Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.
View Poll Results: What Are Your Helmet Wearing Habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
52
10.40%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
24
4.80%
I've always worn a helmet
208
41.60%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
126
25.20%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
90
18.00%
Voters: 500. You may not vote on this poll

The Helmet Thread 2

Old 01-28-16, 04:59 PM
  #1876  
skye
Senior Member
 
skye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Read 'em and weep, boys: Bicycle helmets "protective role for intra-cranial hemorrhage is questionable."

From Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries. - PubMed - NCBI

So, yeah, helmets are good for lacerations and bumps and bruises. So is a baseball cap.
skye is offline  
Old 01-28-16, 05:30 PM
  #1877  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,070
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1685 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by skye View Post
Read 'em and weep, boys: Bicycle helmets "protective role for intra-cranial hemorrhage is questionable."

From Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries. - PubMed - NCBI

So, yeah, helmets are good for lacerations and bumps and bruises. So is a baseball cap.
???

What medical school teaches that a fracture is a "laceration" or a "bump and bruise"?

You really have no idea what the stuff you link to says. Bizarre.

Non-helmeted riders were more likely to have a skull fracture (p = 0.01) and a scalp laceration (p = 0.01) compared to the helmeted riders.
(People should read the link instead of being mislead about what it is supposed to have said.)
njkayaker is offline  
Old 01-29-16, 04:13 AM
  #1878  
CarinusMalmari
Senior Member
 
CarinusMalmari's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1260 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
What medical school teaches that a fracture is a "laceration" or a "bump and bruise"?
OTOH, just like lacerations, bumps and bruises, skull fractures are usually not clinically significant. The phrase "skull fracture" does sound serious, and while they can be serious and while they also can be indicative for more serious injuries, skull fractures themselves usually don't even require medical treatment.
CarinusMalmari is offline  
Old 01-29-16, 08:59 AM
  #1879  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,070
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1685 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari View Post
OTOH, just like lacerations, bumps and bruises, skull fractures are usually not clinically significant. The phrase "skull fracture" does sound serious, and while they can be serious and while they also can be indicative for more serious injuries, skull fractures themselves usually don't even require medical treatment.
Whether or not this is true is beside the point I was making.

Anyway, I doubt that people are advised to treat skull fractures as if nothing happened.

Last edited by njkayaker; 02-01-16 at 11:17 AM. Reason: Added "if".
njkayaker is offline  
Old 01-29-16, 12:57 PM
  #1880  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,435
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1410 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 29 Posts
Originally Posted by skye View Post
Read 'em and weep, boys: Bicycle helmets "protective role for intra-cranial hemorrhage is questionable."

From Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries. - PubMed - NCBI

So, yeah, helmets are good for lacerations and bumps and bruises. So is a baseball cap.
Unsurprisingly, another blatantly dishonest summary of a research paper.

The fair summary is correctly quoting "Further studies accessing the protective role of helmets for intra-cranial hemorrhage are warranted."

The authors were careful to express the statistically significant results of the study comparing helmeted and non-helmeted patients.

In their entirety, the statistically significant results showed differences in:
Age - non-helmeted younger
Sex - non-helmeted more male
Intoxication - non-helmeted more likely to be intoxicated
Scalp lacerations- non-helmeted more likely to have scalp lacerations
Skull fracture - non-helmeted more likely to have skull fractures
Facial fractures - non-helmeted more likely to have facial fractures
Hospital admission - non-helmeted more likely to be hospitalized
ICU admission - non-helmeted more likely to be admitted to the ICU


The reason that further studies are warranted is that they were not able to answer the question the study asked. (FWIW, in their study, helmeted patients were *LESS* *LIKELY* to have intra-cranial hemorrhage than non-helmeted patients (13.9% versus 17.6%), but the results were not statistically significant. Also FWIW, *helmeted* had a higher mortality rate (1.3% versus 0.2%), but again, only a dishonest, ignorant, or both person would conclude that this means anything since the result was not statistically significant.)

And that's before we get to the fundamental limitation of a study that only studied patients who directly presented to a single level 1 trauma center (the only such center in the study city) and excluded transfer patients from other centers.


Finally, there are many studies that show the complete lack of efficacy of baseball caps with skull and facial fractures - which is why baseball HELMETS are required for batters and base runners.

