This is what I'll be buying (and offering in my online shop) shortly. The pic is only my favourite of a huge line of awesome helmets.

http://www.nutcase-helmets.de/0708edition.html

http://www.nutcase-helmets.de/0708ed.../superstar.jpg

Cool helmet.....this would be my first choice, I like the camo. As far as not looking dorky, sorry can't help ya. :D

I'm not repeating nonsense, and I hardly consider myself an expert. I am, however, a mechanical engineer who knows a few things about momentum, energy, and how materials behave under dynamic loading. I thought I'd point out that if the reason you don't wear a helmet is really that you think it has to absorb half a million foot pounds of energy to be effective, then your logic is ridiculous.

I don't judge people for choosing not to wear helmets. I used to commute without one. But when you use a silly number to support a decision not to wear a helmet in a thread about what helmet to buy, it is YOU playing the expert and begging to stir up the 'mindless' debate. I thought the OP might be interested in reality instead of hyperbole. It would be a shame if he made a decision based upon the uninformed idea that a helmet has to completely absorb every foot pound of energy from a 40mph collision with an SUV to be effective.

I hope you're warming up thoroughly before attempting those stretches, mate. You're reading all sorts of stuff into my posts, most of which isn't actually there.

For the record, and as simply as possible:

1) I don't advocate for or against helmets. I just advocate for intelligent adults making their own decisions, and not having to put up with insults as a result.

2) A helmet is of some -- but limited -- use. It can certainly prevent bumps and bruises, and in a certain kind of fall it can prevent brain damage and/or death. The "right" kind of fall -- enough energy to cause damage/death without a helmet but not enough to overwhelm the helmet's protective ability -- is unfortunately rare. Anyone who thinks it's going to save him when struck by a large, high-speed motor vehicle is kidding himself, regardless of what kind of degree he has.

I would not dream of getting on without a helmet!!! You only got issued one head Got to take care of it!!!!

1) Only one of us is tossing personal insults around. I was clear from my first post that I think intelligent adults can make whatever choice they want. I don't care if YOU wear a helmet or not. But I wanted the OP to know actual figures instead of the orders-of-magnitude-inflated energy number you through out there to justify your decision.

2) Physics and statistics suggest otherwise. Your post history in defense of your decision appears to be based only on your own intuition. As I mentioned, energy absorption is a poor metric for helmet performance. Even so, the band of energies between "helmetless severe brain injury" and "overwhelming the helmet's capability" is sufficiently large to include the energy of a fall to the ground which is the most statistically probable mode of head injury on a bike. This is true even when the collision is the result of collision with a vehicle. You might suffer a lot of internal organ injuries from the actual collision, but if you bust your noggin, it will almost certainly happen when you hit the ground.

If you want the "pro-helmet" folks to leave you alone, don't make up numbers which have nothing to do with the type of injuries that helmets are meant to protect against.

I figure a helmet is less dorky looking than bandages and drooling would be. And I'm a klutz, so I'm at risk of *precisely* the kind of accident helmets are designed for - getting tangled up in my own feet, pedals, and/or random stationary objects. So I wear one. (I don't do any other sports, or I'd wwear a helmet for those too, probably).

Also, it would REALLY suck to be on the hook for $40K in student loans and be unable to use what I learned. Brain damage scares me.

This would leave one to believe that actual figures are forthcoming. Hopefully your readers have gotten over their dissapointment...

BTW, anyone with a calculator can figure out that a 5000 pound SUV traveling at highway speeds does, in fact, generate a half-million foot pounds of energy. You're the one who threw out the "But the helmet doesn't have to absorb all of it!" strawman.

That's an awful lot of unsubstantiated opinion, coming from someone whining about "intuition". Do yourself a favor and actually research the statistics. If you're an honest man, you'll discover that in the big picture, helmets make a very small difference.

Oh, and speaking as an old paramedic, I'm here to tell you that when a human body is struck by a motor vehicle at 40+ MPH, the coroner can choose from a dozen different causes of death. Anyone who has actually seen the results of such a collision truly understands how futile a few ounces of styrofoam are.

Seems to me that decent, thoughtful people don't need a reason to let grown-ups make their own decisions in peace.

