Speaking just for myself, I'm not looking for any kind of vindication, mostly because I do believe that the risk of being struck and killed by a car is still very, very small. I've just decided that it's the only significant risk of death while on the bike for me, and I really don't want to die in that particular way.

What everyone else does WRT riding in traffic is their own business, of course, and I would never chastise another cyclist who has decided that riding in traffic is just fine for him. Hint, hint.

OK. I was just pointing it out FYI since I thought you might be interested.

I don't recall chastising anyone for their choices. I respect your choice to not ride in traffic, since everyone's risk tolerance may differ. But your choice is not one I'm comfortable endorsing in general, so I disclaim it whenever I bring up something that would support it. It may be silly for me to do so (who really cares what we endorse?), but that's not about you in any respect.

The usual cycle is something like:

Ignorant helmeteer unfamiliar with Helmet Thread posts opinion here of "I crashed and helmet saved my life!" or the usual Darwin/Organ donor/Paying for the unhelmeted dreck.

Bareheader challenges such unfounded, ungrounded assertions.

Usual suspect helmeteer takes up defense of the newb, while newb goes through all the usual contortions they could have avoided just by reading a couple hundred pages of Helmet Thread.

Band and forth, back and forth, nothing new, nothing that hasn't been said before.

Newb rage-quits, discussion peters out.

A few weeks later, another newb helmeteer posts ignorantly, and the cycle continues.

It's rare that a bareheader starts the cycle again. Maybe a ratio of newb bareheader to newb helmeteer matching the poll results?

Anyone who cites Thompson's research as showing that helmets are ineffective is one of:

a) wicked ignorant
b) wicked dishonest
c) wicked ignorant AND wicked dishonest

Thompson et al., 1989 R.S. Thompson, F.P. Rivara and D.C. Thompson, A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets, N. Engl. J. Med. 320 (1989), pp. 1361–1367.


Thompson et al., 1996a D.C. Thompson, M.E. Nunn, R.S. Thompson and F.P. Rivara, Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing serious facial injury, JAMA 276 (1996), pp. 1974–1975.


Thompson et al., 1996b D.C. Thompson, F.P. Rivara and R.S. Thompson, Effectiveness of bicycle helmets in preventing head injuries: a case-control study, JAMA 276 (1996), pp. 1968–1973.


Thompson et al., 1999 Thompson, D.C., Rivara, F.P., Thompson, R., 1999. Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (4) (Art. No.: CD001855, ).


Thompson et al., 2004 Thompson, D.C., Rivara, F.P., Thompson, R., 2004. Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists.


Cummings et al., 2005 Peter Cummings, Frederick P. Rivara, Diane C. Thompson, Robert S. Thompson., 2005. Misconceptions regarding case-control studies of bicycle helmets and head injury

-mr. bill

I bothered to look at the poll and had to vote some way, but my mode of use is not listed: I wear a helmet most of the time, but there are infrequent times when I don't... and I honestly don't worry about it at all.

Here's a story: I used to not wear a helmet because they were for sissies and stuff. Then one day I decided to wear one. Crashed on my head that day -- super deep pothole I didn't see because I was paying more attention to Boston drivers trying to kill me. Right over the bars, smack on my head. Risk mitigation had nothing to do with it. Being a newb to commuting in Boston had everything to do with it.

Post crash, I ended up with what I now recognize as a minor concussion. Also, because I've crashed motorcycles before, I knew what to look for in the (cracked) helmet. Sure enough, foam had deformed via crushing during the crash. Some energy had been absorbed, transfer of energy to my skull must have been mitigated. Right? That's what I thought, but Helmet Thread forced me to reconsider. How much energy? Who knows. Would my injury have been worse without a helmet? Probably, but more on the abrasion/contusion end of things -- minor injury -- than moderate or serious TBI. Would I have died if I wasn't wearing a helmet. Maybe, maybe not. But probably not.

I am an organ donor. You should be one, too, regardless of your helmet use status. Riding through the city -- or anywhere -- w/o a helmet is not a Darwinistic endeavor. All y'all who fume at having to pay for any of the public dime which goes into medical attention to an injured bareheader seem to assume that anyone careless enough to ride without a helmet are also so irresponsible that they probably don't have insurance. Stop that -- you have no idea one way or another.

If you want to argue pro-helmet, there are much better, newer studies that bareheaders couldn't refute with the usual aplomb...

AND....