You've been caught - again. Will you ever learn not to do this?

-mr. bill

Last edited by mr_bill; 01-29-16 at 05:48 PM.
mr_bill is offline  
Old 01-30-16, 03:16 AM
  #1881  
CarinusMalmari
Senior Member
 
CarinusMalmari's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1260 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
Whether or not this is true is beside the point I was making.
The point you were making is that a skull fracture is a serious injury. It is not in most cases. Which brings us back to the fact that bicycle helmets are especially good at preventing minor injuries.

Anyway, I doubt that people are advised to treat skull fractures as nothing happened.
The point you're making here is called a Strawman Argument.

A sprained ankle is also typically clinically insignificant and also doesn't require medical treatment in most cases. This doesn't mean you should ignore a sprained ankle.

Last edited by CarinusMalmari; 01-30-16 at 08:09 AM.
CarinusMalmari is offline  
Old 01-30-16, 09:19 AM
  #1882  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,070
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1685 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari View Post
The point you were making is that a skull fracture is a serious injury. It is not in most cases. Which brings us back to the fact that bicycle helmets are especially good at preventing minor injuries.
No, I said nothing like that. You are imagining it.

Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari View Post
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
Anyway, I doubt that people are advised to treat skull fractures as nothing happened.
The point you're making here is called a Strawman Argument.
Err, no.

Read what I wrote carefully. I am clearly saying that people would not get advice to treat fractures as nothing happened.

There is really no excuse to omit "head fractures" over mentioning "lacerations" and "bumps and bruises".

Unless one thinks that fractures are more trivial than "lacerations" and "bumps and bruises" (which doesn't seem likely).

Why did Skye omit fractures?

Originally Posted by skye View Post
Read 'em and weep, boys: Bicycle helmets "protective role for intra-cranial hemorrhage is questionable."

From Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries. - PubMed - NCBI

So, yeah, helmets are good for lacerations and bumps and bruises. So is a baseball cap.
This is a misleading and false characterization of the abstract linked to.

Last edited by njkayaker; 01-30-16 at 10:15 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 01-30-16, 12:33 PM
  #1883  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,546

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2502 Post(s)
Liked 55 Times in 33 Posts
Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari View Post
The point you were making is that a skull fracture is a serious injury.....
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
No, I said nothing like that. You are imagining it.
Read what I wrote carefully. I am clearly saying that people would not get advice to treat fractures as nothing happened.

"Anyway, I doubt that people are advised to treat skull fractures as nothing happened."
It's not really clear what you were saying, because of the awkward phrasing. You doubt that "people are advised to treat fractures as nothing" is something that happened? Or you you doubt that people are "advised to treat fractures" as (meaning because) "nothing happened"? Or as made the most sense to me, are you omitting "if": you doubt that people are "advised to treat fractures as if nothing happened"?

I was tempted to ask you to clarify what exactly you meant, but didn't because I don't see why it is relevant to evaluating skye's conclusion or the study he linked. Another study that fails to show that helmets are very effective in treating TBI, but does demonstrate the obvious effectiveness with minor head injuries. They need more data samples to say anything about the inconclusive part. What is so controversial about it? What IS your point ultimately?
wphamilton is offline  
Old 01-31-16, 07:30 AM
  #1884  
rydabent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 7,539

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1323 Post(s)
Liked 19 Times in 16 Posts
Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari View Post
OTOH, just like lacerations, bumps and bruises, skull fractures are usually not clinically significant. The phrase "skull fracture" does sound serious, and while they can be serious and while they also can be indicative for more serious injuries, skull fractures themselves usually don't even require medical treatment.
Any head hit that is hard enough to cause a skull fracture is probably hard enough to cause brain damage. Therefore a helmet that will mitigate energy is a good thing.
rydabent is offline  
Old 01-31-16, 11:10 AM
  #1885  
howsteepisit
Senior Member
 
howsteepisit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 4,311

Bikes: Mecian

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 500 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
Any head hit that is hard enough to cause a skull fracture is probably hard enough to cause brain damage. Therefore a helmet that will mitigate energy is a good thing.

