![]() |
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 14251261)
Please, PLEASE read back 5-10 pages - openmindedly. It's not that hard :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Ridefreemc
(Post 14251988)
We started posting to this in another thread and then it was tacked on to this sticky so we did not have access to the previous 5-10 pages you refer to. You may not have been aware of that either.
|
Originally Posted by Rx Rider
(Post 14251501)
no, not falling off your bike in the first place is the most effective means of prevention.
Originally Posted by Rx Rider
(Post 14251501)
knowing how to fall when and if one does fall would be the second most effective means. sounds like we have someone trying to sell helmets here.
Originally Posted by Rx Rider
(Post 14251501)
I have no doubt helmets have saved 1000's from brain damage and death.
Originally Posted by Rx Rider
(Post 14251501)
but here in Colorado 5 people died this year wearing a helmet while skiing and only one died not wearing a helmet. these helmets are much more substantial than a cycling helmet. I would argue had these people had better skiing skills, four were from out of state, there would have been no need for a helmet. I would also assume they all thought the helmets they were wearing would have protected them from . . .
It seems that people die from skiing mostly from high speed collisions (skiing out of control) (too fast for helmets to be of much use). I wear a helmet skiing mostly so I don't whack my head on tree branches. |
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 14252175)
It seems that people die from skiing mostly from high speed collisions (skiing out of control) (too fast for helmets to be of much use).
this is a silly statement because you weren't there and to speculate what happened is ignorant I wear a helmet skiing mostly so I don't whack my head on tree branches. this is a ridiculous statement because a helmet won't prevent you from whacking your head, knowing how to ski will BTW the skiers THIS year all hit trees, non-moving, should have seen them, trees. |
Originally Posted by snowman40
(Post 14250823)
My last two crashes occurred at a fall speed of 9.8 m/s squared.
|
I guess it's too much to ask that people treat each other with a little respect in this thread even if they disagree
I did merge a thread in from commuting, not everyone knows about this thread. We have been merging every helmet thread into this one, so it sometimes gets a little disjointed. |
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 14252175)
It seems that people die from skiing mostly from high speed collisions (skiing out of control) (too fast for helmets to be of much use).
I wear a helmet skiing mostly so I don't whack my head on tree branches. |
I didn't read all 93 pages, so I'll just summarize my thoughts on helmets as simply as I can.
1) My skull is pretty good at protecting my brain from injuries, but my skull with a Styrofoam shell on top is even better. I find helmets are lightweight and don't detract from my enjoyment of riding, so it's worth it for me to wear one. 2) As a practical matter, helmets keep the top of head from getting sunburned. If I didn't wear a helmet, I'd have to wear a hat, and since most hats don't come with chin straps, I'd probably lose it on the first big downhill. |
Originally Posted by unterhausen
(Post 14252694)
I never skied fast enough to feel like I needed a helmet. There are a lot of people that ski out of control and hit trees and other skiers. From my time in Utah, Tony Danza and Sonny Bono come to mind. Skiers usually die of a ruptured spleen or other internal injuries, but there have been well-documented cases of people falling from a stand-still and hitting their head hard enough to prove fatal.
|
Originally Posted by Rx Rider
(Post 14252256)
why are you such a "data" freak? even when you're provided with "data" you refute it. so common sense is out, "data" you don't agree with is out, personal experience is out. novel way to be a winner.
The anti-helmet camp are the "data freaks": they routinely point out (reasonably) that pro-helmet arguments are anecdotal ("personal experience") or lacking in data. Relying on "common sense" is a common criticism (reasonable, I think) of the ant-helmet crowd. Either the "commonse sense" and "personal experience" justifications work for both sides or they works for neither. Sorry!
Originally Posted by Rx Rider
(Post 14252256)
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 14252175)
It seems that people die from skiing mostly from high speed collisions (skiing out of control) (too fast for helmets to be of much use).
Originally Posted by Rx Rider
(Post 14252256)
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 14252175)
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 14252175)
It seems that people die from skiing mostly from high speed collisions (skiing out of control) (too fast for helmets to be of much use).
I wear a helmet skiing mostly so I don't whack my head on tree branches. What appears to happen in many skiing accidents is that the victim goes too fast and can't maintain control or stop. They leave the piste and collide at high speed into whatever is in their way. That often happens to be a tree. Put another way: most ski runs are clear areas in forests and what out-of-control skiers typically run into are trees. |
What in the world are we discussing skiing helmets for? They're vastly different from bike helmets, just like motorcycle helmets are.
|
Originally Posted by Monster Pete
(Post 14250348)
You can see at the top center of the photo where the helmet has slid against the ground. It's likely the helmet broke before absorbing any significant impact, but the abrasions show that the OP could have had a nasty cut on the head otherwise.
|
Aargh.
|
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 14251547)
That's just about the wisest post in this thread.
