Jeez, you guys still here!?! Sorry, just trollin' :D

I was not mocking your post. I simply wrote a more accurate version.

Your the touchy, feely type as opposed the the scientific type, which explains your helmet views and many of your post.

CB

You are so wrong in your judgement of me. I have been a life long mechanical and electronic technician. I only deal in reality logic and absolutes. Gravity is real----wear a helmet.

really? you do? I guess you do now since I pointed it out to you, because you did say

I think when the article qualifies a brain injury as a concussion and a concussion is a brain injury, if the reader can't make that connection, it's because they're not paying attention to what is written, but that's just me.

of course not, but I did ask him if he is still in favor of police enforcing helmet use if it results in fewer people riding bikes (he didn't reply).

And the woman who claims that helmets prevent 88% of brain injuries? She continues to hold on to her belief, even when I provided for her the words I linked here. I guess she has more faith in the manufacturers promotional material than what manufacturers say they cannot do outside of the promotions department

Your ignoring reasonable scientific evidence and this last statement prove me right.

QFT. Throwing out the Troll Card seems unwarranted and unfair in this context. But that's granting all the arguments are reasoned and logical ;)

If this is granted, that's really the only argument many will need to wear one. Similarly, someone earlier said anecdotes of personal experience prove nothing; no, they don't count as "proper" scientific proof, but a man would be a fool not put at least some stock in his and others' experience. Burn yourself once on the stove, and you don't need a peer-reviewed article to "prove" that you should not put your hand on it when it's red hot :)

I think you can see why that viewpoint gets misconstrued, though. You have a handful of posters who repeatedly argue against helmets on grounds such as: helmets have not been proven effective, helmets are illogical, cycling does not pose danger, helmets reduce the number of cyclists, etc. When such arguments are put forward repeatedly and vehemently without any solicitation from someone seeking honest, unbiased advice on the matter, it sounds more like people trying to convince others not to wear helmets than anything else.

Laws don't really seem to be at issue. Conspicuous by their absence are concrete legal, political, or economic arguments against specific laws or concrete steps one can take to fight specific laws.

That surely cuts both ways: there will probably be someone who doesn't wear a helmet and proffers a half-baked argument to support that practice.

CB

Your "scientific evidence" is totally subjective to preconcieved ideas and conclusions. To claim it is absolute is laughable. Example can your scientific conclusions cover every gravel spot on every road or trail on every particular day that may take down a bike?

It is just like in my electronic world. Many techs claimed that chips were either good or bad, never intermittent. While that was true 99% of the time, it is the 1% that would bite them in the butt. Never say never or never say always. I submit that there is an infinate number of possibilities when it comes to accidents that any set of reports will NOT be able to cover in every situation. Therefore why not wear a helmet. Again will it cover every possible incident------no, but as many including me have posted they do prevent injury. Couple that with the other reasons I have listed, it is logical to wear a helmet. This in light of the fact that there is virtually no reason not to wear a helmet why not wear one. As I and many others have stated, once the buckle is fastened, we totally forget we are wearing one. And one of the ideas put forward by the anti helmet people that I will think----Since Im wearing a helmet I can run that red light-----is total crap.

it may seem like an argument against helmets if only half of what is said is being heard.

For example, helmets have not been proven effective beyond their designed, built, and tested, limits, wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle is illogical, if it is not worn when it can provide the same protection in situations as, or more likely to occur as when not riding a bicycle, cycling does not pose danger at any greater degree than many other common activities taken for granted as being "safe", helmets reduce the number of cyclists when the number of cyclists are measured before and after a mandatory helmet law has been passed and enforced

I think what is being pointed out here is, half truths are no truths at all

I don't think so. Trying to convince others that strapping on a helmet before riding is probably not anymore necessary than strapping one on before a walk, yes. If people want to wear one, I have no problems with. What I have problems with is the danger in overestimation of the ability of safety equipment, and misinformation that supports it. Knowing what the equipment is capable of and choosing to use it is fine. I wear one myself when I feel my chance of a solo crash is greater (mostly rain), but I have no illusions about what it will protect me from (death not being it).

Sports-related head injury by activity:

Cycling: 64,993
Football: 36,412
Baseball and Softball: 25,079
Basketball: 24,701
Powered Recreational Vehicles (ATVs, Dune Buggies, Go-Carts, Mini bikes, Off-road): 24,090
Skateboards/Scooters (Powered): 18,542
Soccer: 17,108
Skateboards/Scooters: 16,477
Winter Sports (Skiing, Sledding, Snowboarding, Snowmobiling): 16,120
Water Sports (Diving, Scuba Diving, Surfing, Swimming, Water Polo, Water Skiing): 12,096
Horseback Riding: 11,759
Health Club (Exercise, Weightlifting): 11,550
Golf: 8,417
Trampolines: 7,075
Hockey: 5,483
Gymnastics/Dance/Cheerleading: 5,459
Ice Skating: 3,703
Fishing: 3,560
Rugby/Lacrosse: 3,281
Wrestling: 2,640

The top 10 head injury categories among children ages 14 and younger:
Cycling: 32,899
Football: 17,441
Baseball and Softball: 13,508
Skateboards/Scooters (Powered): 11,848
Basketball: 10,844
Skateboards/Scooters: 10,256
Winter Sports: 7,546
Powered Recreational Vehicles: 7,460
Water Sports: 6,498
Trampolines: 6,360

Source: brainandspinalcord.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Bicyclist deaths by helmet use, 1998-2008 (US)
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyclist Fatality Data from New York City, 1996-2005:

Injury Type
Known injury type: 177 86%
Unknown injury type: 30 14%

Of cyclists with known injury type:
Head only: 86 49%
Head & all others: 45 25%
All others: 46 26%

Helmet Use
Helmet use known 122 59%
Helmet use not known 85 41%

Of those with helmet use known:
Wearing Helmet: 4 3%
Not Wearing Helmet: 118 97%

Source: New York City Department of Health

incomplete understanding of raw data is of little use

That's why it's so important to listen to obsessed, self-important blowhards on the internet.

