OK, so we should not wear helmets because some testing is slightly lacking. Really good logic.

You keep saying this data exists but yet you CANNOT prove it. It is not on me to find the data to back up your position. It is not on me to have to argue on your behalf and provide evidence to prove something that is so ridiculous. You cannot prove me wrong literally your position is untenable. "Helmets are unsafe because of helmet hair and someone might think cycling is dangerous if you wear helmets and because Amazon and others sell bad helmets they must all be unsafe, VA Tech has to rate them now.. Oh and if you want to find the data to back up my position you need to do because I can't" I think I have summed up your position pretty well and I am sure your response will be "you got it all wrong you won't let me post the data because you won't agree to my silly terms" or some such nonsense.

So no real education then because none of that is actual education. It is you trying to make more silly claims or say something that was already known. I know why paddlers where helmets yet you are trying to claim that rocks are some how significantly harder than pavement and because of that one should not wear a helmet. Some manufacturers do rigorously test their helmets some don't. You haven't educated about placebos you have just used the word over and over and over making false claims.

Your favorite blog and Buzzfeed are different but the article you posted was again listing Buzzfeed as their first source and then a tweet from Buzzfeed and the only mention of helmets was "helmet hair" which is very very very very very very very poor support for your argument.

I feel like if you had a good argument against helmets you could articulate it clearly and concisely and provide something to back up what you are saying. You cannot do that therefore you do not have a good argument against helmets. Not only that there really isn't a good argument against helmets. There are issues with helmets but not a good argument to not wear one. You certainly don't actually have one otherwise you would have posted it.

That's the answer.
If you're not sure of an answer due to political, cultural, or personal pride, check to see what insurance companies think.

They tend to brush off society norms in the name of capitalism.
Translation: Follow the money.

Exactly. They depend on their actuarial tables to establish policies and rates. Their numbers have told them that the use of bike helmets saves them money.

More cynically, they can contest or deny a claim resulting from injury or death of a cyclist by citing the absence of a helmet, but that would still be argued on the basis of their data showing that bike helmets generally reduce accident trauma.

Please provide any links to credible sources that provide insight into "what insurance companies think" about the money saving potential of bicycle helmets, or their actuarial tables, "numbers" and/or rates that indicate bicycle helmets "save them money," or evidence of injury claims of customers being denied by "citing the absence of a bicycle helmet" that was not mandated by law.

Note that insurance companies can contest or deny anything for any reason that a lawyer can dream up; doesn't mean it will hold up if challenged in court.

I did not ask you to find the data, I only require that you stand behind your position, and commit to admitting that you are wrong once I prove it. And you are too frightened to do so, for obvious reasons.

It is a bit entertaining to watch you contort yourself around these red herrings, like a security blanket. You claimed that helmet manufacturers rigorously test their helmets to assure that they are all as effective as you hope they are -- so I was forced to educate you that nothing could be further from the truth. Try to keep up -- no one is talking about hair, except in your imagination.

Would ya look at that! It can learn.

After I do so, will you admit that you are wrong?

:foo:

It appears you made a claim based on data you didn’t provide (a link to).

The NHTSA and DOT ( and NSC ) alter their reporting tools somewhat frequently, so links into them tend to be fragile and in some cases, impossible -- requiring screenshots and such. So no, I did not post links -- but I have offered to, if a certain individual expresses the confidence to own up afterwards.

For the record, everyone here who claims that bicycle helmets do save lives has also made a claim without providing a link to evidence. Claims that estimate that bicycle helmets should save lives are not evidence that they do.

Get it yourself and stop being lazy.

NHTSA quote "Bicycle helmets are proven to reduce injuries and fatalities." and Link :roflmao:I know I said I was gone but it was so easy to put this foolishness to bed.

I found this... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598379/

Quote:

---

It seems intuitive that bicycle helmets would be an effective means of reducing head injury, and indeed helmet manufacturers and standards associations worldwide conduct rigorous tests to determine the impact absorption and other qualities of helmets. It is however, important to go beyond laboratory tests and understand whether helmets reduce injuries in the event of a crash in real‐life; hence the review by Thompson et al

---

And this...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7025438/

Quote:

---

Some bicycling advocates have argued that helmeted cyclists may change their riding behavior influenced by a greater feeling of security and, thus take more risks and be more likely to crash.