But is it too much of a good thing?
howsteepisit is offline  
Old 02-01-16, 09:40 AM
  #1886  
CarinusMalmari
Senior Member
 
CarinusMalmari's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1260 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
Any head hit that is hard enough to cause a skull fracture is probably hard enough to cause brain damage. Therefore a helmet that will mitigate energy is a good thing.
But when a helmet prevents the skull from cracking, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will also prevent brain damage. Especially since TBIs are usually the result of different forces than skull fractures
CarinusMalmari is offline  
Old 02-01-16, 09:43 AM
  #1887  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,435
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1410 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 29 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
This is a misleading and false characterization of the abstract linked to.
You are being *far* too generous, imo.

And for what it's worth, wonder why somebody didn't link to something more than an abstract?
Such as this link to the first two pages of the four page article (click "look inside").

To be clear, this is a "misleading and false characterization" of the ENTIRE SHORT RESEARCH PAPER. The more of the paper one reads the clearer that this is a matter of a lack of characterization.

-mr. bill

Last edited by mr_bill; 02-01-16 at 10:40 AM.
mr_bill is offline  
Old 02-01-16, 11:04 AM
  #1888  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,070
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1685 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
It's not really clear what you were saying, because of the awkward phrasing. You doubt that "people are advised to treat fractures as nothing" is something that happened? Or you you doubt that people are "advised to treat fractures" as (meaning because) "nothing happened"? Or as made the most sense to me, are you omitting "if": you doubt that people are "advised to treat fractures as if nothing happened"?
Yes, I suppose I missed the "if". It wasn't that unclear. You figured it out.

And, the alternative meaning you arrived at really isn't saying any thing different.

Whether or not they are allowed to heal on its own, I doubt that "people are advised to treat skull fractures as nothing" happened as well. (You might also question the use of "treat" here.)

To be clear, I don't doubt that, often, skull fractures are allowed to heal on their own (it's easy enough to find out about that). This being true doesn't excuse not mentioning it (and making-up "bumps and bruises"). As I said, this being true is beside the point I was making.

Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
I was tempted to ask you to clarify what exactly you meant, but didn't because I don't see why it is relevant to evaluating skye's conclusion or the study he linked. Another study that fails to show that helmets are very effective in treating TBI, but does demonstrate the obvious effectiveness with minor head injuries. They need more data samples to say anything about the inconclusive part. What is so controversial about it? What IS your point ultimately?
I wasn't talking about the abstract.

My point is in the my first comment about this abstract. But I'll repeat it here.

Skye omitted "skull fractures" and mentioned "lacerations" and he invented "bumps and bruises". That's a problem.

Skye's characterization of the abstract is incorrect. It's not like it should be hard to summarize the abstract accurately.

Skye too-often mischaracterizes stuff he links to. People should be sure to look at the link over trusting whatever Skye says about it.

Last edited by njkayaker; 02-25-16 at 03:14 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 02-01-16, 11:05 AM
  #1889  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,435
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1410 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 29 Posts
Bicycle helmets are highly protective against traumatic brain injury within a dense urban setting.

Going from past experience I have no doubt that *every* anti-helmet nut will focus on only three letters from this study, so I'll quote the final paragraph of the Discussion in its entirety.

Originally Posted by Sethi, Heidenberg, Wall et al
Bicycle-related head injuries will likely increase as bicycling grows in popularity. This study demonstrates the efficacy of helmets in protecting against TBI. Despite all of the safety improvements in NYC’s road infrastructure over the last decade, the protective impact of simple bicycle helmets in the event of a crash remains significant and undeniable. It may be necessary to re-examine current bicycle helmet laws and helmet accessibility for urban cyclists so as to most effectively translate Vision Zero from a political action plan to public safety reality. Likely, a zero goal will require urban bicyclists to wear helmets.
(And thirdly, Vision Zero is more what what you'd call "wishful" than actual goals. In the year twenty fifty-(fifty?)-five....)

-mr. bill

Last edited by mr_bill; 02-01-16 at 11:16 AM.
mr_bill is offline  
Old 02-08-16, 11:19 PM
  #1890  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I told you a while back that I would check in from time to time. Here's a helmet study you should actually read, front to back.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...9d47c2428b.pdf

Mr. bill, you should check out the Vision Zero concept from the originators.

