Originally Posted by rekmeyata

Ok, that statement is worth my responding

Originally Posted by rekmeyata

I dont give a rats arse ABOUT my speling.

Originally Posted by sudo bike

"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

"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: https://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/0...avoid-them.htm So your data is incorrect.

Originally Posted by prathmann

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.

Originally Posted by rekmeyata

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 rydabent

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.

Originally Posted by sudo bike

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.

Originally Posted by mconlonx

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.

Originally Posted by rydabent

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

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

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 elcruxio

I think comparisons between speed sports are quite relevant, at least in some cases.

Originally Posted by FBinNY

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.

Originally Posted by rydabent

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

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

Yet you keep bringing up your damn tricycle.

Originally Posted by rydabent

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

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.