It obviously isn't, as I don't wear a helmet while walking. :)

Well, walking would be an entirely different calculation, as it carries a substantially lower risk of 1) you being unable to break your fall, should such a fall occur - as your hands and feet are not generally otherwise engaged 2) in the event you do fall and can't break your fall, the likelihood you are on concrete or asphalt or similar hard surface is much lower 3) the velocity you are moving at is substantially less. 4) chances are, where you are walking is not on a thoroughfare shared with rapidly moving automobiles and trucks.

Nonetheless, that all being said - I suspect that if you actually WERE walking on a roadway heavily traveled by cars and trucks, a case could be made that walking there, without a helmet, is sub-optimal

I'm not sure about San Diego, but in Seattle, almost all sidewalks and pedestrian paths are paved with asphalt or concrete. Also, in my observation, slips and falls do occur suddenly and relatively frequently. A co-worker was walking down a hilly street on a rainy day when he slipped and fell. As he was holding his umbrella in his left hand and his cellphone in his right, he couldn't quickly cover his head. Luckily, he ended up not hitting his head against the sidewalk.

Regardless, what you're saying is that the probability does matter. I agree.

"A case" that would only be made by a person with a very special brain such as yours.

What Would Albert Say?

https://fixieyou.files.wordpress.com...in-by-bike.jpg

Well, probably when walking on a hilly street in the rain, while holding an umbrella, a helmet might have been a good idea - and certainly, paying attention to where one walked, rather than to their cell phone, under those conditions, would have been a good idea. In any case, as was pointed out previously, foolish people often take low probability risks without thinking about them, but that still doesn't make it an optimal strategy for survival.

And of course, since slips, trips, and falls in the home are a likely cause of brain injury, you do wear some kind of protective headgear in your home, right? And you do sit while washing your hair to minimize the risk of falling while showering and not wearing a protective hat.


Actually, I have no issue with wearing a helmet, its just the attitude that if one values their brain they will wear a helmet without considering other more likely scenarios for brain injury go unprotected. That I don't understand.

Perhaps you can provide a short summary or a reference for "an optimal strategy for survival". What else does it require other than wearing a helmet 24 hours a day, just in case?

Well in Einstein's case, he likely was constrained both by the lack of any suitable bicycle helmets being available at that time, and the realization that were he to take the time to invent one, it would detract from his more consequential work in nuclear physics.

I could, but I won't, as I don't see any reason to interfere with natural selection in this matter.

Probably not in San Diego, but in many parts of the U.S. stepping outside involves walking on slippery/snow covered or icy sidewalks. Presumably your optimal survival strategy plan for brainy people requires never stepping a foot outside except in perfect weather daylight (don't want to go bumpsie in the dark) conditions, or maybe moving (somehow, someway of course while wearing a helmet) to San Diego.

Perhaps you'd care to document the manner in which you determined that the other scenarios for brain injury you cite are both more likely, and more easily mitigated than wearing a helmet while cycling? I would certainly have no objection to carrying out any mitigation strategy you would propose for brain injuries that are more likely to occur than while cycling without a helmet, and easier to mitigate than wearing said cycling helmet. But certainly, one would expect, at a minimum, you provide studies that are at least as robust as the ones that the anti-helmet advocates in this venue find sufficient in order to justify your claims about other brain injury scenarios being "more likely" - along with your recommendation for a proper, cost effective mitigation strategy to minimize those risks

Well, I personally moved from cold climates that had bad winters, to San Diego. It was a good strategy for enhancement of life quality that I can strongly endorse, and winter avoidance, along with all that entails, was certainly a major motivation in my doing so.

In any case, I'll happily bow out of this helmet thread now, as it's pretty clear that most folks who don't wear them already have thick enough skulls to serve as their own protection for the level of brains that they have already.

Another way of putting your SWAG - given 70 bicyclists, one of them will have an injury accident *THIS* *YEAR*.

People really don't get the law of large numbers.

(The chances of an individual winning at slots in a casino is vanishingly small. The chances of *someone* winning slots in a casino is large.)

And these numbers aren't that large. And "winning" is losing - big.

-mr. bill

By that logic, when riding on a hilly street in the rain while holding the handlebars with both hands (i.e. happens all the time here), a helmet might be a good idea, but that's a rare occurrence, right?



I wear a helmet all the time... too bad Seattle has an MHL.

You say this like you know my point of view -- I have a feeling you have no idea what my point of view is regarding helmets and the helmet use debate.

Science is fine, but in this case, clear as mud. The facts were reported in this study and while the conclusion says helmets reduce head/brain injury, it's not by a phenomenal amount, helmet users still suffer head/brain injuries, and the study cites bare-header arguments without refutation.

There's lots to talk about in that study, but people here really don't want to debate fact when facts are presented which contradict their long-held beliefs.

Aren't the surgeons which helmeteers quote as saying, "A helmet would have saved his life!" basically doing the same thing...?

This was written long ago. It was true then, it's still true today. (Except in corners of the Internut like here.)

"No scientific investigation can ever lead to the conclusion that a law ought to be passed. Such questions should properly be decided through the political process, the appropriate forum for taking into account disparate interests, values, and alternative approaches....

Discussions on whether to require cyclists to wear helmets would become more productive if everyone would accept that it is well established that helmets substantially reduce risk [emphasis mine] in a crash, and that passing laws making wearing them mandatory would substantially reduce casualties."

-mr. bill

Fair enough, if you can quantify the actual risk, and what "substantially" is as used here.

Goodbye Brainiac!

Right. You do know most smokers don't get lung cancer? Let's "quantify" the actual risk, and find out what "substantially" is.

-mr. bill

Don't you agree that there must be some minimum threshold of risk for a behavior, before making a law banning it?

Last time I checked smoking isn't banned (except for minors).

-mr. bill

but you are proposing:
Don't you believe that there should be some threshold of risk, before proposing mandated use? Shouldn't it be quantified if possible, when you define that threshold?

I am *NOT* proposing. That's a political question.

The scientific questions have been settled. (Except for this corner of the Internut.)

-mr. bill

'Tu capisci? Sheesh.


-mr. bill