rydabent

FB

I know exactly what to expect from my helmet, since in my accident, my head did hit the ground. My helmet saved me from so much as a scratch. Those that claim helmets do no good at all are totally wrong.

Dont you really hate it when others and myself report real world accidents that were mitigated by wearing a helmet. Real world reports totally trump all theories and "studies"!!!!!!

FBinNY 

No, I truly don't give a hoot when people report their "my helmet saved my life" stories, and you can search far and wide, and you'll never find me posting a critical remark about them. OTOH- they have about as much relevance as my "I crashed and didn't need a helmet to save my life" story would.

You're a true believer, and that's fine, and I'll never try to convince you or any true believer otherwise.

OTOH- all I ask, and I'm not alone here, is that you keep the sanctimonious "I'll never understand why folks don't wear helmets... to an absolute minimum.

But since you're a true believer, aren't you at all curious about how various helmets compare in ther protection, or what you can count on, or not? Or are you content to believe that all helmets are basically equal, and all make a day/night difference in your safety.

I don't wear a helmet, but if I were to wear one, I'd want to be sure that it was the real McCoy, and would deliver if ever called on.

In the past, I referred to the helmet forum as an old time revival tent. The "my helmet saved my life...." posts seem to be consistent with that analogy, and I'm happy for all of you who are willing to don a helmet based on faith and not much else.

elcruxio

How do you actually know the forces involved in your crash? Did you have an accelometer implanted or are you just going by gut feeling.

Psst. As a little hint: in actual science studies actually do trump real world examples because studies are a lot real world examples put together and a conclusion is then drawn from those real world examples.

Psst. Another hint: the science community, nor anyone here is swayed by your blind faith "yell your agument loudest to trump others" argumentation.

Psst. A third hint and this one is a bit sad: having read a lot of your "I'm old and logical" posts, it would seem to me that alot of the age is showing, but logic sadly not so much. If you didn't perceive the things you blindly _believe_ in as logic it might open up your world.

rydabent

elcruxio

I can assure you that I am a coldly logical person. I worked in the computer industry for 47 years, where if you did not use logic, you would be a failure quickly.

Logic dictates that a foot ball player wears a helmet and a cup. Logic and the government dictates a driver wears a seat belt. Soldiers wear body armor. Baseball catchers wear a mask. Most all activities have safety equiptment. A helmet is merely safety equiptment for cycling. Cyclist with the "it will never happen to me" attitude simply dont seem to understand this simple facts.

FYI, I will continue to post my opinion which I am entitle to, as long as the anti helmet people continue to misinform other cyclist, especially people new to cycling, which are the ones that probably need a helmet the most.

howsteepisit

That explains ypur inability to understand that the world works on a continuum, not a Boolean yes/no state. Try to study and understand risk analysis, evaluation and probability and your world view may open up. Being proud of being a coldly logical opinionated ass is illogical.

Psycholist.5150

wphamilton

Well I don't know about that - I'm coldly logical also and can be an opinionated ass, and I don't see it as illogical to have some pride in it. I don't have a problem with that, but I think that his logic fails partly for the reasons you bring up here.

I look at his logic, derive a implied consequence from his theorem, deduce that a contradiction follows, and conclude therefore his theory fails.

More specifically, a helmet can mitigate the effects of an impact up to a point and does mitigate potential scalp wounds. I think that the premise is pretty much self-evident. The other fellow believes that it follows that anyone declining to wear a helmet is ignoring or denying the premise, or has a false view of reality, and displays any of a number of other mental defects. For the sake of discussion let's label this set of characteristics as simply "Stupid".

His reasoning is apparently that (1) non-helmet implies a disregard for safety, and (2)disregard for safety implies "Stupid".

But when other factors having a greater impact on safety than do helmets were invoked, those factors were dismissed out of hand, and we were told that those who employed those measures were also member of the set of "Stupid". It follows (contrapositive) from that that not-"Stupid" implies not "being concerned with safety" since those safety factors are greater than helmet safety factors.