---

To that, I say...well, duh. This is simple stuff.

(Not sure why my quotes are being split)

And when you read the remainder of that section, you find they provided zero evidence to support that claim:Everyone -- the NHTSA included -- wants bicycle helmets to work. It'd be great if they did. But the ones currently called "bicycle helmets", that some people wear, don't.

Classic answer (AKA dodge) when assertions cannot be substantiated by posters when challenged. This time the unsubstantiated assertions, presumably based on guesswork, concern "follow[ing] the money" and "what insurance companies think" concerning bicycle helmet wear and insurance rates,

You: "Do my work for me"
Me: "no"
You: "Waaaaaah! Classic dodging! I wanna ride with no helmet!! Science is lies!!! WAAAAAH!!!"

The link provides no substantiation of this reduction or its extent if any. Nor any evidence despite some posters' assertions that bicycle helmet wear influences insurance rates or payouts in any direction or amount.

It is unfortunate for you that you needed to cite Thompson. Robert Thompson authored the famous retracted study that claimed helmets were "85% effective" -- a number that the Federal government parroted for years, until forced to stop under modern data quality laws.

Thompson was a leader in claiming that helmets are effective, but his more recent research now finds otherwise.

So simple that one of the most productive researchers in the field has been forced to retract his earlier work and now finds no benefit to helmets.

You have expected me to find your magical data if you didn't you would have posted it already.

Your realize that was your argument I was putting forth not my argument but yours the one you have been pathetically sort of trying to make(ish) all these posts.

Would you look at that still not able to argue for your own position and think you are winning because my position hasn't changed and I was pointing at a known fact that doesn't help your case or hurt mine it is just a fact of business.

You still cannot argue for your case. You are standing atop your crumbling tower demanding that I admit something that is well known to be false as everyone around you laughs because not even you are willing try and save your tower.

Helmets do help prevent injuries and death we know this we can talk with people whom we may not have been able to talk with had they not been wearing a helmet. We know helmets are not perfect nothing in this world is but saying they are dangerous and completely bad is again silly beyond silly and now you are at the point where you cannot even argue for your own position, it is so sad.

Water is universally recognized H2O and you are the voice in the corner jumping up and down while saying no it's not but I refuse to tell you why.

It's the NHTSA website. Do you think they are going to have pages that are inconsistent with the agency position? If you want to second guess their position you'll need some qualifications. :foo: As for insurance companies, all I can recall being said was they might be the reason club and shop rides require helmets. You could ask your club or shop if you really want to know.

LOL! Typical; you cite an article from 1997. And by the way, the 'conclusions' even of that article don't support your position:

"CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of serious bicycle injuries cannot be accomplished through helmet use alone, and may require separation of cyclists from motor vehicles, and delaying cycling until children are developmentally ready."

In fact, those conclusions are at odds with your rather transparent and silly 'vehicular cycling' viewpoint.

So, here is a much more recent -- and rigorous -- literature review/statistical analysis for you to consider: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/1/278/2617198

At the end of the day, none of your nonsense (and that of others) really matters. No one here, as far as I know, has claimed that wearing an 'approved', properly fitted, bicycle helmet is going to completely eliminate the risk of serious -- even fatal -- injury in the event of a fall, crash, severe impact, etc. To do so would indeed be stupid. The real question, rather obviously, is whether or not a proper helmet reduces the risk of serious/fatal injury (facial, brain, whatever) in the event of a fall/collision. Notice: not 'eliminate' the risk ... 'reduce' the risk.

Correctly wearing a modern cycling helmet that meets current standards will 'reduce' (not eliminate) the risk of serious injury in the event of a fall/collision. That is what the epidemiological evidence suggests. That is good enough for me, and should be good enough for anyone who is a) rational and b) not simply trolling the interwebz in order to stir up a mess.

And that is all. I am out of this stupid discussion.

