Hahaha! I'm far from a helmet cultist:lol: But unlike many posters here I have something in my skull that I'd like to protect. I have two teenage kids who automatically grab their helmets before they ride, they don't even think about it, they also have much to protect in there.
I've also worked around healthcare long enough (and it doesn't take long) to see the pain and suffering that head injuries can cause, as well as seeing the positive effect when helmets are involved.
If others wear a helmet is not my business, I do encourage the practice. When it does become my business is when they show up at the hospital and we need to try to put them back together. At these times we never fail to act, when these a**holes don't pay for these critical services and thumb their noses at yet another responsibility, then I get a bit crabby with ignorance.

Certainly, but that's not what happens (or at least what happened here)

Certain groups got together and for years lobbied government and influenced public opinion that bicycle helmets save lives. It was this particular reason that our MHL was passed.

What happened was people stopped riding when they were ticketed and the remaining cyclists continued to receive head injuries at the same rate and somehow, when helmet use was at it's highest, ended up with more cycling fatalities.

That's not good for anyone

And you think that calling people morons and brainless is encouragement? Does that work much, insulting folks into your point of view?

And the guy who walked out on his bill, do you know if he could've payed? It sucks that people do that, but sometimes they have no better option. If only there was some sort of system where medical services were guaranteed to be paid for...

So if you work in health care, what do you do when people arrive with head injuries from falls on stairs?

Far more numerous than those who get them from riding bikes, certainly they would benefit from helmet use as well.

And since there are even more brain injuries from stroke than trauma, what do you recommend then? Cycling as a preventative measure, or is that too risky?

Yeah, I tried to come up with something better than moron, but that really sums up a self appointed "expert" in traumatic brain injury and helmet safety research like we see in this thread. It's the same way I feel about parents who refuse to immunize their children because of what some internet wanker says, kids pay the price in suffering. Morons, wankers, sociopaths, they all seem to fit., take your pick.

Don't forget, this "Shifty" character has also just posted the picture of someone who is not him and claimed that the said person is one of many unhelmeted users who do not pay their hospital bills.

I think I'm onto something when I describe them as the Helmet Cultists of the Church of Health & Safety. They have a creed and follow it unthinkingly. It's funny s/he brings up vaccination though.

I tend to lump all the helmet wearers into a category of people that have irrational thought processes and thus would believe in: religion, UFOs, conspiracy theories, vaccine-derived-autism, healing crystals ; and disbelieve in: statistical methods, science, anthropogenic global warming.

A friend suggested that the real division might be somewhere more accurately found by intersecting class and educational background with authoritarian/liberal personality traits. I wonder where "Shifty" fits in: uneducated-authoritarian or educated-authoritarian?

looks like an attempt to shut down the thread.

Will it work? I don't know, but I do what the first post of this version of the thread said about posts like Shiftys last

I haven't seen anyone here claim to be an expert, and I don't see what so moronic about admitting the possibility that the guy in the pic you posted might have suffered the same level of brain injury with a helmet (I assume that since you're bringing up brain injury, the dude with the bloody head suffered some). Since you work in the medical field, you're familiar with mechanisms of injury, yes? Did you know that what is thought to be the primary mechanism of injury for brain injury isn't mitigated by helmets? It was a pretty hot topic this football season; I saw about half a dozen stories on in NPR alone.

Vaccines have been proven through numerous population studies to prevent illness. The same has not been proven for helmets and brain injury. It doesn't seem accurate to equate the two.

There are terms that immediately come to mind when I want to describe people who misuse clearly defined terms like "sociopath", but in the interests of civil discourse I try and avoid them (not so much when I'm no longer interested in discoursing civilly). Maybe it's just the word nerd in me, but by sounding like you don't know basic English terms, you come across as someone who's opinion shouldn't be given much weight.

Check, please! If this thread ever had any value, it's lost it.

So what do all you hairy chested invincible anti helmet types do when there is a race, ride, or rally that it is stated that helmets are mandantory? Do you just stay home and pout and whine Im right and they are wrong---I would rather eat worms than be seen in a helmet?

Well, well, well... I believe you're in good faith, as, after all, most official safety agencies will tell you that helmets are very effective in saving lives. And I guess this makes you look at the victims of traffic accidents, murmuring to yourself "Oh dear, another one who could have been saved if only" etc.

The sad thing about it all is that neither you nor I nor anyone else know for sure. The most radical bids for helmet efficacy have been shot down, and what remains is, as stated ealier, a wide field of uncertainty. Definitely wide enough to make it almost impossible for you to say for sure if anyone hospitalized might have fared better with then without helmet. You see, when in fact uncertainty is so great, it's almost purely a question of statistics, and anecdotal evidence carries very little weight.

