I think I said quite a bit, addressing what appear to me to be gaps in your understanding of the subject. You didn't understand how bike helmets mitigate impact for instance. I suspect that the role of rotational acceleration in concussions is new to you. I can explain how you've mistaken maeloch's reasoning if you like, or not if you wish to remain unaware of what he meant.

Eh, that's only the current incarnation of The Helmet Thread™, which respawned from the original in 2014 having 8742 entries. Mostly the same arguments flung back and forth, varying mainly in the newbies posting their "irrefutable" reasoning with disparagement of whomever would differ.

Sorry,your conceit gets in the way of your reasoning. Maelochs is Maelochs, and always right in his own mind. You don't have to copy him. You must surely understand there is the real world, and those who will sacrifice everything to prove a debating point on a forum. My fear is that readers will take these people seriously. As you may have noticed, I'm not interested in debating points, and I think both you and I would be horrified if helmets really were banned.

Pleased to see that, thankfully, the voting shows people are not fooled by this nonsense being promulgated here. On that happy note, ciao amici, tea calls.

I'm not talking about anyone personally, neither him nor you. I don't really see the attraction of it, and will not continue in that vein, but I am willing to continue to present facts and logic.

Regardless of whether maelochs is "always right in his own mind", he has in this case made a rational argument that refutes your idea. Specifically that because helmets are safety devices, and because head injuries do happen while cycling, it stands to reason that any rider should rationally use a helmet. He was trying to illustrate that your reasons are insufficient to rationally form that conclusion.

Have to sign off now, cricket is on the TV. Frankly, I don't really care, since rationality and he seem to be on different sides of the fence - here's the definition from the OED of rational, so you can understand. By the way, how do you think people should rationally use a helmet? In my experience, there is only one way you can wear a helmet, but you might have different ideas on your side of the pond.

Yes, I'm happy you've finally decided to start using facts and logic, though you may find it an uphill battle at first. I look forward to seeing your tentative steps in the right direction tomorrow.

Since you want to persist in badmouthing him, and myself as well, and since you have declined to address either facts or logic, I doubt that there is anything worthwhile to be explored here. Sorry to disappoint, but there won't be anything for you to "look forward to".

Exactly. It should be called a dangerous traffic helmet, an outdoor sports helmet or an anti-truck helmet or whatever. It's not the activity of riding a bicycle requires a helmet, so it shouldn't be called a bicycle helmet.
That's my stake in this discussion, I know I'm lucky with my cycling environment and I don't feel I have to defend my choice not to wear one, it's even not really a choice and it will never be mandatory here. It's about keeping the idea of safe and therefore helmetless cycling alive everywhere.

There are always interests, also personal and trivial ones. If you really want cycling safety you're not going to study helmets you're going to study what makes cycling safer and the helmet won't be a big part of such a study.

Every time I've sat down to do the math with probability, the cost of helmets and the cost of an accident where a helmet was not worn vs one where it was, and extrapolating this to a calculated "dollar value" to the brain that the helmet is designed to protect, I keep coming to the same conclusion. That those who choose to not wear helmets either didn't go through this process, have no idea what a brain injury can cost (even just in greenbacks, never mind the life quality stuff) or they have a realistic idea of what their life and noggin are actually worth. (Not enough to justify $100 for a helmet and put it on.)

Actually this analysis tends to favor non-helmet use, backed by my experience. Had I not worn a helmet on that ride in 1977, I would have saved the $35 I paid for it (had I left it in the store or roughly the same for its replacement). That crash would have cost my family $5000 in burial costs. End of stroy, Instead, many thousands of dollars went to medical costs. Lost earnings to the tune of, well, I'll just say a lot. A major university gifted me a seat in my old classrooms so I could get back up to speed. I went through many years of OCD, struggle with addiction, poor choices at every level, very poor choices with finances, etc., etc.; all of which is not uncommon among survivors of TBI.

Now there is a chance I might have lived without the helmet. In that case, apparent cost to me would have been nothing as I would have been reduced to a vegetative vacuum cleaner, sucking up money from insurance, family and the government the rest of my life.

Either way, without a helmet, you all would be spared my blathering.

Ben

In my view, needlessly contorted terminology tends to attract suspicion rather than clarifying anything.
Indeed. One of my interests is that my brain is supporting a family, a business, and my quality of life.

Addressing the full gamut of safety issues can and should be done, but my brain can't wait for that to happen. I take all of the safety precautions that I can think of, and then I wear a helmet as well. As for personal and trivial issues, there's no evidence that non-helmet use is not a preference driven by culture, aesthetics, and peer pressure.

Again, I believe it comes down to common sense.

I'm curious about something, regarding that common sense. [MENTION=392125]79pmooney[/MENTION] also please answer if you're interested.