Vision Zero Initiative

John
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 02-24-16, 04:29 PM
  #1891  
rydabent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 7,539

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1323 Post(s)
Liked 19 Times in 16 Posts
See the thread that says Australia just passed a law that fines a cyclist $319 for riding without a helmet. Apparently Aussies think that wearing a helmet is a good thing.
rydabent is offline  
Old 02-24-16, 05:56 PM
  #1892  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,546

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2502 Post(s)
Liked 55 Times in 33 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
Yes, I supposed I missed the "if". It wasn't that unclear. You figured it out.

And, the alternative meaning you arrived at really isn't saying any thing different.
There's the problem then. You don't understand the ambiguity of what you wrote, nor even why it was ambiguous, and then you write condescendingly to the guy that was apparently responding to one of the possible meanings. It was your misunderstanding, not his, and you should rein that in a bit.

Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
Skye omitted "skull fractures" and mentioned "lacerations" and he invented "bumps and bruises". That's a problem.

Skye's characterization of the abstract is incorrect. It's not like it should be hard to summarize the abstract accurately.

Skye too-often mischaracterizes stuff he links to. People should be sure to look at the link over trusting whatever Skye says about it.
I don't agree with Skye very much, but omitting "skull fractures" does not change the gist of the conclusions.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 02-24-16, 06:00 PM
  #1893  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,546

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2502 Post(s)
Liked 55 Times in 33 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
See the thread that says Australia just passed a law that fines a cyclist $319 for riding without a helmet. Apparently Aussies think that wearing a helmet is a good thing.
I've been following the reports of opinions and consequences of their helmet law for years, and it seems to me that most Australian cyclists don't, but their government does. They believe that it has seriously curtailed the amount of cycling in Australia, a net negative in health consequences.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 02-25-16, 02:59 AM
  #1894  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,070
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1685 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
There's the problem then. You don't understand the ambiguity of what you wrote, nor even why it was ambiguous, and then you write condescendingly to the guy that was apparently responding to one of the possible meanings. It was your misunderstanding, not his, and you should rein that in a bit.
No, "the guy" imagined what what I said (it wasn't a "possible meaning" either). Then accused me of making a straw man argument. The condescendion was deserved.

I wrote exactly what I wanted to write (including the "if" might have been better but the meaning doesn't really change). It was deliberate.

People should have done what I said they should have done (read the article). They should have noticed the "odd" replacement of "skull fracture" with "bumps and bruises" and realized that they are not equivalent. "The guy" failed to do that.

If he thought what I wrote was "ambiguous", the proper response would have been to ask me to clarify it. (Not putting word in my mouth.)
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
I don't agree with Skye very much, but omitting "skull fractures" does not change the gist of the conclusions.
He misrepresents stuff much too frequently. The "omission" is yet another example of that. And he added stuff he just made-up. There isn't really any way to reasonably excuse that. It appears you are trying to excuse it.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/02...of-ideologies/

Last edited by njkayaker; 02-25-16 at 04:48 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 02-25-16, 06:11 AM
  #1895  
skye
Senior Member
 
skye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
So much for the "YOU MUST REPLACE YOUR HELMET EVERY TWO YEARS OR YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!!!" BS.

Age does not affect the material properties of bicycle helmet foam liners. - PubMed - NCBI

"Based on these data, the impact attenuation properties of bicycle helmet foam do not degrade with the age."

Not that bicycle helmets do anything useful in the first place.

Also, quit claiming I misrepresent studies. If all you have read is the abstract, shut your pie hole until you read the entire article, as I have. Just because a study doesn't meet your preconceived notions doesn't mean I misquoted it.

You guys have a hella problem with facts.
skye is offline  
Old 02-25-16, 01:43 PM
  #1896  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,070
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1685 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by skye View Post
So much for the "YOU MUST REPLACE YOUR HELMET EVERY TWO YEARS OR YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!!!" BS.

Age does not affect the material properties of bicycle helmet foam liners. - PubMed - NCBI
Old news (not surprising it's been confirmed).

Originally Posted by skye View Post
Also, quit claiming I misrepresent studies. If all you have read is the abstract, shut your pie hole until you read the entire article, as I have. Just because a study doesn't meet your preconceived notions doesn't mean I misquoted it.
You misrepresented it, regardless.

Originally Posted by skye View Post
You guys have a hella problem with facts.
Ironic.

