You can't be serious. Oh, nevermind. It's rydabent.

Professional racers? Who cares what they do since they and their activities have little if any relevance to every other non competitive cyclist?

Club riders? Combination of who cares, and herd mentality and rigid enforcement of club member conformity.

City and government sponsored riders (whatever/whomever the heck they are)? Dreaded b'crats in a wicked conspiracy with sanctimonious safety nannies to enforce unnecessary "requirements!" :roflmao2:

Once again, science does not support the use of helmets.

From:
Bicycle trauma and alcohol intoxication.
Int J Surg. 2015 Oct 19. pii: S1743-9191(15)01278-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.10.013. [Epub ahead of print]

This is a retrospective review of trauma patients presenting to a Level I trauma center after bicycle-related crashes from January 2002 to December 2011 was conducted. Demographics, injury data, alcohol intoxication, helmet use, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Blood alcohol level (BAL) was considered positive if >0.01 g/dL. Variables were compared between patients based on BAL: negative, 0.01-0.16 g/dL, and >0.16 g/dL. 563 persons met the study criteria.


According to the study, drunk cyclists "were significantly less likely to wear a helmet (4.7% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.002)"

Yet, at the same time, the study concluded "The injury burden in intoxicated patients, including head trauma, was not different compared to non-intoxicated patients."

In short, there was no difference in head trauma between helmeted and helmet-less riders.

You can yammer all you want about "MUH HELMET SAVED MUH LIFE!!!!" The fact is, it didn't.

I never wear a helmet anyway, but now I want a beer!

Maybe, all those drunks were riding more slowly.

I take issue with the boldly stated "In addition, the risk for a collision with a motor vehicle was significantly lower."

Drunk cyclists could have had higher incidents of crashing by themselves, which would lead to a lower proportion of injuries where motor vehicles were involved. In fact, that seems much more likely doesn't it? In that case it does not follow that the risk of collision was lower. Risk of other kinds of accidents was higher for drunks, so there were more of them relative to collisions.

You'd expect a more severe injury with a collision with a car than if you hit a sidewalk bump and fall over. So the drunks would have more of the less traumatic injuries relative to the number of more traumatic collision injuries. The authors failed to normalize the results against the type of accident, leading to the suspect conclusion that helmets didn't help them.

It also needs to be evaluated in context of conflicting results such as Use of Alcohol as a Risk Factor for Bicycling Injury, Guohua Li, MD, DrPH; Susan P. Baker, MPH; John E. Smialek, MD; Carl A. Soderstrom, MD which concluded: "Alcohol use while bicycle riding is associated with a substantially increased risk of fatal or serious injury." Why did Harada et. al find that there was no difference in injuries, when Gouhua and others find that there is a significant difference in injuries? In light of the logic fails above, I suspect that there are other problems in methodology and in analysis in the cited study.

You apparently forget that any research against helmets is always perfect and any for is always flawed.

Instead of uninformed conjecture, please offer the exact methodological flaws which make your unsupported assertions more accurate than the author's findings.

P.S. Also, read the actual study, not just the abstract. I only posted the abstract because the study is behind a paywall. I assume if you have the credentials suitable for critiquing the study, you also have access to the resources that will get you to the full article.

I did read the full text of the abstract- that's where conclusion I criticized came from. It wasn't in what you quoted. Since I already see objectionable conclusions there, I am not inclined to pay just to confirm that they've made mistakes!

I thought that I explained the objection pretty well. If you have a specific question about that, I'll be happy to elaborate.

Evidently.

Anyone cites it as showing that helmets don't help needs to at least reconcile the opposing conclusions from the Guohua Li et al study, since it's only the drunk riders that he's basing it on.

For cycling, showering and walking on stairs: :D

Why is there even a question here, there are zero pros to not wearing a helmet. Sure it might make you look dumb, but it could be the difference between life and death.

Our litigious society?

How do stats on drunk cyclist apply to the cycling community as a whole?

Read on, young cyclist. Come back and ask more questions once you've absorbed a bit of the discussion. If you can't take the time to read points from both sides, just go ride your bike and please don't talk to me about wearing a helmet.

What do pros competing in a race for millions of dollars have to do with the cycling community as a whole?