Thompson et. al, 2009 Thompson DC, Rivara F, Thompson R., 2009. Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists(Review)

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Wearing a helmet dramatically reduces the risk of head and facial injuries for bicyclists involved in a crash, even if it involves a motor vehicle. [emphasis theirs]

Cycling is a healthy and popular activity for people of all ages. Crashes involving bicyclists are, however, common and often involve motor vehicles. Head injuries are responsible for around three-quarters of deaths among bicyclists involved in crashes. Facial injuries are also common. The review found that wearing a helmet reduced the risk of head or brain injury by approximately two-thirds or more, regardless of whether the crash involved a motor vehicle. [emphasis mine] Injuries to the mid and upper face were also markedly reduced, although helmets did not prevent lower facial injuries.

-mr. bill

So, you agree that he misrepresented it (more or less).

It doesn't seem he realized what he linked to was an old study (he's implying that it's new).

Cherry-picking that one study that he twisted (more or less) to support his position is part of the misrepresentation. And he cherry-picked the one study from other studies which do not support his position written by the same exact authors! His implication that this one study (the one he cherry-picked) definitively proves his position is clearly false. His conclusion isn't anything like the conclusions in the abstract the authors of the study wrote. He's "in the business" sort-of (an ER doctor), which means he should know better. There's a whole lotta misrepresentation going on!

One can't really assume the "3.6" number applies universally. Also, in many places, basically one rides in/near traffic or not at all.

:rolleyes: Weird paranoid vague inuendo. "Those folks" aren't really people you should be listening to anyway.

Your implication that antihelmeteers don't derail threads just because you "don't see it" was easily proven incorrect.

Your lack of awareness is your problem.

I didn't notice it either so I can't hold that against him. From the page he was looking at, there is no indication that it's the old study, and no link to the full study. It would be an easy mistake to make.

It seemed to me that the abstract conclusion itself was a bit off.

Ah, now I get it. You once again saw what you wanted to see rather than what was actually posted. In other words, it's still a conversation between you and your imagination. I'll leave you to it.

No, you keep missing it.

Your lack of awareness is your problem.

That really wasn't where the misrepresentation occurred. Given his long participation in these "discussions", his cherry picking has to be deliberate or gross incompetence. The fact that the same authors that have many publications that contradict his position (which he was completely "unaware of") is hilarious!

If he actually treated the study seriously (like you did), he would have known about the other publications. Clearly, he opportunistically linked to it just because he was able to twist into "supporting" his position. Keep in mind that his ilk keep arguing that "pro helmet" results always are "compromised".

(It took me a bit of work to establish that it was an old study. I'd really like to understand what the deal with that was.)

His link to the abstract isn't sufficient to "prove" his claim. He knows that (or he should) but he did it anyway.

I do not support MANDITORY HELMET LAWS for adults!

My helmet saved my life in August 2012 and I personally will never ride without one...

Maybe it's not his implication, but your inference that is out of whack... You tend to infer (incorrectly) a lot more than you claim others imply.

I had a 'discussion' with my wife about her belief that if something was written in a book it was fact. My point was that personal experience should usually trump what others believe. Even though it was about religion, I see similar arguments here.

Oh no, you mean God needs to come down here, and actually say that it's safer to ride a bike with a helmet than without...? OMG, us helmeteers have lost the battle... :innocent: Nobody has ever been "saved" by a helmet must be true... :twitchy:

Hmm. Are you letting kayaker interpret posts for you?

No, I just took something someone said and put my twist on it... :innocent: It still could pertain to the helmet discussion... ;)

Hell, I'd ride with my helmet of thorns if God came down and asked me to.

Actually the usual senario here is someone like myself reports that their helmet reduced or eliminated injury in an accident. Then------------the usual anti helmet posters decend on that person and pretty much claim he or she is totally wrong. Sorry to say that is tanamount to calling that cyclist a liar. It also decreases the believeability of any of the anti helmet posters. In the matter of wearing helmets the anti helmet posters are their own worst enemies, and they prove it with most every post they put on this thread.

It's not so much that someone who claims a helmet helped them is totally wrong, just that they got nothing when asked how they know the helmet protected them. Usually, from dying. But Helmeteers also get flustered when asked how much it helped, or how they know that the helmet was responsible for eliminating injury.

And then there are all those who get labeled anti-helmet, when they are nothing of the kind.

You are as equally unaware.

You are imagining things again.

mcon

Got nothing?? I my case yes you could say that is true. My nothing was the lack of road rash on the side of my head. How can you argue against that?