+1

I don't get why they do either.

Um... you just did?

Because there Is, A GRAIN of truth In his statements... What can, go wrong, will go wrong, kind of ideals... ;) :roflmao2: :innocent: Eventually... :love:

Exactly. That's why no one should ever consider getting in a vehicle that has a gas tank with anything less than a full Nomex fire-******ent suit. I've personally seen several cars go up in flames, incl. one belonging to a close friend, and the difference between surviving and being burned to death might be only a few seconds. And then there's all the other safety equipment that should always be used (even in the absence of government regulations) - full 5-point harnesses, auxiliary roll bars, exterior tubular steel cage (today's unibodies can be crushed like an egg in a serious impact), etc. Always plan for the worst case scenario; after all, what can go wrong will go wrong.

How many times does one have to answer the same question of the bullies here on the so-called helmet thread? (Roll cages? Seriously?)

My helmet, my head, my decision.
Your knee pads, your knees, your decision.

Got it yet?

-mr. bill

Far as I can tell you haven't yet answered a single question on this thread. Your stuff consists entirely of "Apropos of nothing, here's a hint, look at this graphic I made up out of thin air."

It is still amusing to watch you complain about "rudeness" and "bullying", though.

I made my question as simple as possible. All he has to do is say "Yea" or "Nay"... :(

Really? Same reason anyone engages you in the monologs you euphemistically call "debate" or "rational argument"...

I've never made such a "call" (so, it's basically a strawman, a lie).

And, congratulations on not actually addressing the implied question!

You have illustrated my point rather eloquently, thank you.

Your point being that you make up stuff? Why do you do that?

Actually, it appears you are just really bad at writing!

No one should trust you to be able to identify a rational argument anyway.

Why didn't the Survey carry over to this thread? Kind of like taking the odometer off your bike...

You're right! [MENTION=270213]tractorlegs[/MENTION] should add the poll please.

Well, since you said please . . . .

. . . poll added . . .

But only cuz ya said "please"

:)

Interesting thread......although a bit warn.

I do wear a helmet:

1. I wear one because I want to be role model for 5 grand daughters. Hard to tell them to wear one if I don't.

2. I am convinced (do not want to run the A vs B test though) that my helmet reduced my injuries a few years back. I had a testosterone attack a few years back on a path I knew nothing about. Came around a blind corner at a high speed and discovered that the path continued to turn because there was a DITCH in the way. Path turned...I didn't. T-boned the ditch. Over the hand-bars I flew as the bike fork reshaped itself. Head hit first, helmet broke into several pieces but stayed in the plastic shell. Shoulder hit next and tore a few tendons. Lucky I didn't break my neck.

I wear one, if you don't, I think that is your choice. As long as I don't have subsidize any of your medical bills.

My neighbor was out for a spin 3 years back, down by the library in our sleepy little town and this 80 year old senior didn't see him as he came around a corner (not clear since all our side streets have stop signs, so how could he get going so fast so soon). Neighbor got launched into space and landed on his head. Did his helmet reduce his brain damage....who knows. $1,000,000 later (real number according to his wife) and 3 years and his speech is almost 'normal'. Still walks slow and of course had to retire several years early because he could hold up his end in a small company any more. Was in hospital for almost an entire year his wife thought she was loosing him at least twice in that time. He doesn't ride a bike anymore but I am sure if he did he would still put a helmet on. I doubt he could balance on one anymore even if he wanted to ride again.

You debate it.....I will wear one. Good luck.

Thank you!

Head injuries from bicycles and motorcycles are just a fly speck in an ocean of preventable illness beginning with tobacco use, alcohol abuse, and obesity related disease. When all of those knuckleheads start taking care of their health THEN we can focus on wanton head injuries from 2-wheeled vehicle use, skates, skateboards, etc. There are MUCH larger fish to fry in the personal health realm than cyclists cracking their skulls.

Footnote: I am a hat wearer because I like wearing hats. A bike helmet is a ventilated hat that stays on my head, shades my eyes, and holds my rear view mirror. And my new health insurance coverage subsidizes all of the above knuckleheads including 56 year old men who get pregnant.

Two points:

1) The thread tends to be a "bit warm" in large part due to smug helmet wearers posting things like "As long as I don't have to pay your medical bills".

2) The "I set an example for the children" thing doesn't hold water, because there are all sorts of things that parents do while telling their children they cannot. Doubtless there are folks who think having a glass of wine with dinner sets a bad example...

Inj Prev. 2015 Feb;21(1):47-51. doi: 10.1136/injprev-00002-0038rep.
[h=1]Epidemiology of bicycle injuries and risk factors for serious injury.[/h]A study of 3,854 cyclist lives, across seven hospitals in the Seattle area found "Risk for serious injury was not affected by helmet use."