What makes some of us a little grumpy is that, in spite of the fact that "the most radical bids for helmet efficacy have been shot down", helmet zealots will go on as if it never happened, trying to force through those silly helmet laws - and in some cases even having them impemented.

Remember, if we follow the money, they lead us back to the helmet producers. They started the campaigns, they funded the first research. Remember also, that superstitions are everywhere in our seemingly enlightened world, like "you should pull up on your pedal between 7 o'clock and 12 o'clock" or "your pedal spindle must be right under the ball of your foot" etc.

Oh, you thought those were hard and fast truths, too?

I hope you're not saying this thread doesn't have any information that's worthwhile Tony.

All posts can't be the best of posts, but a couple of bad ones don't ruin the good ones, do they?

Here's something else to consider. Multiple studies from around the world have shown that cyclists who ride on a regular basis live longer than average.

If your concern is being killed on your bike, the facts show you'll live a shorter life if you don't ride your bike on a regular basis. That's enough to scare someone onto a bike

:lol: For suggesting readers consult actual experts in the area of brain trauma and sports injury and not base their decisions on what someone says in a forum on the internet?

Yikes. I'll take my check, too. And no tip. The service in this thread is almost as bad as the information.

This thread is best left to the skeptics to wax on and on and on and on...

Ciao! ;)

I was reacting to razrskutr's post that said,

"I tend to lump all the helmet wearers into a category of people that have irrational thought processes and thus would believe in: religion, UFOs, conspiracy theories, vaccine-derived-autism, healing crystals ; and disbelieve in: statistical methods, science, anthropogenic global warming."

When a discussion degenerates into endless repetition of the same few ideas seasoned by insults, it's pretty well cooked. And this topic may be one of those that can't be discussed rationally. I wear a helmet, but would oppose mandatory helmet laws. All I was looking for was some information and informed opinions, and I got what I came for. After looking at it, I decided to continue wearing my helmet, simply because the inconvenience is small, and the potential benefits, though probably minor, are real enough. Small gain for a small price.

(BTW - that FDOT study actually indicates that wearing Lycra is the really dangerous thing to do in terms of the psychological effect on motorists - it didn't address helmets at all. The English study that so much of the discussion has been based on looked at ONE cyclist and ONE bicycle. Not exactly something to base a position on. Maybe the anti-helmet folks should expand their field to be anti-lycra, since that seems to be the real culprit. In any case, I ride in casual clothing, but wear a helmet. Maybe the two effects wash out...)

Anyway, it seems that, for some, anyone who makes an informed choice to wear a helmet is a potential enemy who will ultimately try to coerce mandatory helmet wearing for every cyclist, or is someone with "irrational thought processes". I'm too old to get into pissing matches with adolescents and/or true believers. Life's too short. My thanks to everyone who answered my questions.

But by stating that the poll is an "elephant in the room" and that "It would seem that many riders, and certainly the vast majority who have voted in the poll, simply choose the bike helmet as one of several tools in an arsenal of things we do to be safe on a bike and then go out and ride- 'nuff said.", aren't you suggesting that people base their decisions on what someone says on a forum on the internet?

The real elephant in the room is the countries where helmet use is rare, yet cyclists are far safer than in countries where helmet use is ubiquitous. And I'm not talking about the developing countries that you were talking about earlier, as cyclists face significant risks there resultant, not from a lack of helmets, but from underdeveloped traffic systems. No, I'm talking about the Netherlands. A number of western countries with highly educated populations have attempted to make cyclists more safe, and they've gone about this in various ways. Some (Australia, New Zealand, some parts of Canada) have done so by mandating helmet use, others (the US and the UK) have put in place atrociously underdesigned bike infrastructure, and others (the Netherlands and Germany and maybe others I haven't heard of) have invested in awesome bicycle infrastructure and traffic calming measures, and held motorists liable for the potential damage that their vehicles present to life when mis-used. And who has succeeded in making cyclists safer? The countries where helmet use is heavy, or mandated? Or the countries where helmet use is rare? That is the elephant in the room, the fact that helmets might have nothing to do with making cyclists safer as a whole, and that all this focus on helmets might be a tremendous waste of time and effort.

I find it unfair that you equate helmet skeptics with Creationists (and I'm willing to admit that this might be because I consider my self a helmet skeptic and an agnostic, but I believe that it's because I can reason logically and have a decent understanding of scientific method). Creationists hold strong to a suite of unprovable beliefs in the face of a large body of evidence that contradicts most of what they hold to be true. Helmet skeptics question a majority held belief (in North America, parts of Europe, Australia, and New Zealand anyway) that lacks anything even resembling the scientific consensus that, say, the theory of the current age of the Universe or the theory of evolution enjoy.

