six

There is no"magic" about a helmet. If it is between your head and the hard ground it will mitigate injury. That is its purpose. To claim it doesnt is nothing but laughable.

And now I feel stupid for having tried. Again.

I'll just assume whoever is helping you at the keyboard is a non-native speaker and go back to ignoring you.

Is anyone here claiming that helmets don't mitigate injury? I have been peeking in here for years and can't remember seeing anyone make such a claim. I have seen other claims like:

- I'm never going to crash and hit my head just puttering around on my bike,

- Helmets won't prevent brain injury,

- Helmets don't save lives,

- Helmets are overrated,

- Helmets are mostly a money making scam perpetuated by helmet manufacturers,

If someone here claims that a bike helmet won't help prevent stitches in the scalp or a nice lump in the head caused by a minor crash I shall be laughing with you. Personally I believe that a helmet can sometimes keep a minor head bump from becoming something more serious under a very narrow set of circumstances. Certainly a helmet will preserve some skin and hair same as knee or elbow pads, shin guards, gloves, etc.

Or, it may not. Depends on the severity of the injury and integrity of the helmet.

Nobody has yet claimed that a helmet does not mitigate some injury in this thread, not yet anyways... in the last helmet thread some did claim...

1; Helmets don't help reduce injury.
2; Helmets increase the chance of injuries.
3; Helmets leave marks on their heads from sunburn.
4; Helmets are a big bother carrying around after the ride.
5;

The fact is a helmet is pretty much like say a patch kit. It is not important untill you need it.

...and if you don't use it properly, it may not work.

I run Mr. Tuffies to reduce patch kit dependence.

They also help reduce chance of crashing, especially on front wheel.

Patch kits have their place. But they wouldn't be very useful to someone who foolishly rides over one of those "do not back up" grates. Nor are they helpful to the board track racer using tubulars. And the guy riding airless tires would laugh at the idea of a patch kit.

So yeah, I guess patch kits are a lot like helmets. Some people get good use out of them. Other people don't have any real reason for them. And some people do such idiotic things on bicycles that no patch kit in the world will help, even if they do believe it's some kind of talisman.

People do make such claims in these threads regularly. And it's not just "null" (helmets don't do anything) claims. It's negative claims (helmets cause injuries). (There aren't many examples, it appears, in this thread because the usual suspects who repeatedly made these null/negative claims no longer post.)

One common such claim is the "helmets cause rotational injury" one (forum member "meanwhile", in particular, was fond of this one). Another common such claim is referring to "head injuries stay the same or increase with helmet laws" statistics (where, if those statistics are true, the causes are hard to explain).

Other than the "falls causing head injuries are so rare that there isn't any need to mitigate injuries" or the "helmets cause people not to ride" arguments (before the event), pretty-much all of the other anti-helmet arguments (after the event) are "helmets don't mitigate injuries or make injuries worse" arguments.

Here's a "helmets cause injuries" argument from the first page of this thread. While it's kind of non-commital (and confusing) about it, it isn't claiming that helmets have an overall positive value.

Clearly, a big, heavy helmet in those situations is deemed practical for the benefit it provides.

Clearly, a big, heavy helmet, for cycling, is deemed impractal. That is, in cycling, a heavier helmet might be better protection but it has other downsides (which might not apply in other situations).

It's a trade-off (like everything).

This is basic stuff that too many people keep forgetting.

Both those posts are the result of fallacious thinking.

1) The fact that helmets can contribute to injury does not mean they cannot prevent injury.

2) If a bicycle helmet is adequate protection against thing like getting hit by a car traveling at high speed (which is the argument being addressed in the post you quoted) then there doesn't seem to be any need for larger, heavier helmets. Practicality never entered the discussion so is essentially a strawman.

A slightly heavier helmet would provide better protection tho. Back in the 80s Bell produce a helmet call the Tourlite. It had a lexan shell that would provide excellent protection, and was hard enough not to cause stiction that some worry about. BTW it was not that heavy anyway, and now that I sit full upright on my bents it would be even less noticeable.

I would love to have a brand new Tourlite like I had back then.

1; That's true, in a small % of head injuries, but some people use that info to promote not wearing a helmet overall... That is why I'm still here.

2; Yes it is a strawman, but that's also used to say, well a helmet doesn't protect you if a car hits you so there's no reason to wear a helmet... That's why I'm still here.


Both of those scenarios (probably a few more) where the helmet can fail to protect, are used to promote not needing a helmet, and while there is some truth in there, the overwhelming numbers where crashes result in head hitting the ground and the helmet actually helps is dismissed because of a small % of failures where the helmet failed... That's fallacious thinking to me, and I hope many others... ;)

Something like this could be a good reason to wear a helmet...or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8uCeyUl_9U

:rolleyes::rolleyes: Err. No.

This is true but useless. Yet people (like meanwhile) keep saying it. Everybody knows that nothing is perfect. Why do you and others keep suggest people are arguing that they are perfect?

