If it's been "settled", I suspect the conclusion is that the "reduction in casualties" would be substantially lower than you imagine it to be.

Science, though not directing the political process does inform the political process. By relying on a vague, emotion-based viewpoint of what the "substantial risk" is, and what might be a "substantial reduction" of casualties, one would neglect the latter.

I suspect you have quite the imagination.

-mr. bill

I think that all these "studies" prove is the % of helmet wearers who end up in emergency were the helmet failed to protect adequetly as compared to the % of non helmeted wearers who end up in emergency, when something bad happens... There are absolutely no numbers out there that show what % of helmet wearers that had a crash and hit the head never went to the emergency compared to non helmet wearers who hit their heads and never went to emergency... In other words where the helmet did it's job, we have zero numbers, only where the helmet failed, we have some numbers, sort of... ;) We also don't have any numbers where non helmet people hit their heads and rode away... ;)

EDIT; Some "studies" seems to show a 1% risk but that is only serious damage... But what % of people actually hit their head and not go to the emergency, where the helmet worked? No numbers at all but higher than 1% I suspect...

EDIT 2: In other words , what if the real number was a 5% chance of head bouncing off the pavement but only 1 % chance of major damage because the other 4% was mitigated by the helmet??? :innocent: Made up the 5% for my Q...

Presumably the way to scientifically establish this latter claim would be to look at jurisdictions that actually implemented such laws and enforced them so that helmet use rose rapidly in response. D.L. Robinson undertook such a study and the summary conclusion was:
"Before and after data show enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/

You know, intentionally misquoting is beyond rude.

-mr. bill

And also some hard facts. One of them, out of all of the cyclists who ride at all in the USA, even if they ride for 30 years they still only have a 25% chance of being in any injury accident. This post

Less than 1% probability of an incident in an entire year, including the minor injuries. Is that a "substantial risk" in your opinion?

It says "originally posted by" you. And it was posted by you along with the statement that you regarded it as a true statement. Do you now disagree with the statement?

Far less than 1% probability that a smoker will be injured smoking in an entire year, even a minor injury. Is that a "substantial risk" in your opinion?

-mr. bill

You edited the quote. Rude.

-mr. bill

The use of ellipsis ("...") is common practice when wanting to address only a portion of the material. In this case the second of two claims that were stated as being well established.

What is the risk of a smoker developing lung cancer or other injuries over 30 years? FWIW, the fact that a smoker suffers injury almost immediately makes it a substantial risk.

edit, I'm not sure where you're going with the smoking, but let's speed it up. The lifetime risk of a heavy smoker getting lung cancer is 24% according to a European study.

The annual mortality related to cigarette smoking is 480,000 according to the CDC. About 25% of our adult population smokes. That would be 243 million people, so that would be .002 deaths per smoker per year. Death is pretty final, so that's "substantial" in itself, but the other effects (heart disease, diabetes, pulmonary injuries etc) are quite severe. I don't think this is a very good example for you.

The sun bothers my eyes very much so I wear a baseball cap with a normal bill which is MUCH longer than bills on bike helmets. I would wear a bike helmet if there was one with a long bill. I have been in several local LBS looking for such a helmet with no luck. Does anyone know if any companies make such a helmet?
Thanks

No, I didn't. I have several friends who are MDs and I asked them how much training they received regarding the effectiveness of bicycle helmets. None of them could recall receiving any at all.

Now, I'm open to evidence showing otherwise. But I'm not expecting anything from you, other than your usual empty BS.

This typifies the "thinking" of the helmeteers: "If you fall off a bicycle and your heads touches the ground you will die, unless you are wearing a helmet." The ignorance is simply breathtaking.

And now you're going to pretend that manners are important to you? :rolleyes:

My daughter is an MD and I asked her the same question and got the same response. But she did have one prof. in med school (for her psych. class) who tended to go off on tangents about the need for bicycle helmets. She emailed him some medical journal articles that disputed the effectiveness of bike helmets and never got a direct response from him. But in the subsequent lecture (they were online so I audited some) he railed about how uppity the med students were getting in not accepting his statements.

I've never seen such a helmet. Closest are those which have a soft bill, which may be removed, like some Bern models: Allston, Berkeley, Brentwood, Macon, etc. If those bills are not long enough, you may be able to sacrifice a cap and DIY a bill with longer extension to fit. I believe those are attached with hook and loop (velcro).

Gotta' figure by the time an MD gets involved it's pretty bad. Most people who get a slight head slap to the ground will get up and dust themselves off. If you hit the ground hard enough to crack a helmet, then you probable were better off having one on than not. What I appreciate about this thread is that it pushes for safer riding as much as it looks for a better mousetrap...

george

Search Da Brim on the internet. They are a hat brim or bill that fits over a regular helmet.

Try wearing a cap with a long bill under your helmet.

My (ex) Doctor took it a step further. I never heard his position on helmets, but based on his experience of riding on the street - a single trip to the clinic - he was adamantly opposed to road biking period. Too dangerous, drivers out to kill you, unhealthy, and since he was the Doctor he's the expert. :roflmao2:

I was thinking you could use a one of those sports visors, maybe tie-wrap it to the helmet. Or cut a piece of plastic (from plastic waste-basket from walmart, light and very thin). I did find this make your own visor.

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/...el_doctors.jpg http://karolinablog.files.wordpress....oke-camel1.jpghttp://i43.tinypic.com/22xla8.jpg

I guess you've missed reading recent research that shows cycling in traffic has immediate *acute* effects - very similar to the immediate *acute* effects of smoking a cigarette. Yet according to you one is safe and the other is risky.

At best now you've only established that some incompetent smokers get lung cancer, and most incompetent smokers do not get lung cancer. How about competent smokers? And what business is it of yours if a smoker chooses to enjoy life?

The other effects are the claimed results of flawed cohort studies. And your link to deaths from smoking includes death from other effects. Circular reasoning. For example, there is no way to know if an individual's heart attack was the result of smoking.

-mr. bill

I have seen those, and there is no reasonable comparison to the effects of smoking. Not that it has anything to do with the "substantial risk" of not wearing a helmet.

A, it is well established that all smokers are at increased risk.

B, there is no such thing as competent and incompetent smokers, and

C, I never said it was any of my business, nor have I advised anyone to not smoke. YOU brought it up and kept mentioning it.

As far as *I* am concerned, if someone makes an informed decision it's their own lookout. Which is at odds with the quote you posted (and defended) earlier incidentally.


The CDC and other medical professionals know far more about this than you do, so I'll take that with a grain of salt.