brain Injury. Neurologic Clinics, 14(2): 435-450.). In contrast there are fewer than 1000 deaths due to bicycling of all causes, so even if all of them were due to head injuries it would still be less than 2%.
Your previous claim was that stopping cycling would provide perfect protection from head injury - clearly it would do nothing of the kind. Furthermore you'd be likely to substitute other activities, such as driving, walking, etc. that also have some risk of head injury. Most importantly, those who stop cycling are likely to reduce the total amount of exercise they do which increases the risk of far more common health risks such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, etc. BTW, the statistics on percentage killed while helmeted vs. unhelmeted are all based on the FARS database which was brought into question by an analysis by Riley Geary www.adventurecycling.org/default/assets/resources/riley_geary.pdf No idea if their data has improved more recently, but it clearly had serious flaws in the past. It's amazing how some of you can believe whatever Obama tells you because he is the president, but can't believe the FARS that uses several sources for it's data. In your mind you want to believe that helmets are useless and you will not accept any outside facts that prove otherwise. |
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 15769993)
It's amazing how some of you can believe whatever Obama tells you because he is the president, but can't believe the FARS that uses several sources for it's data. In your mind you want to believe that helmets are useless and you will not accept any outside facts that prove otherwise.
|
I love how this thread goes back and forth over statistics. The real argument should be seen in a larger context. It is a simple topic for me. If you chastise me for not wearing a helmet when I drive my car, or do other dangerous activities, then cool, I get it, you are logically concerned for people's safety. On the other hand, if you decide to be a helmet Nazi only when it comes to people on bicycles, I would consider you insane, and rightly so, because you are far more likely to suffer a head injury while in a motor vehicle. In fact, I have suffered several concussions in my life, none of which came from riding a bike.
Not to say that not wearing a helmet is for everyone. Older people, overweight people who fall badly, people with poor balance or no confidence on a bike... well, I would say it would be wise for them to wear a helmet. Certainly I would not badger them to do so though. Personally, I only wear mine when I feel like it. (aggressive mountain biking, aggressive, or riding in groups road biking.) Also, if you want to get serious, pass on the $200 piece of Styrofoam and get a real helmet. Like a Protec made for skate boarders, or maybe a BMX style helmet. Or for those that truly fear their heads bouncing off the pavement or the front end of a bus, a Motorcycle helmet. It is absolutely silly to badger people about the risks of not wearing a helmet while cycling, but then not even give a second thought as to why you do not wear one while driving a car, or while playing a sport, or walking into a place of business that just waxed their floors... |
kid
Your logic is flawed saying a person should wear a helmet in a car. Bikes safety equiptment include a helmet. In a car you have THREE levels of safety equiptment already. Cars have crumple zones, seat belts, and air bags. But then again talking auto, skateboarding, and other activitives is off topic for a cycling forum. |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 15773310)
kid
Your logic is flawed saying a person should wear a helmet in a car. Bikes safety equiptment include a helmet. In a car you have THREE levels of safety equiptment already. Cars have crumple zones, seat belts, and air bags. There is even less barrier to wearing a helmet in a car rather than on a bike. You're barely physically moving and have an air conditioner, so it isn't like you're going to get hot. You can take your helmet off at your destination and take your time fixing your helmet hair. I can think of fewer reasons to not wear a helmet in a car rather than reasons not to wear one on a bike, other than social pressures being different for each. The fact cars have other safety measures doesn't matter, since there are still high rates of head injury after they have done their job (just like a helmet is a last line of defense after rider skill, good tires, good brakes, good lighting, etc); it follows logically what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and drivers would also benefit from helmet use. But then again talking auto, skateboarding, and other activitives is off topic for a cycling forum. |
Originally Posted by sudo bike
(Post 15773334)
This seems to be the common refrain of anyone not wanting to address the inconvenient question about why helmets aren't worn in activities with similar levels of risk. Which is no wonder, because it presents a logical inconsistency. Nevertheless, you can try and dodge the point by hand-waving it away as "off-topic", but when you're discussing comparative risk to discuss whether a helmet is necessary, comparing to other activities is absolutely appropriate.
And if you think that wearing a helmet in a car (or in a shower, or walking along, or climbing a ladder...) would help prevent head injuries, it's would certainly be valid to claim that helmets worn while cycling also prevent head injuries. Y'all gotta figure out which way you want it--can't have it both ways; can't say that helmet comparisons for activities other than cycling is relevant without accepting similar comparisons which are proven to not support your views. |
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 15773370)
Such comparisons are only relevant when the activities and helmet construction are similar. If we go your way, then there's no reason pro-helmeteers shouldn't point out the proven and verifiable safety of motorcycle helmet use to prevent head injury during a crash. Certainly we should be able to apply that to the argument for helmet use on bicycles if such comparisons are appropriate to the discussion.
What would be invalid, is arguing that because motorcycle helmets are effective, bicycle helmets are effective. But I'm sure you weren't arguing that because a valid comparison can be made, all comparisons should be valid, were you? And if you think that wearing a helmet in a car (or in a shower, or walking along, or climbing a ladder...) would help prevent head injuries, it's would certainly be valid to claim that helmets worn while cycling also prevent head injuries. |
Arguing bike safety by diverting the thread off cycling is a weak argument. It is about as thin as soup made from the shadow of a starving chicken. This after all is a bike forum. Try to stay on topic.