Last edited by njkayaker; 02-25-16 at 05:09 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 02-25-16, 01:59 PM
  #1897  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,435
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1410 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 29 Posts
Originally Posted by skye View Post
So much for the "YOU MUST REPLACE YOUR HELMET EVERY TWO YEARS OR YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!!!" BS.
....
Also, quit claiming I misrepresent studies. If all you have read is the abstract, shut your pie hole until you read the entire article, as I have. Just because a study doesn't meet your preconceived notions doesn't mean I misquoted it.
....
Says Bell on replacing helmets:
"This helmet has a limited life span in use and should be replaced when it shows obvious signs of wear."
"YOU SHOULD NEVER: 1. Wear a helmet that’s been in an accident, even if no damage is visible."

What Bell doesn't say about replacing helmets:
"YOU MUST REPLACE YOUR HELMET EVERY TWO YEARS OR YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!!!"

Not only do you misrepresent studies, you misrepresent lots of things. All the time. It's the voodoo that you do so well.

-mr. bill

Last edited by mr_bill; 02-25-16 at 02:03 PM.
mr_bill is offline  
Old 02-25-16, 02:09 PM
  #1898  
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 11,857

Bikes: 2016 Hong Fu FM-079-F, 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i (RIP), 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2016 Islabikes Beinn 20 (son's)

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1120 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mr_bill View Post
Says Bell on replacing helmets:
"This helmet has a limited life span in use and should be replaced when it shows obvious signs of wear."
"YOU SHOULD NEVER: 1. Wear a helmet thatís been in an accident, even if no damage is visible."

What Bell doesn't say about replacing helmets:
"YOU MUST REPLACE YOUR HELMET EVERY TWO YEARS OR YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!!!"

Not only do you misrepresent studies, you misrepresent lots of things. All the time. It's the voodoo that you do so well.

-mr. bill
What Bell also says about helmet replacement that is closer to skye's comment (exaggeration about death aside):

Originally Posted by Bell FAQ
Q:How Often Should a Helmet Be Replaced?
A:Bell has a general recommendation of replacing your helmet every three (3) years. If you are unsure of the condition of your helmet, or whether it should be replaced, call us at 800-456-2355 or e-mail us at consumersupport@bellsports.com for information on a free inspection.
http://www.bellhelmets.com/product-faq




This "YOU SHOULD NEVER: 1. Wear a helmet thatís been in an accident, even if no damage is visible" always cracks me up, though. How do you know that ANY helmet is damage free then? Pick it up right off the assembly line and never let it out of your sight?
joejack951 is offline  
Old 02-25-16, 05:14 PM
  #1899  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,070
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1685 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by joejack951 View Post
This "YOU SHOULD NEVER: 1. Wear a helmet that’s been in an accident, even if no damage is visible" always cracks me up, though. How do you know that ANY helmet is damage free then? Pick it up right off the assembly line and never let it out of your sight?
You don't. That things in life are never certain shouldn't "crack you up".

Would you drive across a bridge in the dark you know is out?
njkayaker is offline  
Old 02-25-16, 05:52 PM
  #1900  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,546

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2502 Post(s)
Liked 55 Times in 33 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
No, "the guy" imagined what what I said (it wasn't a "possible meaning" either). Then accused me of making a straw man argument. The condescendion was deserved.

I wrote exactly what I wanted to write (including the "if" might have been better but the meaning doesn't really change). It was deliberate.

People should have done what I said they should have done (read the article). They should have noticed the "odd" replacement of "skull fracture" with "bumps and bruises" and realized that they are not equivalent. "The guy" failed to do that.

If he thought what I wrote was "ambiguous", the proper response would have been to ask me to clarify it. (Not putting word in my mouth.)

He misrepresents stuff much too frequently. The "omission" is yet another example of that. And he added stuff he just made-up. There isn't really any way to reasonably excuse that. It appears you are trying to excuse it.

Ronald Collins: The Marketplace Of Ideologies | Simple Justice
I don't often agree with CarinusMalmari either, but he is correct in this case. The unsurprising conclusion is that helmets are not particularly effective in preventing traumatic brain injury, but are more effective with the relatively minor injuries. Whether or not you specifically list skull fractures among the injuries doesn't really impact that conclusion.

A baseball cap doesn't really provide much protection against bumps and bruises, lacerations, or facial contusions in addition to doing little for skull fractures. If you have to attack someone's hyperbole, that would have been a logical point of attack.
wphamilton is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.