|
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13909119)
...and you think all you bareheaders hanging out here are not guilty of the same thing...?
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13909119)
Sure...
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13909119)
W ait, wut?!?.
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13909119)
Um... not so much. What percentage of the world has helmet laws? What percentage of helmet wearers are involved in pushes for such legislation?.
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13909119)
I'm not so sure you should be extrapolating your insular, local experience out to the world at large..
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13909119)
More fantasy on your part. Dissenting opinion regarding this matter is routinely recognized.
|
New Zealand. Widespread helmet use has negative effects
Here's an interesting paper from Colin Clarke which claims that New Zealand's mandatory helmet laws ( which may be taken as a surrogate measure for helmet use) have resulted in overall negative effects.
Clarke, Colin F. (2012) New Zealand Medical Journal 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349; ISSN 1175 8716 http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/abstract.php?id=5046 |
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13904565)
Don't forget that the Cochrane library claims that helmets provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles and crashes from all other causes.
|
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr
(Post 13909373)
... Helmets are designed to mitigate minor injuries ...
Coupled with this is the sad fact that even when a death is attributed to a head injury, the vast amount of times there are other injuries that would also lead to death. Fewer than 20% of deaths are from head injury alone, so even if a helmet completely covered the head, and was 100% effective in collisions with motor vehicles travelling at any speed, more than 80% of the deaths would still occur. |
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13908634)
right here is where you shoot yourself in the foot.
As much as you may not like to admit it, contrary studies have been conducted by actual scientists, researchers, statisticians published in recognized, peer-reviewed journals, government reports. |
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr
(Post 13909373)
That would be true in the case that helmets provide little protection from serious brain injuries whether said injuries are provoked by being hit by a bus or are the result of coming off your bicycle while travelling downhill at a high speed. Helmets are designed to mitigate minor injuries ...
|
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13909522)
I'm fully aware of that...
As to why you are pursuing such a myopic view I can only guess that you do so because it jives with your position that cycling is dangerous, and the helmet is the cure for that danger. I'm also curious as to how you think a helmet can provide protection below it's test line, in impacts greater than 12mph, and from the forces that cause a brain to rotate within the skull, independent of of the movement (if any) of the skull. |
Wouter Weylandt was wearing a helmet in last year's Giro d'Itaila.
|
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13909615)
if you are aware of that, with the posts you've been putting up, you certainly are dismissive of the contrary research, to the point of accepting inferior research over superior research.
I don't know, either, what contrary research I am supposedly dismissive of. You mean the editorial you posted from some cycling group? |
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13909542)
That's not what any helmet testing spec I can recall says (please post links to ones if I'm mistaken),
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13909542)
As to standards, Snell B-90A, for example, says, "The proper use of protective helmets can minimize the risk of death or permanent impairment." http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b90astd
Helmet design is a trade-off between being rigid enough to be able to cope with massive impacts (the original 500G deceleration limit for helmets, later lowered to 300G for the SNELL standards was based on the fracturing of the skull) or being elastic enough to absorb the energy of a lower velocity fall. So yes, the proper use of protective tennis-balls on your head can minimize the risk of death or permanent impairment. However, it's much more likely to be effective in bouncing tennis rackets off it, than it is to stop a motor-vehicle collision from causing your brain to accelerated rotationally ... that's apart from your other internal organs being damaged to a point where life is unlikely to continue. You could protect a bit against this by wearing a motor cycle helmet. The good news is that you're about as likely to have one of these incidents while walking or slipping on a tiddlywink while rushing downstairs to post another paean to magic-hattery. |
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13909522)
I asked sudo biker to please supply more pursuant to one aspect of this discussion.
|
Originally Posted by Six jours
(Post 13910883)
To this barely interested observer, it appears that you want to declare a "winner" based on the number of abstracts that are posted.
