Virtually none of this is true. In the UK, the decline in the cyclist casualty rate predates helmets, and appears to have continued along the same trend line as helmets became popular. So there is no basis for concluding that helmets have had much of an impact. In Australia, making helmets compulsory has not had any discernible impact on the casualty rate. The statistics most certainly do not "prove" anything. In this case, they don't even demonstrate a correlation.

So are pretty much all the pro-helmeteers in this thread...

in all seriousness that would be a great name for a bicycling club, I would join but I don't think they'd have me as a member.http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smile...mileys-251.gif

as long as you wear tights, you're in. :lol:

I was thinking more euro-house band:

http://www.checkerstripe.com/sprockets/dieter.jpg

There have been a couple polls showing there are some BFs in favor of MHLs. At city council meetings, it only takes on cyclist showing up that is Pro-MHL for the council to declare they have the support of the cycling community for their new MHL.

Meh: some out of how many? There will always be a few in any bunch of cyclists. There's also places where MHLs get shouted down at the local level.

You are arguing a straw man. I'm not saying that you should not wear one, or that there is no evidence for it. I am saying simply that the evidence in favor is not very strong, and is debunked in some cases. Obviously no subject will have 100% agreement in studies... but in the case of cycling helmets, it isn't even strong enough to be an obvious winner. If that is enough evidence for you, that is great, but beside my point. My point merely was that with such shaky evidence, there is absolutely no justification for arrogance and down-talking those who don't reach the same conclusion. This isn't a subject where there is vast agreement and you can just poo-poo detractors as if they were saying the moon was made of cheese. What you choose is irrelevant to my point... my point is nobody should be getting off telling others what to do with the controversial evidence there is.

With all due respect to medical professionals, they aren't engineers that know how to calculate structural stresses and how to test those stresses. They are useful only in their opinion of what happens after the fact, not as much in designing or assessing safety equipment (except inasmuch as determining what needs to be protected).

And there are multiple people on this board who have crashed where their skull served its evolutionary purpose just fine: it protected their brain. This proves nothing other than some crashes can kill you... it doesn't help determine if the helmet is effective in assisting the skull in protecting from a fatal or serious crash.

There has also been no drop in head injuries in many areas that have adopted MHL's, and in some cases there was an increase. As you can see, the evidence is not so clear.

We've been over this.

1) That is your decision, and I don't care. I think it is just as silly (the reasoning, that is) as wearing body armor, as that obviously will have some small % change in your favor as well, and one could just as easily argue you should wear that until they are proven 100% useless (especially as a large portion of fatal crashes include fatal bodily injuries, not just head). But again, your choice. 2) All I am saying is that the evidence is nowhere near strong enough to look on those who don't agree with disdain.

Riveting addition to the conversation, truly.

And then there is Vancouver Washington.

hmmm so you're saying we have a skull that protects our brains? interesting but if this were true why do zombies have no difficulties in eating brains in all those movies? I'll bet if people the zombies attacked had been wearing bike helmets, the zombies would have given up and there wouldn't have been one sequel to the first 5 minute movie.
p.s. all this whilst covering my mouth with my hand.

Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter

One observation that really astounds me is the number of helmeted cyclists I see riding at night without any lights or even reflective material. As I ride by, with bright lights flashing front and rear, I wonder if they're thinking, "Look at that idiot, riding without a helmet."

But it's ok of course: their magic hats will save them.

Just wanted to add that I went skydiving yesterday, and only about 25% of the instructors (and none of the tandem jumpers, myself included) wore helmets. Make of that what you will. :)

Obviously an idiotic, organ donating, Darwin candidate. Why don't you care about your family? I mean, the brother's uncle's best friend's sister went skydiving last weekend and her chute didn't open. If it hadn't been for her helmet (and some nonsense about her backup chute) she would have been dead for sure!

There's a great example of why no one should wear a bicycle helmet. Falling at 124 mph is about the same speed a cyclist rides their bike at thus a cyclist doesn't need to wear helmet either.

Haha, you guys are hilarious. I just wanted to see what you'd do with that comment. I do wear a bike helmet, and would have worn a skydiving helmet too, if they had given me one.

(By the way, it's an absolutely incredible experience... highly recommended.)

Any -----that is any injury that a helmet prevents is a good thing. Even a scratch can become infected with dire results.

^You never know what could save you, like this logically consistent safety equipment.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=250081

:rolleyes: One poll, as far as I recall (I inspired it!). There were like two people who sort-of supported MHL!

Come on, this is not marketed toward daily commuters or road riders. It's for downhill MTB, dirt jump, etc; people flying through the air. It's meant to protect them from nearby objects (mainly their own bikes) in a fall. Broken ribs and punctured lungs suck--I'd wear this too if I were participating in those activities.

Did you see the post I responded to? How is that even remotely logically inconsistent with what he said?

But the logic which leads to wearing helmets- 'it might prevent injury in a crash' can just as easily be applied to wearing body armour. There's no reason not to wear body armour if you're wearing a helmet, since both might help prevent an injury. In fact, body armour is probably more likely to be useful in a real accident. Were it not for the misplaced belief that a cycle helmet can save you from serious injuries, I think more people would wear some form of body protection instead of a helmet. After all, moving vehicles are very solid.

False equivalence. You are assuming that preventing a head injury has equal to preventing other injuries. Since people (on road bikes) are much, much more likely to wear helmets than body armor, the equivalence isn't the commonly-held notion.