Kind of amazing to me that there are people so useless they cannot go for a bicycle ride without suffering life-threatening injuries.

Even more amazing is when those same folks shout "Darwin!" at cyclists who can manage to go for a bicycle ride without suffering life threatening injuries.

You should ask the doctor how much training he's had WRT the ability of bicycle helmets to prevent brain trauma. If he's like almost every doctor out there, the answer is zero, and what he "knows" about bicycle helmets is primarily the result of medical journals still reprinting the long-disproven 85% figure.

I know, I know, I'm just a random internet dude. But I do recognize logical fallacy when I see it, and "appeal to authority" is definitely on the list.

asmac

I agree with you right down the line. Especially the part of trusting an emergency room doctor more than a contrary poster on a bike forum.

Who might these folks be, might I ask? Since I've not seen any evidence that anyone who cited Darwin here had ever suffered a life-threatening injury cycling. Anyone who drew that conclusion based upon the information posted here would seem to be the most useless and stupid of all. OTOH, it would seem that it really doesn't matter how skilled or coordinated or useful one is, should an automobile hit you through no fault of your own - and it might be a good idea in such an event to have some protection surrounding one's brain - assuming, of course, that one had a brain worth protecting in the first place. OTOH, many folks have, anecdotally at least, AVOIDED a life-threatening injury by virtue of having worn a helmet.

It would take a particular breed of moron - to contend that any cyclist who was ever hit by a car while riding was at fault, or acting useless, when that happened.

In any case, Six Jours - nobody is suggesting YOU should wear a helmet. It wouldn't be serving any purpose - as you seem more than happy to acknowledge.

So not only are we dealing with a fellow who can't go for a bike ride without life threating injury, AND who yells "Darwin!" at anyone who can, we ALSO have fellow who thinks his helmet is going to save his life when he gets hit by a car.

So welcome to the thread. You'll fit right in.

Again, leaping to erroneous conclusions seems to be your strong suit. Shame you never mastered reading comprehension. If you read REALLY slowly, I'll try to explain it to you at a level you might be able to grasp:

A helmet MIGHT save one's life if they get hit by a car, assuming the non-head trauma injuries are themselves survivable. If you don't grasp the difference between it MIGHT save one's life, and it IS going to save one's life, you really shouldn't waste your time on internet forums, as it's bound to be both a frustrating and humiliating experience for you - even if you fail to recognize it yourself.

That being said, auto accidents are by no means the sole, or even main type of accidents for which cyclists may benefit from having a helmet on. Simply having one's head hit asphalt or concrete from a height of six feet or so, even at low speed, would be such an example.

But again, that would hold more true for someone having a brain worthy of protection, than it would for you, since you are incapable of having such an accident, since it would require you being useless, and you've already explained that only others are so useless.

Are you going to pretend that you didn't suggest being hit by a car is a good reason to wear a bicycle helmet? Or are you just going to do another edit?

And speaking of erroneous assumptions, I'll note you haven't bothered to learn whether I myself actually do or do not wear a helmet. Hell, for all you know, my helmet costs more than yours. Using your brand of "logic", that'd make my brain more valuable!

Oh, and just in case anyone is wondering: this fellow's demeanor is fairly typical for a Southern California cyclist. Which explains why the general public around here hates cyclists so much.

<Edit>And for some real humor, note that the guy actually did go back to edit his post again, to modify the part about cars being a good reason to wear helmets. Good times!

It's irrelevant to me whether or not you wear a helmet - it's unnecessary in your case, just as it's not necessary to put a helmet on a bowling ball. And again, it requires quite a lack of reading comprehension skills to claim that my suggestion that wearing a helmet is a good idea in the event one were hit by a car has anything remotely close to the same meaning as "his helmet is going to save his life when he gets hit by a car". There's only one person in this conversation who's illiterate enough to suggest that those two statements have the same meaning, and it's not me. Sorry if you're too uneducated to grasp the quite different meaning of those two entirely distinct statements.

