The first line simply isn't true, unless you are calling out the folks who think helmets will protect you against speeding semis. The second is a very sorry attitude; one that is at least partly to blame for today's crash-ridden version of the sport, and the last line seems to be just another effort to pretend that there is anyone here telling people not to wear helmets.

Is there *any* study that rydabent would ever be satisfied with? (Rhetorical question.)

I did a survey on the road forum a few years ago wherein I asked how many folks had had their lives saved by their helmets. It was running about 50% "yes" until, for some odd reason, the thread was dumped into A&S. (So far as I know, there was not a single mention of guns, so the move remains completely inexplicable to me.)

At any rate, it should be obvious that cycling in the pre-helmet days had nothing close to a 50% fatality rate. So I'm not completely convinced of the usefulness of surveys on the subject, except perhaps to illustrate the point that today's cyclist appears to grossly overestimate the risks of bicycling and the effectiveness of bicycle helmets.

Yes a competent one, but not any slapdash patch job of partial snippets of cherry picked factoids that is accepted as relevant only by biased zealots/ideologues, and as credible only by statistically challenged morons.

If someone says there is no evidence that a helmet helped in any of the accidents, he's pretty much arguing that.

I don't disagree with that, since I often leave the helmet at home with no qualms.

Are YOU satisfied with any statistical study that ever recorded, measured or provides a clue on the type of equipment worn/not worn when cyclists were NOT injured "seriously" enough in bicycle accidents/falls/crashes to require a hospital visit? If so, which study or survey was that? Or are you like one of those old wise men who doesn't need no stinkin' facts to be thoroughly satisfied that his biased opinion is all the stinkin' facts anybody needs to know.

That would have more impact if you provided specifics. And more credible if you had previously cited some study yourself at some point, in support of your various claims.

Are YOU aware of any statistical study that ever recorded, measured or provides a clue on the type of equipment worn/not worn when cyclists were NOT injured "seriously" enough in bicycle accidents/falls/crashes to require a hospital visit?

I do not need to provide reference to "studies" or "specifics" that demonstrate the non-existence of surveys or studies on a subject; try Logic 101. If statistics, data, or credible studies exist about the type of equipment worn by people uninjured in bicycling accidents I am sure lots of the posters here would like to look and see what an intelligent analysis of the data might indicate.

I have seen of a number of them, that measure helmet use in general. Unless wearing the equipment makes one less likely or more likely to be involved in an accident, the numbers are the same. If it makes one slightly more or less likely, as has been suggested, the numbers will be slightly different.

Even if no one ever provided a clue about it was a valid objection, it remains to be seen how it calls into question this study's methodology or conclusions.

You are typing in circles. What unquestionable "study's methodology or conclusions" are you thinking about?

Those which you criticized as "partial snippets of cherry picked factoids that is accepted as relevant only by biased zealots/ideologues, and as credible only by statistically challenged morons" without justification other than this, and some irrelevant personal insult.

Apparently the anti helmet crowd here live in ------ never never land. They never crash, and they never hit their heads when they do.

It's not about "never" - it's all about the risk. How likely is a crash, and how likely an injury in the case of a crash, ranging from superficial to severe.

I asked your opinion before, and you never did tell me at how much risk level the helmet makes sense. A crash every 10,000 rides for example? Have you had a chance to give it any thought yet?

wphamilton

Then you are admitting that you may crash. It is total chance. You may crash on your next ride, or it may be ride 4589, but it is very probable it WILL HAPPEN. Why not wear a helmet and be prepared.

Of course I may crash on any given ride - I make no bones about it. I may stumble on the sidewalk the next time I walk out the door, fall and bash my noggin. The only reason I won't wear a helmet walking out my door is the low probability of that happening.

It probably won't happen that I crash again on the streets, but there is a chance. If I do crash, I probably won't hit my head but there is a chance of that also. If I do crash, and I did hit my head, it probably won't be more serious than cut or scrape, but there is a small chance of that also. Multiply these three probabilities together and that's my risk when not wearing a helmet. From the best information that I have available, multiple studies for which I do have the background and am qualified to evaluate, I judge that number to be very small for me individually.

What I'm asking of you is your evaluation of your risk. Do you think that it's inevitable that you'll crash, and when you do it's certain to be a severe impact on your head? It seems like that's your reasoning, but if not then about how much more likely does it have to be for you than the risk of walking down the sidewalk?

wp

The point remains that a person can wear a helmet. It is so totally benign to wear why not? While riding with my helmet, I am totally unaware I have it on.

Do you wear one every time you walk out the door, if it's totally benign and you're unaware of it? Why not, what's the difference?

For me there is no difference, much of the time. Not enough risk walking the sidewalk, not enough risk riding to the convenience store.

wp

This a cycling forum please try to limit comments to cycling.

But what he is saying, is that it's actually less dangerous cycling than walking on sidewalks... And why don't you wear a helmet when you walk on sidewalks since statistics say there's more of a chance of needing one walking on sidewalks than riding a bike but nobody is expected to wear a helmet walking?


I wear a helmet when I ride and don't when I walk, because I perceive my bike riding to be a more dangerous activity than me walking, that would be my short answer, I'm willing to take the risk of walking without a helmet, not because nothing will ever happen to me or other BS reasons, I am just willing to take that risk...... And that is what non helmet wearers should be saying, not that nothing will ever happen or any other BS reason but that they are willing to take the risk...

This is the helmet thread, it's all about risk. But I'll respect that you won't answer, for reasons of your own.

Close, but it's the Nether Netherlands where people rarely crash their bicycles because they generally aren't complete ****wits when riding one, and when they crash it's generally inconvenient rather than dangerous and results generally in bruises and road rash rather than injuries an death.

I had a Britton explain to me that the Dutch would also wear helmets if they where riding brake-less fixies through dense city traffic at 30+ km/h. He was probably right and he also made my point about the Dutch not being complete fu<kwits when riding a bicycle.

I agree, a great point is being made here: crashing a bicycle is rare and most do not result in a head injury for which a helmet might be appropriate safety gear.

mcol

But in those "rare" occasions you do crash and hit your head, a helmet may prevent injury.

As might a mouth guard, elbow, knee and hip pads, steel toes shoes, athletic cup and/or bullet proof vest also prevent an injury in a "crash" or bicycling incident; stuff happens, ya know.

Do you also wear and/or recommend wearing this personal protective equipment too, just in case?

If not, why not?

...or may not factor at all regarding injuries sustained during the rare occasion when you crash your bike. In fact, most likely not.