The issue is whether they help more than they hurt.

This is meaningless too. There are certainly types of collisions that a helmet can't do anything to mitigate. So what? Nothing is perfect. The fact that some people make the argument that helmets work better than they do in reality doesn't mean that helmets aren't useful (see your point 1).

Who is claiming that helmets are "adequate protect" against extreme collisions?

Of course, there not all collisions are from "car traveling at high speed". Talk about a strawman! While somebody might have said it somewhere, no one here has.

The existance of helmets heavier than bicycle helmets suggest (one or more and not limited to):
* That collisions they are expecting to be useful for are different.
* That they are practical where they are being used and impractical where they are not.

The existance of heavier helmets doesn't suggest that bicycle helmets don't have value.

All basic, basic stuff that you completely don't get.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

But any kind of un-expected thing like that wouldn't happen to good riders, and if it did they could react and save themselves they say... :innocent:

This is the "X has to be perfect to be useful" argument. The anti-helmeteers use it very frequently. It's dumb.

It would seem very likely that there have been collisions where the victim would have been better-off not using a seat belt. Yet no one argues "don't use seatbelts".

The issue is whether they help more than they hurt.

How do you feel about helmets while kayaking, [MENTION=101834]njkayaker[/MENTION]?

Wear a helmet for any jaunt in any kayak?

It's not really comparable.

It's standard for whitewater (it's fairly common to be upside down with your head banging on rocks). It's standard (pretty much) for surfing. In other cases, people don't use them (in these cases, it's very unlikely that you'd hit your head on something at any speed). Keep in mind that the speeds are around 3 mph.

Anyway, I'm not advocating for bicycle helmets (that really should be clear). I really don't care whether cyclists use helmets or not. I am just pointing at crappy arguments.

The arguments for helmets might not be very strong. But the arguments against them are not any better (some of them are quite awful indeed).

Actually, the issue is your complaint about people stating that helmets cannot decrease injury. When asked for evidence of those people, you pointed to posts stating that helmets can cause injury. Then I pointed out that sometimes helping and sometimes hurting are not mutually exclusive, and now you're shifting to "whether they help more than they hurt". So let's keep our eye on the ball here: I'm still looking for you to back up your claim that some people here have stated that helmets cannot prevent injury.


I have never said that helmets are not useful. I have pointed out that they are not very useful when struck by high-speed motor vehicles, and in support of that argument I have noted that helmets used for high-speed motorsports are much heavier and stronger than bicycle helmets.

Wphamilton, in the post to which I was responding, which you then attacked. Don't you think it would be a good idea to read before responding?

You appear to be calling out your own strawman here.

Yet another strawman, based entirely on arguments that no one here has presented, except for you.

What I don't get is why you seem to enjoy arguing with yourself so much.

Well, no. It's that unexpected things are so unlikely to occur in a way that causes a crash of the sort that ends up with them landing on their heads with just enough energy to cause head injury but not enough to defeat a bicycle helmet.

IOW, the same reason that most of us aren't worried about being killed by falling airplane parts. Doubtless there is some guy ready and willing to say "Oh, what? You think your so special that you can just hop out of the way or something?!?".

Exactly; I have no problem with someone saying that they don't wear a helmet...

Because helmets don't protect you as much as most people think. (so I'm willing to take the chance)...
Because helmets just aren't needed in most crashes as the head usually doesn't even hit the ground. (so I'm willing to take the chance)...
Because helmets sometimes cause more harm than good. (so I'm willing to take the chance)...
Because I'm such a safe rider, riding in safe areas that nothing is going to happen. (so I'm willing to take the chance)...


Common thread here is (so I'm willing to take the chance)... ;)

If all the non-helmeteers said that (so I'm willing to take the chance), just like most people take the chance on nothing happening while walking, jogging, taking a shower... (so I'm willing to take the chance)... I wouldn't be here year after year saying my bit... BUT, That isn't what is being said, usually... So here we are, year after year, saying the same thing... :bike:


EDIT; In other words... Saying you don't think wearing helmet is worth it, implying nobody should, one should be adding, (because I'm willing to take the chance/risk). JMO as I see it. ;) . Not just the reason/reasons...

Well, I dunno. Mostly what I see here is

A) People saying "I fell off my bike and my helmet saved my life!!!!!" on some thread, then a bunch of other people jumping on the bandwagon, then a bunch of other people saying "Well, maybe not..." and then the whole mess getting dumped in here,

and

B) Rydabent, looking for someone to pay attention to him.

WRT everything else, it seems to me that what you wrote in your post is what most "anti-helmet" stuff here boils down to. If it weren't for the occasionally loud responses to "A helmet saved my life so you're an idiot if you don't wear one" (and to njkayaker's arguments with his imagination) the points you made could stand in for just about every poster here who isn't part o the helmeteer brigade.