Originally Posted by joejack951 (Post 18564274)

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?

Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 18564791)

I don't often agree with CarinusMalmari either, but he is correct in this case.

Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 18564791)

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.

Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 18564791)

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.

Originally Posted by skye (Post 18563057)

Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 18564800)

I think it's funny because you can easily see if it has cracks or has lost cohesion, and whether the plastic cover is loose. They just want to sell more helmets.

Originally Posted by joejack951 (Post 18565738)

Well, yeah, of course. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that many helmet advocates see this advice as sound and that it makes everyone safer.

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 18561987)

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.

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 18561987)

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.

Originally Posted by njkayaker (Post 18564858)

One can argue that skull fractures are not the big deal many people might think but I doubt you can argue that they are the same as "bumps and bruises" (what CarinusMalmari basically did)

Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari (Post 18565868)

Well, it's more like Australia is actively trying to marginalize cyclists out of existence and this draconian fine is just another example of that. Australia's biggest contribution to cycling was demonstrating that Mandatory Helmet Laws are a great way to kill your cycling culture.

Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari (Post 18567957)

It's called a strawman argument. Let's ignore it, and at look what I really said.

Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari (Post 18498151)

The point you were making is that a skull fracture is a serious injury.

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 18570393)

What is so hard or terrible about wearing a helmet.

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 18570393)

...people that dont wear helmets often end up improving the gene pool.

Originally Posted by SB739 (Post 18617779)

I've always been under the belief that wearing a helmet outta protect your head somehow.
wet
I mean, worst case scenario is death, but lets say you do survive: brain damage has to be surely one of the worst ways to be affected in an accident?!

Even (God forbid for us all) if someone was to lose the ability to move their body, if they could think straight and possibly talk / and communicate still with their family and friends surely that's a much better existence?

I'd say a helmet must help when it comes to your head hitting the ground or a car, as it takes some of them impact even if it is fatal. Why wear none at all?

They're quite cheap where I live at £19.99 ($28), so why not?! And to be honest, if you guys let your kids cycle, do you make them wear helmets at least? :-/

Originally Posted by joejack951 (Post 18618647)

"1. Why stop at a bike helmet? Why not a full face motorcycle helmet? Surely that offers more protection and more protection is better. They aren't that expensive compared to hospital bills you might incur if just wear a bike helmet."

Yes, a motorcycle helmet would offer marginal improvement over a bike helmet, but the most important step up is the comparison between no helmet vs. a bike helmet - much more safe, and at a fairly low cost. One could take it further to a motorcycle helmet, but again the cost would probably be high(er).
"2. Why only wear a helmet while riding a bike? There are so many other circumstances where you are at risk of falling and hitting your head (in the bathroom with wet fee, going up or down stairs, wet leaves/ice on the sidewalk etc.)"

Also, one could wear a helmet during more of the time, but it is particularly important whilst riding a bike - unlike walking, where yes you can fall but you have your arms to avoid direct head impact in many cases - on a bike, you can suddenly be struck by another pedestrian or vehicle, and you're also moving at around 3 times or more the speed. This adds to the impact from a fall, plus you're mangled through a bike! The added force justify a helmet during the bike ride in my opinion, but of course we are all entitled to our own :-)


"3. If a bike helmet offers just the right amount of protection for you and you feel not at risk otherwise, why can't you understand that my cycling cap offers enough protection for my head while on my bike because I don't feel at any more risk for a head injury on my bike than off?"

It is important to understand that there is risk whether we feel it or not, and the same for walking as you mentioned before. It is a personal choice about how much you are personally willing to do for yourself (and whether you believe it'll help). I think people are fine saying "Oh you Should wear a helmet!" as they can surely suggest it, but you still aren't forced too, just like you can say "No, don't wear helmets!" and the receiver of both statements makes up their own mind

Originally Posted by SB739 (Post 18619311)

[/I]

Hope that's enough!

Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 18622269)

That's his whole point! He thinks that it is enough, and objectively he's probably right in his situation. There is a dividing line, when riding bikes or doing anything else, where the level of risk does or does not warrant taking extra precautions. Depending on which side of that line you're on.

Some people pretend there is no such line, or acknowledge it but believe that it doesn't matter. They are simply wrong. Anyone who reasons that safety equipment is necessary in cycling just because something could happen, without consideration of how unlikely it is, has reasoned wrong. On the flip side, anyone who argues that it's no use at all, without regard to the different kinds of cycling, is just as wrong. It all depends on what the risks are.

Originally Posted by ciaraco (Post 18635275)

I recently just got a bike, however, I never needed a helmet when I was younger. Considering getting one now it's just that the ones I want costs at least £30 and I just don't have enough for it. Would I be okay for a while without one?

Originally Posted by wphamilton (Post 18656749)

Just checking are you still with us, after a week without a helmet?

Originally Posted by ciaraco (Post 18658579)

so far I've been careful

Originally Posted by joejack951 (Post 18658658)

Do you expect to act differently once you get a helmet?