Yet another study nailing the lid on the helmet-usage coffin. Time to give it up, boys, logic and science outguns your irrational fears.

Here's the PubMed link:

Epidemiology of bicycle injuries and risk factors for serious injury. - PubMed - NCBI

For those with some questions about the abstract, Google found this for me: Epidemiology of bicycle injuries and risk factors for serious injury the full study.

Their conclusions tend to confirm my own, but there were a few things that lean the other way. First let me point out that "Use of a helmet was only associated with a 10% decreased risk of severe injury" which they dismiss as "not statistically significant". And also regarding the more minor injuries, "In a separatereport based on this same series of injuries however, we demonstrated a 65% reduction in upper and mid-face injuries from helmets."

My first reaction to the abstract was, it's all from hospital and ER data. What about the accidents with injuries that never reach that point? Maybe helmets prevented those injuries and those incidents were never taken into account. But the full study allays that to some extent by ranking the severity of injuries according to a defined standard. If helmet use did mitigate injuries from "serious" to non-serious, that data would be captured in the ER and hospital reports, and reflected in the results. In fact it was captured that way, but only a 10% reduction. 10% seems like a lot to me, if it's a reliable number, but they're saying that the number of examples is too small for 10% improvement to be a hard and fast conclusion.

It still would not be captured if a "serious" would have been suffered, but the helmet stopped it and also prevented any injury at all. Who knows how many of those there might have been. I would expect that preventing a serious head injury, there would still be minor injuries as well and an ER visit in many cases, but that's common sense not data.

The other thing that bugs me is that the helmet use was self-reported, including from parents of young children who were injured, which makes me suspect that many of them may have simply lied. The inclination would be to refuse to admit in writing on some official-looking questionnaire that their child's serious injury may have been due to their neglect to make him or her wear a helmet. Especially if there are helmet laws there. So I have to take it with a grain of salt.

Point 1, I absolutely agree. Point 2 is a bit of a gray area. I think we all do our best to set a good example for our kids.

We helmeteers tend to argue from a rather emotional place and it doesn't help our case much. However, don't think for a minute that we've cornered the market of smugness in this thread.
It's always fun to be "the only guy in the room" who knows something. Bare-headed cycling is an unpopular position in America, especially amongst non-cyclists. To have the knowledge that many helmet-threaders have is not the norm.
The bare-headers and helmeteers, alike tend to look down their noses on those of who see the same evidence but reach a different conclusion than they do.

Sorry, I started rambling, there.

:lol::lol::lol:

Those replies are are to posts from "smug" non-helmet wearers.

I suspect that the real purpose of this "ghetto" is to keep the antihelmeteers (like skye) from repeatedly derailing threads that were not really "pro helmet".

The base issue here on the helmet thread is basic human tribalism.

"Tribalism implies the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates one member of a group from the members of another group. Based on strong relations of proximity and kinship, members of a tribe tend to possess a strong feeling of identity." -Wiki...see tribalism link above.

Helmet wearers as well as bare-headers often IDENTIFY with certain things in their lives. Diet, religion, political or sexual orientation, country of origin, etc. We tend to OWN or beliefs as if they were freckles on our noses. It is nearly impossible to change a tribal belief or superstition. So all of the data in the world will almost never change the mind, no...the PERSONA, of anyone here no more than you can change their religion based on "facts".

But it's fun to nudge the other tribe isn't it?

+1

Where is the other report?

That study is from 1997 from the same authors. Skye's reference is to a new study (with almost the same number of people).

The study population was only 4000 people. If the number of "severe injuries" is small, then the lack of 10% not being "statiistically significant" might be the result of too small a population. If they are using the standard limit for "statisical significance" (95%), then that means that is less than a 95% chance that it isn't random. 95% is an arbitrary number chosen because one can't practically be 100% sure and to bias towards being absolutely certain.

Put another way, people want to be 100% sure that an effect is real. "Statistical significance" means that an effect is deemed real if it's 95% or more sure.

It's possible that the "10% difference" is 94% sure to be real (we'd have to read the article to know).

"Setting a good example" for the kids, IMO, is about things no one should do, or everyone should do. "This is the correct way to behave in society" sort of stuff. But again, there are all sorts of things adults do that kid aren't allowed to. Alcohol, tobacco, coffee, driving, and so on. Kids are completely used to this "double standard". So I still don't buy helmet use as "setting a good example".

WRT the rest, if the average bare-header is looking down his nose at anything, it's at the intentional and aggressive ignorance displayed by the helmeteers who show up to post the usual "organ donor/Darwin candidate/don't expect me to pay for you" routine. As always, I don't believe this thread would exist at all if the helmet advocates would shut up about it.