:rolleyes:

People in glass houses...

Ya mean that the helmet proselytizers/zealots on this thread who are, at best, clueless about evaluating and mitigating bicycling risk and impervious to logical/rational arguments should not euphemistically be described as chowderheads? What PC term would you use?

[QUOTE=AJMas;18286563...it could be the difference between life and death.[/QUOTE]

Or not. How many times has wearing a helmet meant the difference between life and death in your own lifetime...?

:rolleyes:

He's free to address specific things specific people have said.

Complaining about ad hominems while using them himself is hypocritical.

If he, I, you or any other poster start naming the accurately described chowderhead/dunderheads who keep asking the repeatedly answered question [Why doesn't everybody wear a helmet, after all I do?] by name we will be banned for being too darn mean. If the chowhead title fits the chowheaded posts, you must acquit the truthtellers.

:rolleyes:

So, the idea is to call people names but try to get away with it. That's as admirable as being hypocritical.

Anyway, Skye used the insult to shut down anybody who might have asked for a reference for his claim. It's a disreputable tactic.

And he's trying to shut down discussion of research publications.

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicin...l.pmed.0020124

Relating injuries to helmet laws, rather than actual helmet use/nonuse, as one report no one is allowed to comment about, is bizarre.

There is a huge freakin' difference between specifically calling someone a liar, as I was, and offering a general categorization of a certain group of people. I'm not insulting anyone's morals, ethics or behavior. In fact, chowderhead is the mildly affectionate term I used to use on my daughter when she was being 12-year-old dense.

So now you can get all pissed off about being called a girl, compared to a 12-year-old, or liked by me, I don't give a crap which. It's pretty clear that most of you would far rather expend rancor on imagined insults than actually address the issue from an intellectual standpoint.

:rolleyes:

I didn't claim they were equivalent.

Just because something is worse doesn't really excuse you from name calling at all.

I doubt you meant it "affectionately" here either.

And it's coming from you who claimed a long while ago that the antihelmet people didn't call people names. I established that wasn't true then and you established it again by your name calling.

And still without a cogent response to any of the literature I've posted here over the years. Anytime you're ready to respond to a scientific article with a scientific criticism that would pass the barest muster of logical thought, just let me know. Otherwise, I'll just continue to post the science as it appears, and you guys can fight over what an evil twit I am instead of addressing the issues.

This is why I am still here, taken from the link... The point is not that helmets do nothing or that you shouldn’t wear them. If you fall off your bike and hit your head, it’s obviously much better to have a helmet on. At a personal level, if that’s what it takes to get you riding, by all means, helmet up. :thumb: Stuff happens...

By the same token, if wearing a helmet is going to keep you from riding, by all means, ditch that thing.

When you weigh the health benefits against the brain-injury risks that come with cycling, it is more valuable for people to get out and ride, regardless of whether they wear a melon shell.

*Disclaimer: I am a full-on helmet nanny. You will not see me riding without one. I ride with several folks who choose not to wear a helmet. We have no issues, between us, about it.

The researchers do not say what you say they say.

-mr. bill

Nonsense. It's bizarre that you appear to pretending you don't realize it.

You either don't read or understand what you link to.


And...

1: No one here is for helmet laws.
2: No one here is arguing not to do other things.

It's bizarre that you pretend not to know that either.

May I remind you that the bare headed cyclist that were killed because they were not wearing a helmet that might have saved their life cant post here!!!!!

The helmeted cyclists that were killed while wearing their helmets can't post here, either. But the bare-headed cyclists who didn't die while not wearing helmets post here, and unfortunately, so do the helmeted cyclists who didn't die while wearing a helmet, but claim that it saved their lives even though they can't really know for sure that it did...

And a few people on bicycles who wear helmets make the most extraordinary claim that helmets do *EVERYTHING*.

And a few people on bicycles who don't wear helmets make the most extraordinary claim that helmets do *NOTHING*.

And a few people who sometimes wear helmets and who sometimes don't wear helmets want everyone to wear shower helmets, and automobile helmets, and stairway helmets, and walking helmets, and....

-mr. bill

An oldie but a goodie.

"An examination is made of a meta-analysis by Attewell, Glase and McFadden which concludes that bicycle helmets prevent serious
injury, to the brain in particular, and that there is mounting scientific evidence of this. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)
initiated and directed the meta-analysis of 16 observational studies dated 1987–1998. This examination concentrates on injury to the brain
and shows that the meta-analysis and its included studies take no account of scientific knowledge of its mechanisms. Consequently, the
choice of studies for the meta-analysis and the collection, treatment and interpretation of their data lack the guidance needed to distinguish
injuries caused through fracture of the skull and by angular acceleration. It is shown that the design of helmets reflects a discredited theory
of brain injury. The conclusions are that the meta-analysis does not provide scientific evidence that such helmets reduce serious injury to
the brain, and the Australian policy of compulsory wearing lacks a basis of verified efficacy against brain injury.

Source:

The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury
WJ Curnow

The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury

Angular Impact Mitigation System for Bicycle Helmets to Reduce Head Acceleration and Risk of Traumatic Brain Injury
Accid Anal Prev. 2013 October ; 59: 109–117. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.019

There are some real gems in this study, such as:

--for standard cycling speeds, the typical bicycle helmet reduces the risk of concussion by 1% in oblique impacts.
--a speed of 10 mph corresponds "to to a high probability of TBI when wearing a conventional EPS helmet, which is confirmed by the finite element and IRF analyses showing a risk of TBI greater than 97%." (Before you start screaming: This does not imply that there is no risk of TBI without a helmet, only that a helmet does virtually nothing to prevent it).
--conclusion: "Contemporary bicycle helmets with standard EPS liners may not be optimized to mitigate head angular acceleration caused by oblique impacts representative of a realistic bicycle crash."

Why am I not surprised that someone *here* would *NOT* disclose this disclosure?

-mr. bill

"... The point is not that helmets do nothing or that you shouldn’t wear them. If you fall off your bike and hit your head, it’s obviously much better to have a helmet on. ..." (First sentence of 6th paragraph in the above link.)


Only once.

Ben

Probably not. But maybe.

-or, alternately-

Probably. But maybe not.

Cycle helmets don't provide protection, says neurosurgeon
Cycle helmets don't provide protection, says neurosurgeon | Home News | News | The Independent


"Henry Marsh, who works at St George’s Hospital in Tooting, London, said he has treated a number of patients involved in bike accidents whose helmets were “too flimsy” to provide any real protection, The Telegraph reported.


...Dr Marsh went on to say that wearing a helmet could actually pose greater risks to cyclists than not wearing one at all."

Oooh, he's a "neurosurgeon!" So too is a candidate for President.

"He has no clue how many others are saved from injury by their helmets and never show up at his hospital."

Let alone a clue of how many bicyclists show up at his hospital who are *NOT* referred to one Henry Marsh, a single neurosurgeon.

-mr. bill

If helmets are worthless, why does almost everyone say that all children should wear a helmet?