Watch the riders head hit that has the cam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3LatOGCWVc

In todays news the CDC recommends wearing a helmet during a tornado.

What I hate:

You get in an accident and survive.

People say, "Wow, you were so lucky."

Um, no -- If I was lucky, I wouldn't have got in the accident in the first place; the rest is sheer happenstance/physics and measures taken beforehand to avoid an accident or mitigate damage in such an event.

"We're from the government, and we know what's best for you."

"I'm on the internet, and I know better than anybody."

Ah. I see it has dawned on you that you are losing the argument.

Glad you folks are still at this. Zero sum game. Chicken/egg. At least people are willing challenge each other on facts that can not be confirmed nor denied. Pardon me while I got watch my Basset Hound chase his tail.

Watching those two blow stop signs and wobble around like it's their first time riding bikes is enough to make an experienced rider cry. If that's typical of today's cyclists - and I suspect it is - it's no wonder folks are demanding safety gear.

And all that have absolutely nothing.to do with the fact that they we're hit from behind by a hit and run drive.

Good job sir, your point is invalid!

Um, no. Actually none of us are winning

It's only invalid if you're too dense to understand the point.

Your point had nothing to do with the video I posted, so fail on your part.

The overridding fact remains----------more cyclist, and more helmet usage and cyclist deaths down in the last 10 years. The usual anti helmet clik that argues against this fact only shows everyone that they think they are smarter than cold hard facts.

I'm a very big fan of cold hard facts. as you will observe, the proportion of cycling casualties that involve serious injury has been declining fairly consistently in the UK since the 1970s, and that decline appears to have continued on the same trend line since helmets became common. Whatever it is that has made cyclists less likely to be killed or seriously injured, it isn't wearing a helmet.

Perhaps it is because more cyclists believe in the magic ability of a styrofoam hat to protect them from all dangers on the road, and as a result, there are more people riding?

No, you have misunderstood the figures. Those I referenced aren't to do with the frequency of accidents, but with the proportion of accidents that result in serious injury. If helmets worked as people hope, this is the figure that one might expect to fall.

But I agree that the more cyclists there are the safer we will tend to be. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that making people wear helmets discourages them from cycling.

"I didn't get it, so it must be someone else's fault."

I wore my helmet today, im pretty sure it helped.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=248573

A fact is a fact. It has no intelligence - intelligence is what is required to interpret it.

In this case I presume that you're talking that USA but are too provincial to make this clear. In which case, yes, helmet wearing is up, rider numbers are up, and deaths are down. However, elsewhere this hasn't happened. And if you look for example at Canada where the same is apparently true, the hypothesis that helmets have brought the death rate down is easily disproved - because on a state level there is no correlation. Which there would be if helmets were responsible - that more people are wearing helmets in State A can hardly reduce injuries in State B while driving accidents in State A up!

In general, cars are better than they used to be, road designers are more aware of safety, and people are less likely to drive drunk.

Oh - and in still other countries there has been no reduction in cyclist deaths per mile at all with more helmet wearing.

And the question is still "So what?" Helmet engineers and neurologists have testified on this over and over in court: a cycling helmet can't absorb more than a tiny amount of energy and will make no difference in avoiding brain injury or even concussion.

(Also: engage common sense, hmm? They're weren't wearing body armour and their various body parts hit as hard as their heads or harder - and both guys got up and walked away. The driver was an *******, but the spill was a minor one. The only hit to the head was trivial - the guy's ribcage and shoulder had already taken the main impact.)

So your ribs are equally as important as your brain?

You win.

Yes, he does - though unsurprisingly, you don't understand why.

Helped do what exactly, scrap some dirt off someone's lawn. It certainly did not help prevent a concussion.

no, it helped a LBS sell another helmet