But, as I said, I know the Aussie study was posted here, and IIRC the first few pages had some good summaries going. EDIT: Found this on the first few pages. Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws D. L. Robinson AGBU, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia Accepted 6 February 1996. ; Available online 26 February 1999. Abstract The first year of the mandatory bicycle helmet laws in Australia saw increased helmet wearing from 31% to 75% of cyclists in Victoria and from 31% of children and 26% of adults in New South Wales (NSW) to 76% and 85%. However, the two major surveys using matched before and after samples in Melbourne (Finch et al. 1993; Report No. 45, Monash Univ. Accident Research Centre) and throughout NSW (Smith and Milthorpe 1993; Roads and Traffic Authority) observed reductions in numbers of child cyclists 15 and 2.2 times greater than the increase in numbers of children wearing helmets. This suggests the greatest effect of the helmet law was not to encourage cyclists to wear helmets, but to discourage cycling. In contrast, despite increases to at least 75% helmet wearing, the proportion of head injuries in cyclists admitted or treated at hospital declined by an average of only 13%. The percentage of cyclists with head injuries after collisions with motor vehicles in Victoria declined by more, but the proportion of head injured pedestrians also declined; the two followed a very similar trend. These trends may have been caused by major road safety initiatives introduced at the same time as the helmet law and directed at both speeding and drink-driving. The initiatives seem to have been remarkably effective in reducing road trauma for all road users, perhaps affecting the proportions of victims suffering head injuries as well as total injuries. The benefits of cycling, even without a helmet, have been estimated to outweigh the hazards by a factor of 20 to 1 (Hillman 1993; Cycle helmets—the case for and against. Policy Studies Institute, London). Consequently, a helmet law, whose most notable effect was to reduce cycling, may have generated a net loss of health benefits to the nation. Despite the risk of dying from head injury per hour being similar for unhelmeted cyclists and motor vehicle occupants, cyclists alone have been required to wear head protection. Helmets for motor vehicle occupants are now being marketed and a mandatory helmet law for these road users has the potential to save 17 times as many people from death by head injury as a helmet law for cyclists without the adverse effects of discouraging a healthy and pollution free mode of transport. Author Keywords: Bicycle; Head injury; Helmet; Legislation Also, this is a really great video. |
Originally Posted by Six jours
(Post 13910883)
To this barely interested observer, it appears that you want to declare a "winner" based on the number of abstracts that are posted.
It seems he thinks his contributions are worthwhile, when other contributions are not, and result in confusion. |
I'm battling a cold and stuck inside, so I took a little bit of time to go over some of the posts six has made just to be sure I wasn't missing something.
I've selected a few posts of his I have some problems with. He's entitled to his opinion, but I don't think he can't pass these statements off as facts for everybody else.
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13734733)
...Before ever researching the issue, I for one never assumed a helmet was some magical protection against any and all injury.
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13874799)
... at the end of the day, it's about the facts: cycling is obviously and incontrovertibly dangerous in the literal sense in that it exposes you to the risk of bodily harm or death. Indeed, there are hundreds of thousands of annual bicycle-related ER visits in the US alone.
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13743432)
... a supposedly "simple fall onto the ground at zero speed" is what hospitalizes or kills hundreds of thousands each year--you needn't be moving at 30mph or get hit by a car to hurt your head from a fall. Further, what appears at first to be a minor bump on the head can in fact be a more serious or even fatal condition...*
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13765545)
Some more data that may be of interest:
All bicyclists should wear properly fitted bicycle helmets every time they ride. A helmet is the single most effective way to prevent head injury resulting from a bicycle crash.
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13730803)
http://www.chp.edu/CHP/P03008
"Bicycle helmets can reduce the risk of a head injury by 85 percent and brain injury by 88 percent."
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13718523)
... Why use cycling's overall health benefits as a tool with which to bludgeon others who don't share the same views?
"experts have to say is riding a bike lengthens a life" seems like a radical oversimplification.
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13722122)
...*What I disagree with is underhanded scare tactics that casually throw out the notion that helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists, implying in the process that if someone supports helmet laws, he must therefore be against cycling... We're also supposed to casually assume that fewer cyclists is inherently problematic...