But not-"Stupid" cannot imply something and its logical negation both, so we have a contradiction. His theorems have led to a logical impossibility, and therefore are false. QED.

JoeyBike

TOPIC: Remember??



https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-conten...s_helmet_2.jpg

Post your boring resumes with PMs to each other.

wphamilton

Hopefully you don't see my "I can be an opinionated ass" as one of the resumes, but cold logic about helmets is on topic. IMO.

I'll cop to "boring" if you insist, but that's part of "opinionated ass" so you'll have to deal with it.

FBinNY 

I like your analogy and follow it a bit farther. As you point out baseball catchers wear a mask, and you forgot to mention the large chest pad. However batters and all the other players don't. That's because catchers face much greater odds of being injured by a fast moving ball.

Safety equipment is worn based on likely probabilities, and nobody defends against all probabilities, and this is the crux of the helmet decision.

You feel that the risk of a crash with head strike is high enough to justify wearing a helmet, which is fine. Others look at how they ride and feel we're more like tho other players on your baseball field and that the risk (though it's there) is low enough that it doesn't call for a helmet.

A simple difference of opinion, that doesn't call for the kind of nonsense we see on the helmet thread.

And of course, you should feel free to post your opinion on the need for a helmet. Please, just avoid the sanctimonious tone that those who disagree find so insulting.

But, since you feel it's OK to harp on your points, here's one of mine. Don't you think that the catcher in your analogy makes sure that his helmet can withstand a 100mph fastball? Why doesn't anybody seem to care whether their helmets are comparably protective?

alhedges

That's not logical at all. Which is probably why you felt the need to burnish your logic credentials, since your argument itself lacks any logical basis.

There are soldiers in Afghanistan whose lives were saved by their helmets. Would their lives have been saved if they were wearing bicycle helmets?

Of course not.

But that's what this argument is: football players wear helmets and they protect them, therefore bike helmets protect bikers.

It's ridiculous on its face. If cyclists wore *motorcycle* helmets, there probably would be a noticeable reduction in serious injuries. But cyclists don't wear motorcycle helmets; they wear bike helmets, and the entire question in this thread is whether *those helmets actually worn by cyclists* provide protection, and to what extent they do so. Protection provided by military kevlar helmets, football helmets, or even motorcycle helmets is just not relevant.

rekmeyata

This is the silliest rebuttal yet.

rekmeyata

I completely understand your logic and fully agree with your logic. It is logic and common sense you've expressed here unlike what many have expressed here.

350htrr

The "it will never happen to me attitude" bugs me too, and there IS logic behind saying that may not be so... You can do EVERYTHING right and still... stuff will still happen... Stuff does happen, and the discussion should be how much does wearing a helmet help/or not, not "it will newer happen to me" because I am doing everything right and that eliminates the need to wear a helmet...

MMACH 5

I might need a new patch on my nerd vest for enjoying your analysis as much as I did.

LesterOfPuppets

I actually got knocked out cold exiting the shower in 2010 or so. Still showering without a helmet.

LesterOfPuppets

For me it's the likelihood of crashing for the type of ride I'm doing that determines helmet choice. I'll go lid free for most 12.5mph rides. Faster ones will sometimes involve a helmet and races always will. Most mountain bike rides will involve a helmet.

Skating around the rink, no helmet. Playing hockey yes helmet. Long track speed skating, no helmet. Short track speed skating, yes helmet.

FBinNY 

The "it won't happen to me" notion is simply the opposite side of the "It's likely to happen any time" coin.

Stuff happens, and most of us don't live out lives based on preventing every possible negative outcome. Discounting the analysis of what helmets can and can't do there's the other issue of just how likely is a serious head strike when bicycling, and where does it fit into the mental risk profile each of deal with. Then to what extent do our actions when riding alter that risk profile, and which way.

There are real risks we all face every day, and we each deal with them differently, some more logically than others. So we have severely overweight people religiously wearing bicycle helmets while, realistically, their greatest risk of death is from a coronary, not a bicycle crash.

