Steel rims are smooth polished chrome to protect against corrosion. A tiny bit of moisture acts like a lubricant. Both of these reduce the friction needed for effective braking. Steel was used because making sufficiently strong rims/wheels out of aluminum was more expensive.

Here it's the wet primarily. My Raleigh Sports with brakes applied in the wet is barely different than it is without brakes applied.

If you've never ridden 70s bike boom gaspipe with steel rims, you'd likely be appalled at how poorly those brakes work in dry conditions.

Even dual pivot brakes provided a huge braking improvement as they hit mass market road bikes in the 1990s.

I suppose the obvious comeback would be that the science showing the role of regular aerobic exercise helping prevent strokes is far more sound than the science that shows helmets help prevent brain injuries.

:lol: That comeback would be "obvious" only to somebody who still doesn't get it.

Again, this is wrong. Strokes happen even in people who exercise regularly.

What exercise (and other things) do is reduce the rate of strokes. Nothing "prevents" them.

I hope I'm not offending anyone by not being as articulate as some would like me to be.

I think the point is still valid though. Aerobic exercise reduces the rate of brain injury with greater success than helmet usage does.

(and the numbers of stroke victims are far greater than the numbers of bare headed brain damaged cyclist)

( - did I say that right? - )

Yes. This is most likely (almost certainly) correct (of course, it depends highly on how much aerobic exercise is being done). Many, many cyclists don't cycle anywhere near enough for the aerobic exercise to have any real benefit.

And, of course, by itself, this statement (being true) really doesn't address the question of whether helmets work or whether they are (or can be) useful.

Note that I'm only criticizing your use of "prevent" for arguing for something (applied to strokes) and against something else (applied to concussions).

But it does provide a little perspective.

Some people are afraid of that which helps them

My favorite pro helmet advice was a claim someone made that, they had fallen 3 times at 10 mph or less and the helmet they were wearing was destroyed, thus it had saved their life.
First, if you're falling that often at that speed, cycling isn't for you.
Second, if your hitting your head every time you fall, maybe you need to learn how to fall.
Third, just because your helmet turned into popcorn it doesn't mean your fate was death, it doesn't even prove a concussion was imminent. It proves helmets are designed to explode.
Don't get me wrong I'm not anti-helmet, I'm anti lie to you to get you to wear what we tell you is safer.
We've all seen a child riding a bike with a slipped helmet completely covering the kids eyes, right? self-fulfilling prophesy at work.
Helmets have their place, as do padded gloves, bike control, being aware of your surroundings and seeing.

So...

You ask me about my claim that you are fearmongering and I reply with a specific post citation; I ask you where you cited three "experts" in this thread -- your claim -- and you dissemble. Where, exactly, did you post opinions of three experts regarding the study in question in this thread...?

You seem more than willing to ease debate into marginally related topics; less than willing to engage in honest answers to relevant questions...

It's easier to come to an understanding when the parties work from areas of agreement.

It's also easier to come to an understanding when the parties pay attention to what has been posted...

The little bit of perspective it provides is useful as long as it not presented in a misleading manner.

Many people manage to get lots of "aerobic exercise" riding with a helmet (which means they are not necessarily mutually exclusive).

I don't know but I suspect that most people discouraged from riding by MHL weren't getting much "aerobic exercise" benefit from the riding they were doing. (And no one here is talking about MHL, which means that any discouragement due to MHL is some other discussion.)

most people don't get much in the way of aerobic exercise

I'm sure the evidence that says being active reduces the chances of brain injury via stroke is much more reliable than the evidence that says wearing a helmet does the same

Ah. Thanks, I figured it must be something to do with lack of grippiness and poor braking.

+1 This exactly.

Actually on the bikes that I converted from chrome-plated rims to aluminum I found that the dry braking performance got marginally worse, but it was still more than adequate. But the braking performance in wet conditions was greatly improved. Wet chrome rims frequently didn't seem to be braking at all until the wheels had gone around once or twice to let the brake pads start drying them.

But using a helmet doesn't necessarily preclude getting the aerobic exercise (ed: from cycling).

Helmets might discourage riding but it would seems likely that most the people they might discourage don't ride enough to get any "aerobic exercise" benefit.

And, of course, any discouragement that MHL might induce is something else entirely. And next-to no one here is for MHL anyway.

We agree on many things.

I answered specifically when you asked where I said something.

You refuse to do so.

Of course a helmet doesn't stop someone from exercise. It's the reliability of evidence of prevention between the 2 methods that's the issue

Only if you think that one should ignore all conclusions based on evidence that is less reliable than the stroke evidence.

Agreed that ardent cyclists are unlikely to be discouraged.

But someone who is discouraged from being even a casual cyclist is then unlikely to later become an enthusiast. And while cycling among adults doesn't seem to be diminishing in the US, I see far fewer children cycling now than even 15 years ago - and there are many more jurisdictions that have MHLs for children than for adults. Will those who never did much cycling as kids be as likely to even think about becoming cyclists as adults?

Dude. If I do the same thing for you 3 times, I'm not helping you, I'm enabling you.

evidence that has less reliability should be given less weight than evidence that is been proven to be more reliable.

Who really knows if this is "unlikely" or not.

It's very hard to say whether it's MHL's for children that are reducing the numbers of child cyclists since there is a general trend of less activity in children (and adults). Fewer children walk (to school, for example) too.

Interestingly, not many people seem to object to children wearing helmets (or child-specific MHL's)!

Kind of obvious but so what? There doesn't seem to be any clear personal downside to using a helmet even if the benefits don't have "reliable" evidence to support it.

If the benefits don't have "reliable" evidence to support it, there doesn't seem to be any clear personal upside to it either.

This compared to the significant upside to increased health benefits.