Yes, You have a point, BUT, "My helmet saved my life" can have many meanings...
1; It actually saved a life. (maybe)
2; It saved some major trauma. (maybe)
3; It saved some injury. (probably)
4; It saved some lumps. (almost certainly)
5; It saved some skin rash. (certainly)

People who have crashed do have a tendency to maybe put more into how the helmet helped, but... Just because a helmet isn't as good as most people think... Saying one doesn't need to wear one is just not right. One should always say (I am willing to take the chance) not that it just isn't worth it because nothing is going to happen and it won't save me from major trauma anyways. JMO

EDIT; Like I said, if (so I'm willing to take the chance) just like when walking, jogging, taking a shower was in every non-helmet wearers vocabulary, this thread would disappear... But that's not what I see, I see statements like, it's useless, can cause an increase in injuries.. JMO

Nope. I mainly refuted the claim that helmets can provide no protection during collisions with automobiles.

in other words, it's about as "adequate" in car-bike collisions as it is falling off the bike, but that doesn't mean that it adequately protects you from injury in either case.

That's splitting the hair very finely, especially in light of your claim that "The helmet is primarily for hitting the ground and that's generally going to happen regardless of how the accident occurs. Unless we're thrown up in the air we'll hit the ground with the same impact whether we're hit by a car, or riding 30 mph, or fall over at a light."

This is just ridiculous: I can see that people feel that their life is saved when something saved them from a crippling injury, and that's already pushing definitions of the concept "life-saving".

That's a fact, not splitting hairs.

Risk of injury is overall higher when a car hits you. The particular injuries resulting from the head hitting the ground are about the same however, and the helmet affords the same protection from that in either case.

The point remains tho------------------------people that say their helmet saved their live WERE wearing a helmet, and after the crash, they ARE still alive.

So, those times where I crashed, not wearing a helmet, and I AM still alive ... not wearing a helmet saved my life?

I get tattoos as talismans against death, and I AM still alive...

Whereas THE ONLY HEAD INJURY I've sustained in recent times was a bike crash when I WAS wearing a helmet.

But you're still alive, so the helmet saved your life after all. That AND the tattoos.

Oopps, That's how I meant to say it and give those examples as to what really/probably happened...

This is useless. It's true of everything!!

Again, it's not that they can hurt, it's whether they help more or not than they hurt.

I made no such claim! Saying that helmets can hurt isn't an argument against them!

I didn't say that you did.

The existance of better helmets doesn't establish that bicycle helmets are not very useful (especially since "high speed" isn't clear)! Bicycle helmets might still be very useful compared to no helmets. Better helmets suggests that they could be better (but there are trade-offs that make those heavier helmets impractical for bicycling).

Let's look at that again. I doubt that wphamilton was talking about "car racer" speeds! (Talking about "car racers" is moving the goal posts, by the way.)

You make two mistakes in your reply here: 1) you are saying the bicycle helmets and heavy helments have be equally effective (they don't) and that the scenarios each is addressing are the same type and frequency (that doesn't appear to be true at all, especially since bicyclists or car traffic aren't really travelling at the speeds that "car racers" do).

Again, the existance of better helmets doesn't contradict wphamilton's comment at all. If you read what he wrote, you didn't understand it. "High speed" is too vague anyway and with your "car racer" comment, it seems you are talking about a much higher (and irrelevant) "high speed".

No, it describes why what you said above is wrong.

Yabbut, according to Rydalogic(tm) it may have been BECAUSE I was wearing a helmet that I RECEIVED A HEAD INJURY...

No, he made one mistake: engaging you in conversation.

He shouldn't be making such bad arguments then.

At least his arguments aren't as bad as "bicycle safty classes that people don't take even if they are free are better than helmets" one that I've seen somebody make.

I took it as rhetorical since the literal answer is trivial. Race car drivers use heavier helmets because they work better. Cyclists do not, because they are an impediment to the physical activity.

Neither of those answers relate to the question of whether a bicycle helmet is effective at all in a bicycle crash involving a car.

Talking about "car racers" isn't rhetorical. Motorcyclists by themselves can reach high speeds. And collisions between motorcyclists and other vehicles has a fairly reasonable chance of having much higher combined speeds than collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles.

I said this. And it should have been obvious to other people. And the collisions race car drivers may be subject to are different.

Yes. I also said this. And it should be obvious too.

Just for those keeping score at home:

In post #378 , JoeyBike asks "Is anyone here claiming that helmets don't mitigate injury?:

In post #386 , njkayaker replies "People do make such claims in these threads regularly."

In post #397 I wrote "I'm still looking for you to back up your claim that some people here have stated that helmets cannot prevent injury."

And then in #411 , nj replies with "I made no such claim!"

Mconlonx is right, again: trying to engage njkayaker in conversion is a complete waste of time.

I believe I made that claim in post 380 (that there were some who claimed that helmets don't help and could actually could cause injury) and njkayaker replied that yes there was some who made that claim. But I also said not in this
thread, not yet anyways... In the previous helmet thread there was a lot more claims like that, but not in this one... And no I'm not going back to find them to prove anything...

The 'yaker and the ryda are both bots, I'm pretty sure.

I hate to be the one to break the news to the world greatest cyclist that seem to post here, but the fickle finger of fate can and will reach out and goose you when you least expect it. A slick spot, a instant flat, loose gravel, or maybe a dog can put you on the ground. But then maybe these worlds greatest cyclist they NEVER go down have a bungee cord hooked to a cloud that will keep them from hitting the ground. The bungee cord idea is as believeable as thinking they will never crash.

Have you seen the helmet cam video that is on the internet in the last few days that show a rider going along at a good clip when UNEXPECED AND SUDDENLY a deer jumps in front of him and takes him down? Hmmmmm------better make sure your bungee cord is hooked up before you ride.

Getting put on the ground and banging your head are two different things Ryda, the latter not inevitable. I do want my helmet on if I hit the ground - even after a car-bike collision, Mr Jours - but if I happen to not have it, I'll deal with it and most likely without a head injury.

Not hittin your head on the ground in a crash is like playing Russian roulette.

As the Boy Scouts say---------------be prepared----------------wear a helmet.

As long as we're being general, at what level of risk should I be prepared? One in a hundred chance of hitting my head given an accident? In a thousand? Just a general ballpark from your perspective, and I won't ask you to justify the number.

What I said was people regularly say that helmets don't just "not work" but they cause injuries (suggessing that you are worse-off generally using one).

Meanwhile did so repeatedly (with the "helmets cause rotational injuries).

Closetbiker repeatedly said that helmets help with cuts or "minor
injuries" (which no one is concerned about) did did nothing else beyond that.

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-s...l#post11470225

You either know that they did this (repeatedly) and are "forgetting" or you did't read any of the prior threads.

Keep in mind that no one is really talking about mitigating "trivial" injuries.

Well you're right. Except that mitigating the trivial injuries is the largest benefit for me, since they're much more likely.