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13743532)
... there are a host of safety precautions and devices people can apply to different situations. A helmet may be one part of a comprehensive plan to lessen the possibility or severity of injury while cycling.
|
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13910970)
It seems he thinks his contributions are worthwhile, when other contributions are not
|
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13911080)
I'm battling a cold and stuck inside, so I took a little bit of time to go over some of the posts six has made just to be sure I wasn't missing something.
I've selected a few posts of his I have some problems with. He's entitled to his opinion, but I don't think he can't pass these statements off as facts for everybody else. Simple fact is, I've looked into the data and science on the issue extensively and continue to do so. I try to base my tentative conclusions on reliable sources. I cite those sources. I notice that the same handful of "anti's" here mostly just resort to snide name-calling instead of making comparable arguments with comparably reliable sources, which says a lot about both their positions and their character. |
Originally Posted by sudo bike
(Post 13910956)
And frankly, I just don't have time anymore to dig around and fulfill that want. Working while being a full-time student and all that... :(. Anymore I don't bother citation hunting unless I'm getting a grade for it. I do far too much of that to be charitable. :p
But, as I said, I know the Aussie study was posted here, and IIRC the first few pages had some good summaries going. FYI, Robinson is one of about three or four authors in the science known for articles questioning helmets and helmet laws and also writes for helmet-skeptic website cyclehelmets.org. http://cyclehelmets.org/1121.html |
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13912726)
... Simple fact is, I've looked into the data and science on the issue extensively and continue to do so. I try to base my tentative conclusions on reliable sources. I cite those sources.
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13912726)
... I notice that the same handful of "anti's" here mostly just resort to snide name-calling instead of making comparable arguments with comparably reliable sources, which says a lot about both their positions and their character.
|
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13913170)
Good for you. So do others. Different people see things in different ways. I find it sad that there are those who conclude riding a bicycle is dangerous and can't see it's benefits outweigh it's risks, but hey, that's life. There will always be some who worry, but it does become an advocacy issue when that worry is extended out to others, making riding a bicycle a little more difficult, and yes, a little more dangerous.
|
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13913367)
I don't think you understand how ironic this sentence is, but I should let you know, it is.
|
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
(Post 13912776)
Sudo, thank you. I'm aware of that article. Interestingly, it seems to promote mandatory helmets for automobile occupants!
FYI, Robinson is one of about three or four authors in the science known for articles questioning helmets and helmet laws and also writes for helmet-skeptic website cyclehelmets.org. http://cyclehelmets.org/1121.html |
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13913497)
You don't think it's ironic when six calls a handful of posters a name and then complains of name-calling?
I got my own thing going on here -- sniping from the sidelines -- not really paying much attention to the Six-Shooter vs. the bare head brigade posts: tl;dr. The dueling studies thing is the "sausage fencing" I referenced on p. 3 of this thread... |
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13913829)
... I got my own thing going on here -- sniping from the sidelines -- not really paying much attention to the Six-Shooter vs. the bare head brigade posts: tl;dr. The dueling studies thing is the "sausage fencing" I referenced on p. 3 of this thread...
For the record, I make the claim that cycling becomes less safe when the perception of cycling becomes one of being dangerous. You know the reasons, less cycling, over dependence on foam hats... |
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr
(Post 13909939)
I never claimed that any helmet specs said that. You don't advance your argument by putting words in anyone's mouth.
AFAIK, the current standards do not specify type/severity of injury prevented against, but rather acceleration forces the helmets must withstand (see e.g., http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b90astd or http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr98/10mr98r.pdf). As to the science, there is abundant scientific research that helmets can protect against more than "minor injuries." See my previous posts for links. |
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13913859)
Ah. I get it. Maybe if you were more attentive, your snipes would be more effective.
For the record, I make the claim that cycling becomes less safe when the perception of cycling becomes one of being dangerous. You know the reasons, less cycling, over dependence on foam hats... Dude: cycling isn't dangerous. Whether or not you're wearing a foam hat. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:59 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.