Said without the slightest trace of irony...

Yup. That's why it's important to listen to objective third party analysts, like the Australian Government, when they produce a document that says,

The perception of risk from cycle accidents is often disproportionate to the actual risk... the evidence demonstrates that in Australia, per 100,000 participants, an individual is seven times more likely to be hospitalised playing football than riding a bicycle. Risk-benefit analyses consistently report that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by factors ranging from five to one, to 20 to one...

The governmental arm of cycling in England produced a similar report

Cycling is an easy and low-impact activity which... has the potential to have a major impact on public health...

One of the barriers to taking up cycling is a perception of the physical danger posed by motor traffic. However, the real risks are minimal and, the research suggests, are outweighed by the health benefits... It may be more risky to your health to be sedentary...

there has been much debate about the value of cycle helmets...This issue is not reviewed here but there are a number of reference sources available

(check out the linked reference source on helmets the English government endorses)

Yeah. Those stats he posted relate to the previous post I put up. Half truths are hardly truths at all

^^^ This. :thumb:

Also mystified by the lack of practical advocacy, either examples of real life advocacy or advice seeking/giving on the grass roots political end of things from the bare-head, anti-MHL members.

Happens all the time. Love calling out hyperbole put forward by the bare-headers who scorn helmeteers for the same...

Anti-helmet people, not trolls? Wow, ryda's either softening his stance or caving in to the spirit of the holidays! Peace on Earth and goodwill to all on the helmet thread!

The stats reported by the highway institute posted by corvus explodes all the anti helmet posters feeling and thots. (see post #910) All of ideas reasearch and feelings pale in the face of fact. In the 10 years reported 90% of deaths were with people NOT wearing helmets and 10% were with people wearing helmets on ave. Damned hard to argue with facts!!! But Im sure the anti helmet trolls will, and of course will look foolish doing so.

So anyway Merry Christmas everyone. I hope Santa brings you all a really stylish helmet!!!!!

Male deaths = 609
Female deaths = 83

rydabent, clearly you should have a sex change to avoid being killed while cycling.

Or maybe the numbers are:
Male deaths = 622
Female deaths = 92
Depending on which chart you wish to look at. Odd they cannot even get their total gender deaths for 2008 to match.

http://www.iihs.org/research/fatalit...bicycles_1.gif

Then it would make sense to find people who believe helmets will necessarily prevent death, place some studies before them, let them decide for themselves, and move on :)

The anti helmet trolls are totally blind or just dont want to see hard facts that roughly 9 times more bare headed cyclist die of head injuries than cyclist that wear helmets. An analogy is car deaths between those wearing seat belts, and those that dont.

It takes a really small mind to not accept hard facts.

Why wont the anti helmet troll accept or believe the hard facts reported by the Insurance Institue for Highway Safety?? It is just a hard report, not some "study" done by someone who is out to present what they think is the truth. Like it or not it simply shows that people who didnt wear helmets were 9 times more likely to die of head trauma.

The problem is some of those assertions are not particularly strong and come across as arguments instead of incontrovertible facts. Take the idea that helmets reduce the number of cyclists. This article

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez

asserts that to be the case in Australia and notes "The Australian surveys are still the only estimates of how enforced helmet laws affect cycle use" (as of 2005). Even if you agree with the author's data and analysis (and he doesn't definitively establish a causal link), you can't reasonably extrapolate from one particular nation/culture at one particular time to others. One study is a starting point for further research, not a confirmation of truth.

The argument also assumes or implies a reduction in cyclists is inherently bad, without examining the possible benefits and drawbacks of both a decrease and increase in the number of cyclists.

Then take the idea, discussed earlier, of the illogicality (would "irrationality" or "inconsistency" perhaps be more accurate terms?) of wearing helmets while cycling but not during other comparably dangerous activities. Even granting the data/studies showing comparable danger levels, that argument is not an assertion of a measurable scientific fact but comes across rather as an emotional ploy or veiled insult: "You wear a helmet, so you're irrational. (Shame on you. You should be rational and not wear one.)"

As I asked earlier, is it bad or wrong for someone to be "irrational" and attempt to protect himself in one activity but not in all? Is it your duty to convince him of the supposed error of his ways and dissuade him?

:lol:

:cry:

No. You should wear one at times when you are just as, or more likely to "need" it, or you may be seen as hypocritical

I used to think those people walking around stores with helmets on their heads were odd, but now I see they're just being consistent in their behavior.

Those ones I see walking around the store with helmets on their heads but their chin straps unbuckled? ... they're the odd ones

No, really. Unless you're willing to a) follow links, b) read studies, c) read the methodology behind such studies, and perhaps most importantly, d) know what such agglomeration of data means, then pitching study against study or hoping that others will come to the same conclusion you do based on the same data is actually as laughable as you seem to think six-shooter's comment is...