Oh, and perhaps you might elucidate what is typical of a Southern California cyclist. Because at least 98% of my entire existence as a cyclist has been living in the northeast portion of the U.S. I've been a "Southern California cyclist" for less than 3 months, compared to a couple of decades elsewhere.

Woohoo. Last couple of pages have featured some sweet helmet thread classics:

- Darwin
- Doctor
- No helmet? Brain must not be worth saving!
- But, the cars...

Can we get an Organ Donor?

Here's a donor card I made earlier, if that helps. (Somebody once suggested I needed one. I took their advice.) It's modelled after the card distributed by the National Health Service.

The latest posts kind of makes me wonder what the IQ of helmet wearers is as compared to those that dont wear helmets.

You're right. All he does is open up people's heads to repair impact damage. As I said, what would he know?

And what do you know, the moment you start using helmeteer logic against helmeteers, they start pulling "facts" out of their arse to keep their challenged belief-system intact. "Facts" like "It's always hot humid weather"; which is apparently extremely dangerous for anyone wearing a full-face motorcycle helmet on a bicycle.

Motor cycle helmets are safer. Heck even full-face bicycle helmets are better. The problem is that cyclists aren't going to buy those because they're more interested in things like comfort and weight, so Bell sells what people want, not necessarily what they need. They're in the business of selling things to you, not some form of charity.

And yet you're here, arguing with me. Other than that, you're not here to promote the libertarian POV, you're here to shame people who don't conform to your views.


The fact that you seem to think that cycling is very risky and border-line suicidal when done without a helmet, (Darwin Award worthy, am I right?) is probably an indication that you take way too much risks; Most probably because you're an incompetent cyclists, you wouldn't be the first helmet-monger who's clueless in that respect. It's might be a good idea to take a primer course on the subject, so you can familiarize yourself with the basics of cycling safety.

Yawn

Sounds like the frustrated sound of failure.

Jay, I won the internet again!

If he had seriously looked into the subject he might be in favor of bicycle helmets, but he probably wouldn't be "passionate about the benefit of bike helmets". The fact that his job indicates he's probably very intelligent, doesn't autonalically mean he knows even the basic stuff about cycling helmets. A lot of people seem to assume cycling helmets are extremely effective without questioning.

It probably doesn't help with all the unresolved anger and bitterness present in this thread, but I still would have plus 1-ed it it their only had been a plus 1 button.

Nope, it's a reflection of how much your opinion matters to me.

He's passionate about it because he's tired of telling parents that their child is dead or permanently disabled from what he believes is a preventable injury. Maybe you're right. I'll connect him with the helmet thread so he can learn some 'basic stuff about cycling helmets.'

And remember----------------------helmetless riders make great organ donors. Fortunately tho their brain that was loaded without common sense cant be donated.

Well, that's a shame. I was hoping you had more than the one trick.

As for what is typical for a Southern California cyclist, he's loud, obnoxious, opinionated, and completely sure of himself despite a near-total lack of information on his subject.

You never did answer the question about how much education the fellow has about the protective capabilities of bicycle helmets. Being a doctor does not automatically convey vast knowledge of every subject, and if you read the typical medical journal article about bicycle helmets, you'll be surprised at how shallow it is.

Somehow, though, I suspect you're just going to reply by yelling "Doctor!!!" again. Oh well.

"Woohoo. Last couple of pages have featured some sweet helmet thread classics:

- Darwin
- Doctor
- No helmet? Brain must not be worth saving!
- But, the cars...

Can we get an Organ Donor?"


Predictable, but still funny.

Since I am sure you never actually asked the question that you made up the answer to, when you do ask, perhaps you can ask what % of the brain injuries he treats are due to cycling w/o a helmet, and further ask what protective gear that he recommends for the non-cyclng activities.

Somehow, this( and previous helmet threads) thread always seem to come back to people just making stuff up.