typical of your type of responses, find a sentence or two that has sort of some negativity concerning helmets and overlook the 20 or so paragraphs explaining that helmets are effective at preventing a lot of injuries. And of course completely overlook the government site of also showing statistics going back some 20 years that helmets are effective at preventing a lot of injuries.

This is typical of my responses -- I'll point out nonsense and flawed arguments on either side of the helmet issue. You argue that helmets are the way to go, and that's fine, but when you cite sources, very often they don't say what you claim the do, or support helmet use to the level you claim.

Instead of citing individual studies, you typically link to broad, catch-all sites about the issue which contain counterarguments and studies disproving what you are trying to support, along with older, widely discredited research. You're not alone in this -- the barehead brigade also misrepresent sites and citations to serve their needs as well.

.....TAKE IT OFF, BABY !!!!

Prove to me that the US government statistics that I referred to are not fact and have been disproven.

.................http://board.whatisfatmagulsfault.co...uhsmileyf3.gif..............http://board.whatisfatmagulsfault.co...ult/e13716.gif.......................http://board.whatisfatmagulsfault.co...y-emoticon.gif............................http://board.whatisfatmagulsfault.co...ult/cuckoo.gif ...might be a new personal best.

To which US Gov't statistics are you referring to...?

Because these you cited (which is what I refer to in my posts) are not US Gov't statistics sites:

And which do not at all conclusively prove the points you try to make. Which I demonstrated previously.

you demonstrated absolutely nothing just more yap; next contender please!

Why is this thread exempt from being locked? Hasn't it ALL been said...like a thousand times?

dumping ground for any new H threads

It's not locked because it's a safety valve. It' a dumping ground and safe(?) haven for helmet debaters. To close this thread would invite others making more work for the mods.

...you are on a roll, fella. http://board.whatisfatmagulsfault.co...woohoo-022.gif

Could add "helmet" to the "4-letter" word list. That might be fun.

That H3LM3T is worthless. There is no indisputable evidence that a styrene hat prevents injury. What kind is it?

Oh....

http://www.westsea.com/tsg3/itemlock...cker/10-51.jpg
IMAGE: West Sea Company : Nautical Antiques

Just a note----------even after 8687 posts of which more than half are anti helmet, I still ALWAYS wear my helmet when cycling, even when Im on my trike. As far as I can see there absolutely no proof that a bike helmet wont migigate injury to the head when the head strikes the ground in most cycling accidents.

Whether you are right or wrong, this isn't how you support a claim - especially when you were asked to respond to specific challenges to your position.

A few gargantuan threads into this topic, I still wear a helmet most of the time I ride, even though much of the time I post I am criticizing pro-helmeteers. Like this:

Bicycle helmets don't mitigate cycling accidents, they mitigate potential head injury as a result of cycling accidents. A helmet won't help keep you from crashing, but in the rare case you do, and in the even rarer case your head strikes something, it may mitigate some injury.

Most cycling accidents do not involve a head strike, so helmets don't even mitigate most damage as a result of cycling accidents.

You are twice wrong in one sentence. Impressive...

Better yet, in a sentence constructed with a double negative along with some other grammatical dizziness. Impressive indeed!

It made me want to install some accelerometers in my helmet just to get some real data and check what actually happens in a crash. But then I remembered that I'd have to wait years between crashes, if I ever even have one again, and it seemed rather pointless.

Then helmet arguments would spread throughout the forums like a cancer . . . . :)

I'm redirecting this conversation to the correct forum: "The helmet thread". It started on http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-s...l#post17134313 . Clearly this is no longer addressing the OP of this thread and is just creating a new helmet thread, no one needs that. So let's continue here.

To reply to [MENTION=361609]yugyug[/MENTION] - comically, you are saying exactly what I'm saying: Why do people think that helmets make bikes feel dangerous and seat belts do not make cars feel dangerous? It is a perception issue. Perceptions are easily mislead. People don't think about "normal" things, like cars - we ALL drive cars, we must drive cars, therefore society does not see cars as a danger (or just a small, necessary danger).

Funny side story, getting my teeth cleaned a couple weeks ago, the hygienist knew I biked to my appointment (bag & helmet in hand). She asked about winter biking (I'm in Minneapolis area); I told her I bike year-round. All she said "risky". Without any knowledge, her perception is that riding a bike in the winter is risky. And that right there is the issue I'm getting at: without any research or knowledge, people assume some things are dangerous and others are not. People make this assumption based on "feelings" and not facts.

Sure, I am asking that question, I'm also trying to answer it. I think seat belts do modulate the perception of safety and do make car travel feel more dangerous. To what extent I don't know, but consider how their affects are balanced by other sensory affects of car travel - comfortable seats, the sense of being surrounded by a metal cage, less exposure to the outside elements (sun, wind, sound), no build up of adrenaline or other hormones from physical exertion... there could be more. [Anecdote: the safest car I've even been in and driven was my later grandfather's rolls royce. Drove like being on a cushion of air and you could hardly hear the very powerful engine. Possibly partly why he drove like a careless maniac.]

I imagine that cars over the decades have not just been designed to be safer, but have been designed to feel safer, because that is appealing. This design concept would work for bicycles too - uprights and cycle-share bikes for example. I'm certain for sure that helmets to do not make cycling look safer nor feel safer for most people (there must be exceptions - its been said here before that helmets increase risk taking). I think its kind off relevant to the other thread because when bike shops push the sale of helmets they may be losing bike sales or repair jobs as a result, as was suggested. Anyway that threads closed so sure we can continue here, though its been discussed here before I reckon - probably about a 100 times! :D

Observation: retention straps with metal vs. plastic adjustment knobs, use of carbon fiber, more/different finish, inclusion of things like extra pads and fabric helmet bags.

All of which, combined with much lower manufacturing numbers than the base models, drive the price of higher end helmets.

3,874 times actually . . .

People are probably a little bit more adamant in this thread. But regarding your dispute, wouldn't you agree that there's a world of difference between strapping on pads and buckling a belt? Unless we're just silly, we don't put on safety helmets or any other kinds of pads unless the activity is dangerous, but safety belts are more similar to rails on staircases. Just normally there, not that you really take note of them.

ALL activities entail some degree of risk for the user, some more than others. Of course cycling is "risky," what activity is without risk (or danger if that term suits your fancy)?

Without any research or knowledge, you apparently are making an assumption about the dental hygienist's perceptions of bicycling based on a one word comment.

Please inform me on the research I need to do about her response? Seems that she explained herself well enough. However, this is a distraction from the conversation.

"Perception" versus reality. It appears that perception is trumping reality everywhere I look (climate change denier; anti-vaxxers, evolution, etc). *

Example: in 2011 a main county road on my commute was up for resurfacing and the county wanted to convert the 4-lane road to a 3-lane with shoulders for bikes. However, local residence had a perception that the 3-lane road could not handle all the traffic. This in the face of all the facts the county presented showing that the 4-lane road was over-built for current traffic levels (which had been static for 10 years) and successful examples around the county of 4-3 conversions. Local residence perception based on feelings trumped reality based on facts.

That is my issue with helmets make bikes 'feel' dangerous and seat belts do not make cars 'feel' dangerous.

*PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not go down any of these rabbit-holes. PLEASE.