Originally Posted by chasm54
(Post 14250443)
Helmets... Some people wear them, I don't. Neither is a stupid choice, but it would be better were it more often an informed choice.
|
Mind you it should say I Have Never Worn A Helmet But Am Going To Buy One Soon.
Which is my intention this week:) |
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 14253310)
What in the world are we discussing skiing helmets for? They're vastly different from bike helmets, just like motorcycle helmets are.
Anyway, it's not any less productive than anything else being discussed here. And, the sociology of them is similar. |
Originally Posted by chasm54
(Post 14253418)
Aargh.
|
Last summer my 10 year old son crashed his bike and landed square on his forehead, two front permanent teeth completely excised on impact (other baby teeth came out as well.) Were it not for the helmet on his head, he would most likely not be able to wipe his bottom or feed himself at this point. He did not have a choice as to whether he would be wearing a helmet or not. We require it 100% of the time of our children when riding on things with wheels (cars, golf carts, Polaris Rangers excluded). Glad I am/was a hardass parent that way!
I do not like wearing a helmet, I actually hate it when riding a bicycle. Motorcycles and quads are another story. I used to only wear them when I HAD to, events, or my mother demanding it. I now wear a helmet each and every time I am on a bike. I believe people should be able to make up there own minds about helmets and bikes, but children should not be allowed to make those decisions. Never understood the skiing helmet thing either... |
Originally Posted by sudo bike
(Post 14251057)
I sincerely hope for the sake of the last shreds of faith in humanity I have left that this post is the result of a thread transfer by a mod. Otherwise, I think I'm going to need a helmet to help mitigate the injury from multiple collisions with my desk.
Originally Posted by Ridefreemc
(Post 14251163)
Paramount1973 you have cited a very conclusive report. So those that bother to read through it and continue to argue that helmets don't matter can suffer the consequences I guess. Yes, to each his own.
Thanks for posting that. (BTW - my sister works with head injury patients and so I get a lot of the stories - sad for sure.) "It should be made clear that arguments against using bicycle helmets are not evidence- based; bicycle helmets are the most effective means of preventing head and brain injury and should be a requirement for cyclists of all ages." |
Originally Posted by chasm54
(Post 14251293)
You are correct, the last couple of pages have been transferred in from commuting and contain the usual ignorant crap. My own post is a notable exception, of course.
|
Originally Posted by Paramount1973
(Post 14253859)
Yeah, imagine my surprise when I found the thread I posted in had been transferred and tacked onto this one. I did read a few pages back and all I saw was a couple of iffy epidemiology studies. Checking the author of the NZ study, it's pretty clear that he is not an epidemiologist as his other papers are not in that area. Probably pissed at having to strap on a helmet and cobbled something together. The majority of papers I have read that actually collate ER visits and attempt to control for variables show that wearing a helmet reduces head injuries. I'm keeping mine strapped on, the rest of you can do what you want.
Also, since you're so safety conscious, I assume this means you have the skate-style helmets with few vents that even helmet advocates admit are more effective than the wildly more popular vented cycling helmets? I wonder why those aren't more popular, what with helmets being so important and all... :rolleyes: Just keep your organ donor cards on you, there aren't enough hearts, kidneys and livers to go around. |
Dang..... didn't know I was walking into a sh*t storm for posting picture of my helmet on the COMMUTING forum. :)
Just passing along my experience. Glad I was wearing a helmet.....it protected my coconut. Carry on. |
Originally Posted by MVclyde
(Post 14253968)
Dang..... didn't know I was walking into a sh*t storm for posting picture of my helmet on the COMMUTING forum. Just passing along my experience. Glad I was wearing a helmet.....it protected my coconut. Carry on.
why a small number of posters can't live up to the very standard of validation and proof they demand from non-helmet wearers and then resort to "your brain isn't worth protecting" put downs is beyond belief. it's not "anti-helmet", it's "anti-stop calling me an idiot because I've decided at 20 mph I don't need a helmet because I know how to ride a bike and be aware of my surroundings and at 50 mph helmets won't work anyway". and I have been hit by cars so save that argument too. |
Originally Posted by chasm54
(Post 14251293)
You are correct, the last couple of pages have been transferred in from commuting and contain the usual ignorant crap. My own post is a notable exception, of course.
I think it would have been better to lock the thread and redirect them to the crocodile pit (which they could, then, enter into willingly). |
Originally Posted by snowman40
(Post 14250823)
speed of 9.8 m/s squared.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:28 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.