Compare the two situations: you suffer an accident in a car while driving or as a passenger, and you suffer an accident while riding your bike. I'm not saying how bad the accident is, just consider that it may be any of the possibilities. with the corresponding likelihoods. It's a random car that you're in, or a random bike. Now, given that you have an accident, what is the difference in how likely it is that you'll suffer a traumatic brain injury, between the bike and the car? A whole lot, a little, none?

Again, what I'm calling common sense tells me that an injury is more likely with the bike because the cyclist is completely exposed, whereas the car has design features specifically to prevent these injuries -- despite being operated at vastly higher speed. Now those two things each have their own likelihoods. Those likelihoods are often cited on a per-mile basis, and I still put about 5x more miles on my car than on my bike despite calling myself an avid bike commuter. The overall likelihood should probably determine whether it rises to the status of a public health issue or not.

What I might not have been clear about is that my "common sense," such as it is, tells me to wear a helmet.

That's interesting... I missed it in the thread. Spreading the impulse over time is also why it works to put a rubbery coating on a delicate gadget to protect it from mechanical shock.

On a per-accident basis, is it more likely in the car or on the bike to suffer a brain injury?

Your last sentence is spot on by the way; it is the likelihood of an accident with injury that should be the main concern. Risk is the probability multiplied by the severity. Many people using "common sense" with the helmet question ignore the probability part and think only of the potential severity.

In fact, the effectiveness of the bike helmet to mitigate linear impacts is directly proportional to its thickness where it impacts.

I'm not sure what the main argument is. But if it's helmet effectiveness. To me even if it decreases my odds of a head injury by 1% in the event of a head strike. That's $50 bucks well spent. Energy has to go somewhere. So in the event of a head strike, the helmet will absorb some energy and disperse energy over a wider area. You can site all the studies or statistics you want. I'm sure I can show any correlation I want with the right data. Causation is a different story. So I'll rely on physics.

If it's legislation. We shouldn't legislate laws that step on personal liberty. If it doesn't hurt anyone else then who cares. If someone wants to willingly or unwillingly off themselves or hurt themselves. More power to you brother.

True, but repetitive use of 'loaded' terminology tends to influence peoples thinking. I'm convinced that if we would still call the regular bike the 'safety bicycle' like when it was introduced and a helmet for example a 'fall helmet' there would probably less people who believed those two belonged together.

It might be less common and less sensible than you assume. It's not that I don't understand why you're wearing a helmet. But how many poeple really have the considerations that they use as argument for helmet use? If you take all the safety precautions that you can think of, have you thought about the drop bar as an increase of head injury risk?

To me it seems more like: It's too dangerous, helmet could help in case of hitting your head, so wear a helmet and pretend it's safe enough now. Of course city planners like that idea, the car lobby likes that idea, drivers like that idea and doctors like that idea because they reason from the injury backwards instead of thinking about cycling safety and still believe they are experts speaking with authority on the matter.

I get along with that opinion just fine BTW it's probably closer to helping (intracranial injury) by 50% than by 1%.

And likewise if someone wants to wear pointless gear because they believe that probability is inherently flawed, or think that improving their odds by 1% of a 1 in 940,000 chance per mile is worth the money, then I've got no problem with that either.

I don't have any bikes with drop bars. All of my bikes have swept bars, for comfort.

I don't know a precise answer to that question. I have my own hunch, and anecdotes. As I mentioned above, cars have safety measures designed into them, to prevent brain injuries. Bikes don't. But how many accidents in either mode lead to brain injuries? Beats me. I've had a few minor crashes on my bike, no brain injuries, though I broke a rib. I think a broken rib hurts bad enough that nobody would think helmets are a complete substitute for other safety measures.

We should never allow laws like that to happen. Increased government control isn't always the answer. I never said humans were intelligent. I don't care if you want to be stupid or not in a manner that affects your own personal safety. That's your personal choice. And every human should have that liberty.

We should also ban unhealthy food. That way people can't kill themselves eating. I mean where do we stop. Mandating people to wear helmets is a terrible idea.

86az135i, I hope you are joking. If you are not, then the human race is deservedly doomed.

Have a good day.

I hope you don't believe that government control of the people is the answer.

No. I'm definitely not. The freedom to decide your personal fate should not be decided by someone other then yourself. I personally like my liberty with a side of freedom.

Looking at ER data, the surprising answer is that even with all of the automobile safety features, the chances of an intracranial injury is about the same whether you're in the vehicle or on the bike. From a per-accident basis. By "about the same" I mean within an order of magnitude.

My own hunch is that I'm more likely to get hit by a car when I'm driving than when I'm riding. To my knowledge the risk of a serious head injury is approximately the same. So common sense tells me that I'd rather wear a helmet driving than riding.

While logic tells you to wear a helmet in both instances.

Using similar emotion based "logic", safety nannys should proselytize at the public to not ride in motor vehicles or ride bicycles in order to reduce all types of injuries, not just head injuries, from riding and driving.