So, many of those of who don't wear helmets aren't stupidly saying "it can't happen to me", but deciding that the risk is within our bounds of acceptability.

If we don't make these kinds of decisions, life becomes impossible. I happen to ride through some extremely dangerous neighborhoods where flying lead isn't that rare. Should I wear a flak jacket, or maybe that isn't enough and I need a ceramic bulletproof vest.

The same logic that says that bicycling without a helmet is too dangerous, could also say that riding in traffic is, or riding at speeds above 30mph, or any of a number of things we all agree is OK.

Safety isn't a black and white thing, it's a spectrum of possibilities, and we each have our own reasons for drawing the line between OK and foolish where we do.

350htrr

If all the non helmet guys would say something like "l'm willing to take the risk" of not wearing a helmet because I do the other things that it take to make my ride safer... I'm sure this discussion would be over quick, because it would be like saying I decided not to wear a helmet in the shower, not because it can't happen to me, or it just won't happen statistically, but I'm willing to take the risk. Nobody can really argue about that... But no... not so much lately but earlier in this thread most non helmet wearing guys were saying, helmets don't help, helmets don't save lives, helmets are actually increasing the danger of head trauma... When the reality is that helmets can/do help, but just not as much as most people think...

rydabent

howsteep

Since you call me a coldly logical opinionated ass, what would the opposite be? Maybe a wishy washy fool that will go off half cocked and assume nothing will ever happen to him.

Cold logic and 75 years of experience have serve me well. I almost never make a mistake the second time. In fact I didnt make a mistake the first time------- I was wearing a helmet when I was knocked over by a car. When my helmet hit the concrete, I didnt recieve a scratch. Wearing a helmet IS coldly logical. Common sense and logic will save a person from the many trials of life. As they say--------------life is tough it is even worse if you are stupid.

rydabent

I have a question. How many people here that argue against helmets are under 50?

Is this thread proof that we get too soon old and too late smart?

FBinNY 

I suspect you have this backwards.

Younger people, and those who came late to the sport, started after helmets became "conventional wisdom". OTOH, those of us with decades of pre-helmet experience have a different perspective.

wphamilton

If you refer to those recently posting who disagree with your viewpoint, I for one went 45 years between bicycle rides so do the math. I'd be more inclined to correlate it with the general change in societal attitudes of the balance between personal responsibility and the collective enforcement of individual safety. aka the evolution of the "Nanny State". Older folks would therefore be less inclined than younger to follow the herd in conflict with their own judgment.

In short, "No".

JoeyBike

I have friends around my age (56) who STILL listen to "Classic Rock" exclusively. I have other friends who always enjoy new music as it comes along and laugh at people who still listen to ancient, tired, worn-out music and even still go to concerts to enjoy some old bag-of-bones rocker attempting to croak out his/her old teenie-bopper classics. Not into music? How about movie classics? "2001 - A Space Odyssey" had a scene where a bunch of apes touched a mysterious monolith that jump-started their evolution.

Somehow this^^ applies to those who accept change and those who don't for whatever reason. Nobody made the apes touch the big iPhone, some chose to touch it, some didn't. Some brains relish change, some love familiarity. But one thing for certain, there is no real pattern to it. The human brain is too complicated to figure out based on any simple age-based formula.

FBinNY 

I think you're over oprimistic and don't understand the nature and attitude of some of the posters.

Simply put, just about anyone who wears a helmet believes they save lives, or at least mitigate the consequences of head strikes. (why else wear one?) That's fine as far as it goes.

But there are some helmet true believers, who feel compelled to spread the Helmets Save gospel. They've seen the light, and are so convinced of the importance of helmet use, that they cannot accept the postings of heretics, who might lead the innocent down the wrong path.

It's not about assumed risk, it's that those who've seen the light they absolutely cannot fathom how anybody might have a different opinion. In this way the helmet debate takes on the tone of a religious debate between those of faith (in helmets) and the unbelievers (heretics). We even have the similar "I was saved" anecdotes. How can anyone argue against that?