Science has more bad news for the pro-helmet crowd. Helmet leglislation -- and thus, increased helmet usage -- does *nothing* to reduce the hospitalization rate for cyclists.

I really hope none of you chowderheads respond with "hurr, durr, helmet legislation doesn't mean people more people wear helmets." Yes, yes it does mean exactly that. Please don't double down on the stupid.

Bicycling injury hospitalisation rates in Canadian jurisdictions: analyses examining associations with helmet legislation and mode share. - PubMed - NCBI

RESULTS:

In Canada, over the study period 2006-2011, there was an average of 3690 hospitalisations per year and an estimated 593 million annual trips by bicycle among people 12 years of age and older, for a cycling hospitalisation rate of 622 per 100 million trips (95% CI 611 to 633). Hospitalisation rates varied substantially across the jurisdiction, age and sex strata, but only two characteristics explained this variability. For all injury causes, sex was associated with hospitalisation rates; females had rates consistently lower than males. For traffic-related injury causes, higher cycling mode share was consistently associated with lower hospitalisation rates. Helmet legislation was not associated with hospitalisation rates for brain, head, scalp, skull, face or neck injuries. (emphasis mine).

It is also important to note that, aside from gender, the single biggest factor in injury reduction was cycling mode share -- the higher, the safer. This is not the first study to note that the more riders there are on the road, the fewer injuries there are among cyclists.

Unfortunately, helmet promotion, in multiple studies, has been shown to reduce cycling mode share, because it creates an atmosphere of fear and danger around a relatively safe activity.

Look, I don't care if you want to wear a helmet, that's your neurosis. Just don't tell others they should. That's wrong and puts other people in danger. If you don't like the way someone else rides, keep your pie hole shut.

This study is using "helmet legistlation" as a proxy for helmet use.

What this study needs to report is what the frequency of helmet use of the people hospitalized before and after the legislation.

One is left to wonder why they didn't report that.

You'd be more convincing with a link than an insult.

You claimed, a while go, that the antihelmet crowd didn't use insults.

Your response was nothing more than "nah, I don't believe you so you're wrong."

What specifically was wrong about (a) their data collection or (b) their statistical calculations? And how did you manage to figure that out without reading the article itself, even though peer reviewers, who actually did read the article, found no such flaws.

You wanna do science, let's do science. You claim flaws. It's your job to prove it. Go.

In short, all I need to know about you is that you are dishonest. Again. And again. And again.

"The risk for a severe head injury (AIS Head ≥3) was significantly lower in helmeted patients (8.4% vs. 15.8%, p = 0.035)."

-mr. bill

Are you claiming I'm making up quotes? I'm not. I'm also not misrepresenting the author's findings, as you are. Once again, I quote the authors' own words from the conclusion statement in the abstract: "The injury burden in intoxicated patients, including head trauma, was not different compared to non-intoxicated patients. In addition, the risk for a collision with a motor vehicle was significantly lower. Nonetheless, these patients rarely utilize a helmet."

If you have trouble comprehending that, let your lips move when you read it.

Also, before you offer any more critiques -- and particularly before you call me a liar again -- I suggest you read the entire article, as I have, and you will understand why your selected single number doesn't mean anything in the context of the study.

Let me know when you're ready for an academic discussion rather than cheap-ass slander. That is disgusting behaviour.

I'm claiming that you selectively quoted - and your bottom line "in short..." was beyond blatantly dishonest.

I don't know why you choose to do this, because I believe you are clearly are smart enough *NOT* to do this. I could be wrong there.

But this isn't the first time you've done this (see Thompson et al), and I suspect it won't be the last time you will do this.


Realize you've got wphamilton *AND* me calling you to task here. This may never happen again.

-mr. bill

More slander. Sorry, but the researchers said what they said, and if you think your conclusions are more correct than theirs, I expect you to publish a rebuttal that would pass peer review -- as they did.

You can't just make up stuff because you disagree with the conclusions.

And if this weren't a conversation between two anonymous entities, your next conversation would be with my attorney. As it stands, you hide behind internet anonymity to libel me.

I'm waiting for a logical, cogent response, instead of more ad hom. Do you think you can do that? Frankly, given your performance thus far, I doubt it.