The overridding fact about a bike helmet is wearing one may provide some protection, and after putting one on, a rider forgets he even has one on. The anti helmet types seem to think cyclist ride around chanting in their head, Im wearing a helemt, Im wearing a helmet, Im wearing a helmet. That just doesnt happen. |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 15776337)
The overridding fact about a bike helmet is wearing one may provide some protection, and after putting one on, a rider forgets he even has one on.
|
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 15773310)
kid
Your logic is flawed saying a person should wear a helmet in a car. Bikes safety equiptment include a helmet. In a car you have THREE levels of safety equiptment already. Cars have crumple zones, seat belts, and air bags. But then again talking auto, skateboarding, and other activitives is off topic for a cycling forum. |
kid
Wrong again talking about race cars. The too are way off topic for a biking forum. And come to think about it they are way off topic for the ave car driver. |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 15779355)
kid
Wrong again talking about race cars. The too are way off topic for a biking forum. And come to think about it they are way off topic for the ave car driver. You know, so are top end racing bikes like the cervelo S5 or the Specialized demo for the average cyclist. But I bet you wouldn't do DH without a good fullface helmet and body armor. It's protection for the certain type of sport or activity. Motorsports requires a full safety system including a helmet, neck brace, nomex suit etc. The most hardcore mountain biking requires the body armor and full face helmet set (although in the 2012 red bull rampage one rider did the course with a t-shirt and shorts...) Not gonna go to road cycling, since it should be everyone's own choice. The average netherlandian everyday cyclist rarely requires any personal safety gear since the risks involved are so miniscule. I think comparisons between speed sports are quite relevant, at least in some cases. |
Originally Posted by elcruxio
(Post 15779940)
I think comparisons between speed sports are quite relevant, at least in some cases.
|
From a different thread, but bears posting here:
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 15774109)
The key to understanding helmets is to understand what they do. There are two basic types of helmets. Those designed to protect the head from low mass moving objects, ie. construction hard hats, and hose designed to protect the moving head from impacts on hard immovable masses, ie. bike and MC helmets. Some have some overlap of both elements, but are still mainly one or the other.
For bike helmets, the object is to reduce the rate of decelleration of the head, so he brain has a smaller impact within the skull. They do this by starting the process sooner, and crushing until they reach the zero point, essentially increasing the total braking distance. The key's here therefore are total crush distance (thickness of the crushable material) and the crush rate. Crush rate is tricky, because ideally you want to use the entire available distance from initial impact to zero speed. Too hard and it won't help much on low speed impacts, too high and it'll be crushed to zero too soon and not protect at higher speeds. Bike helmets are usually designed based on a speed comparable to falling 6-8', and so are fine for many bike crashes, but totally inadequate if, for example you with a brick wall at 15mph+. Thicker crush zones allow a broader range of effectiveness, but that comes at a penalty of weight, increased likelihood of impact to the side, and increased torque on sliding impacts, which is a key consideration at higher speeds. So there's no perfect answer, and you need to seek the best compromise, balancing weight and coolness with protection. Understand, that a thicker, harder shell does not translate to a better bike helmet, unless you hit on a protrusion that would pierce a thinner shell, which is why no bike helmet is a substitute for a hard hat, and vice versa. |
You bring in an explanation of bicycle helmets that makes total sense to everyone involved here and you're going to ruin this thread's fung shui.
Next thing, we'll all be holding hands, singing kumbaya. A couple of us might even start making out in the bushes. Seriously, though, I saw that post in the other thread. That's good stuff. Props to FBinNY! |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 15779355)
kid
Wrong again talking about race cars. The too are way off topic for a biking forum. And come to think about it they are way off topic for the ave car driver. Yet you keep bringing up your damn tricycle. |
Oh, Please, How can you compare a helmet designed for 100+ MPH crashes to one that's designed for 12 or so MPH crashes...? Yes, Maybe they should up the anti and design one for 20+MPH crashes, but really, comparing different helmets meant for different uses is silly. JMO
|
six
My "damned trike"as you say, is a really fun relaxing way to cycle. Not all of us think that cycling involves being fully kitted, being a slave to a certain cadence, and doing a spread sheet on heart rate. And yes I still wear my helmet when I ride my trike. |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 15783347)
six
My "damned trike"as you say, is a really fun relaxing way to cycle. Not all of us think that cycling involves being fully kitted, being a slave to a certain cadence, and doing a spread sheet on heart rate. And yes I still wear my helmet when I ride my trike. |
Originally Posted by Six jours
(Post 15783201)
Yet you keep bringing up your damn tricycle.
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 15783347)
six
My "damned trike"as you say, is a really fun relaxing way to cycle. Not all of us think that cycling involves being fully kitted, being a slave to a certain cadence, and doing a spread sheet on heart rate. And yes I still wear my helmet when I ride my trike. |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 15783347)
six
My "damned trike"as you say, is a really fun relaxing way to cycle. Not all of us think that cycling involves being fully kitted, being a slave to a certain cadence, and doing a spread sheet on heart rate. And yes I still wear my helmet when I ride my trike. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:15 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.