If I am wrong and you know how to prove otherwise, please do so! One of the reasons that I regularly check in on this thread is in the hope that new studies will be posted which will answer the helmet question one way or the other. If it can be proven that helmets are anywhere near as effective as seat belts or smoke alarms in reducing injury and death, then I will strap one on every time I leave the neighborhood and never again have to defend my bareheadedness to my girlfriend, coworkers, boss, or fellow students (there are two things we don't discuss in my house: God, and helmets). But seeing as how I see no evidence that helmets are any more effective than my knee pads for preventing death and brain injury, then I will continue to only use them in applications where I expect a high amount of crashing, and knowing that the pads only provide a limited amount of protection

Hey, you came in here honestly looking for knowledge and I hope you found it, even if it wasn't the definitive answer you were looking for. Have fun out there, and keep the rubber side down. :thumb:

Your experts may know everything worth knowing of their field, but I doubt if they've personally seen enough traffic victims to base statistics of any value on.

So much this.

I find it interesting that you chose to focus on my musings about irrational thought processes and how I grouped them (in response to someone elses prior claim) and yet ignore the clear insults of "moron" and the blanket claims proferred that helmet-wearers do not pay their hospital bills. I consider it deceitful and this is bolstered by the fact that you're also quick to use the description "silly" or "absurd" to label something with which you merely disagree.

And I agreed with you about experts and invited you to provide their verified statements. Just as others have done in this thread. Why have you been unable to do so?
Skipping out without paying the check eh? Good idea when you're bankrupt.

It seems as tho none of the anti helmet crowd here wants to answer the question I posed in reply 736. Why not. Are you afraid to admit that you wear a helmet just like all of the rest of us? Or as a group are you just that anti social? Ignoring hard questions does not improve your position.

I get that, so the question is, why did you wait until that post to react and not on the slightly earlier insult from Shifty?

Has it though? Sure a couple of insults have flown on both sides of the issue, but discussion was still going on.

It may be of interest to you that this whole thread started years ago on the point of helmet supporters insulting helmet skeptics. The helmet skeptics became tired of hearing the insults and started to rationally make their arguments for their skepticism.

Maybe I'm wrong here but I don't recall your concerns being backed up by anything more than a sense of fear and perhaps an elevated belief in the power of the protective qualities of a helmet. I don't recall seeing much research supporting your argument, whereas I've provided multiple links to research backing up my skepticism.



I'm sure you're not too old to look for, or provide some research to support your position. I'm sure your age also helps you understand that there are always a few obstacles to learning, like tolerating a few who's opinions or comments you may not like

I wear a helmet; your comment was insulting to me. I believe that I've been courteous and respectful without exception here. You have not. I have never referred to your choice as stupid, or moronic or anything derogatory. You are the one who has chosen to label everyone who has looked at the data and come to a different conclusion from yours as "people that have irrational thought processes". If you look at my posts, I have been very clear in saying that each of us has a different set of criteria by which we judge whether or not the potential gains of helmet wearing outweigh the possible downsides.

I will not take responsibility for any of the remarks made by anyone but me. You sound like my teenagers, "I called you a jerk because HE called me a name!"

I am not a "pro-helmet" fanatic. You are clearly an anti-helmet fanatic, and can't abide the thought that anyone could examine the evidence and come to a different conclusion than you have. Now - which one of us sounds "religious"?

It seems as tho the anti helmet crowd doesnt want to answer the question posed in my reply 736. Are they afraid to admit that they put on their hated helmet and ride with the rest of us. Or are they so unbending in their position and so anti social they just set at home? Their unwillingness to answer only discredits their position. Or maybe they dont want to admit to the other anti helmet posters that they could be seen riding with a helmet.

I don't have a "position", and haven't presented an "argument". I came here asking questions. I got answers. I was referred to various sources and I read them. My conclusions from the data were different from yours.

Why didn't I react to insults from Shifty? Because his insults weren't directed at or referring to me. You guys can take care of yourselves.

As far as new light still coming from the discussion, I haven't seen any. There are a few studies, all of which have been referenced. Now it's a matter of each person reviewing the data in light of his own priorities. I don't "dislike" anyone's opinions - I don't really care. Whether or not you decide to wear a helmet has absolutely nothing to do with what I'll do, and I have absolutely no stake in what you decide.

On the other hand, as I've said before, it seems that the anti-helmet zealots will not be happy until everyone is converted to their view. I honestly don't know or care about the history of this thread - I came into it a week ago. If I wandered into some kind of private war, I'm sorry. It isn't my war.