For those that are interested in what the recently linked study actually says:

You should post the links anyway. No one can tell what you are talking about.

:foo: So, there are links?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

"For the record" what other people fail to do doesn't excuse you.

Further more, the "conventional wisdom" (right or wrong) is that helmets help. That means that claims that the make things worse is the "extreme" claim and, as such, requires more support.

I'm not seeing TC1's posts because I have him behind the ignore curtain, but he seems to be responding to my previously posted links.

Here's another more recent link... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24686160/
"In the 2m (6.3m/s) drops, the middle of our drop height range, the helmet reduced peak accelerations from 824g (unhelmeted) to 181g (helmeted) and HIC was reduced from 9667 (unhelmeted) to 1250 (helmeted). At realistic impact speeds of 5.4m/s (1.5m drop) and 6.3m/s (2.0m drop), bicycle helmets changed the probability of severe brain injury from extremely likely (99.9% risk at both 5.4 and 6.3m/s) to unlikely (9.3% and 30.6% risk at 1.5m and 2.0m drops respectively)."

I'm no rocket surgeon, but these numbers seem pretty meaningful, as does this conclusion...

"contemporary bicycle helmets are highly effective at reducing head injury metrics and the risk for severe brain injury in head impacts characteristic of bicycle crashes."

Yep. I'm still going to wear a helmet when I ride. Probably in about an hour from now.

If there were links he would have posted them as anyone trying to prove their point and show people their side is correct, would. They continue to hide and dodge all these links instead sometimes posting links totally unrelated and sometimes posting links that are related but don't really support their position.

They are trying to build a wall out of dry sand on an eroding hillside. They aren't really interested in actually telling us "this is why I believe that helmets (in general) are outright dangerous and make things worse and here is proof of it" because they really can't as they don't have anything to hold up their argument.

One has to be specific about what sort of insurance one is talking about. There are basically two relevant types: liability and medical.

It appears that most clubs get liability insurance from LAB. They don't require helmets (except for mountain biking).

The following is from 2019 (so, it could have changed but I don't think so).
https://www.smwbikeclub.org/resource...nce%201-15.pdf

It's common for clubs to require the use of helmets but an explanation that "insurance made us do it" would seem to be wrong.

Medical insurance doesn't deny coverage for lack of helmet use.

If you want to sue somebody, it's possible that your case will be weaker if you weren't using a helmet.

That link was talking about programs to encourage helmet use. It wasn't about effectiveness (that was only mentioned as a lead-in to the rest of it).

You are making a mistake in assuming that link is the only thing the NHTSA has said about helmets.

A more careful person would look for NHTSA links where the topic is more about effectiveness.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/counterme...8ye%2C%202018b).

Be sure to read the entire Mandatory Helmet Laws section.

What you are doing is misrepresenting the NHTSA's position. This is either dishonest or careless. It's pretty clear the NHTSA's position is that helmets actually work.

You are correct, you cited the NHTSA website which provided no substantiation or any support for assertions about insurance company policy, rates or "thinking" associated with the use or non-use of bicycle helmets. I don't give a darn what random shops or clubs might say about their rationale for mandatory helmet wear on their sponsored rides, tours or competitive events. I do know when I asked the local shop owner about a claim made by one of the shop's club members that their insurance company required that participants wear helmets for sponsored rides, he told me that that statement was just a little white lie and that the club leadership found worked and because they preferred that all riders wear helmets. I have heard of helmet provisions in specialized insurance coverage for bicyclists in competitive events and of liability insurance for club and shop officials sponsoring races and organized rides, but of none that affects individual recreational cyclists' insurance rates, nor of any evidence that the "money trail" leads one to believe that there is any insurance data available to justify any insurance premium for riding without a helmet or any discount for wearing a helmet while riding.

Bottom line is that I can find no evidence to give credence to the claims made on this thread about "following the money" and/or insurance company "thinking"/rates to come to any credible conclusion about the risk reduction effectiveness of bicycle helmets. It seems obvious that the posters those assertion can also provide no evidence of any connection of bicycle helmets to insurance rates/benefits/payout for bicyclists.