It is clear that this is going nowhere which isn't a surprise given your long and distinguished history of snarky posts on this subject. I have offered no straw men. The straw man here is when you say that a helmet must absorb the entire energy of vehicle collision to be of any use. I will certainly agree that if you stand in front of a 40 mph and try to stop it with your head, you will die regardless of whether or not you wear a helmet. I have not suggested that a helmet will save you from every type of life-threatening injury when you are hit by a car. You are correct that it will only save you from a specific type of injury. It just happens to be that this type of injury is statistically probable among injuries, and that is has the nasty habit of killing you or giving you permanent brain damage.

Here is some substantiation for my argument. I presume you'll provide same.

http://www.helmets.org/henderso.htm
http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/pr...meteffect.html
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00036941.htm

The University of Washington page provides a list of references used in their analysis. You can go get these papers at a University library near you if you care to do the research. I will, in fact, leave you alone now since I don't think that these three links or the 74 papers cited by the UW link will deter you from jumping into every single helmet thread to suggest not wearing one. And of course every time you do this you will then complain about how you are so picked on and you just want to be left alone.

Enjoy your bike. Don't fall off.

I've bolded the two important parts of your argument, as they typify your stuff to this point. As to the "absorbing the entire energy of he collision" bit, I never said that, and I've explained to you that I never said it. I can only assume that this is either a reading comprehension issue or an honesty one. And the line about "statistical probability" is just more of the same assfacts you've been putting up from the start. Statistically speaking, head injuries are far down the list of probable injuries in a cycling crash, and all of the helmet research agrees on that.

As for the research, there is an awful lot of it both pro and con. Again, one just has do do an honest evaluation of it and then make an informed decision. Too many people see a blurb based on the Thompson paper about helmets being 85% effective and take that as gospel, without ever looking into it any further. This leads to obnoxious "I'd rather wear a helmet than be a vegetable" kinds of posts written by people who obviously believe their helmets make them "safe". This is a dangerously mistaken POV.

http://www.helmets.org/veloaust.htm

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1181

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/332/7543/722

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...38958059093159

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf0

Finally, as to being "picked on": show me a helmet thread where everyone is calm and rational and there are no "You're an idiot if you don't wear a helmet, my head was run over by a 747 and my helmet saved my life, helmets are cooler than being fed through a tube" posts and I'll show you a thread where the "anti-helmet" guys don't make a peep.

Perhaps you didn't state it explicitly, but it is certainly implied... and wrong.

None of the articles here directly examine the efficacy of a helmet to prevent severe head injury in the event of a fall. Each of them examines the efficacy of mandatory helmet laws on reducing injuries. Incidentally because I believe we are all adults capable of making our own decisions, I oppose mandatory helmet laws. I really don't intend to continue a pissing match, but the half-million foot*pound argument is bad science, and I wanted to identify it for the benefit of the original poster. Since you are now saying that you never said that helmets have to absorb this amount of energy to be effective, I think the error is corrected.

Good day.

this is where I stand as well and even without all the inquiries I've made over the years about helmets, I'd have to say the arguments on the pro-helmet side are so bad that these alone would lead me to believe claims on need and performance of helmets are extremely suspect. Aligning with those that make these arguments is like aligning yourself to some pretty suspect logic and you'd be less than bright to go along with them based on their arguments.

Pretty lofty assertions that fly in the face of people who have devoted their lives to studying these pheomena. Look at all the studies listed in the UW link I gave earlier and notice the simliar conclusions. These are not articles out of bicycling magazine; these are published, peer-reviewed, funded studies performed by people trained in science and statistics. If you want to summarily dismiss them as "less than bright", you better have equally credible publications to support such a dismissal.

Both sides of this 'debate' falsely rely on anecdotal evidence and personal intution. If you look at the enormous amount of published literature, it is clear that wearing a helmet significantly reduces the probability of a severe head injury. Anyway, this thread is now quite off topic. Since I have no suggestions to give to the OP for what type of helmet to buy, I'll go over to the safety forum if anyone wants to discuss it further.

Awesome. I'm in the market for a better fitting helmet. I was going to go for "cooler" as in "not as hot" but if I can get a hold of one of these, I may change my tune.

So here's a question: While I agree that helmets as a safety measure are over valued, I do think they have their place. For instance, my wearing a helmet makes my wife feel better. ;-) Also, there are certainly some people who adopt a very different attitude towards a cyclist depending on the presence or absence of a helmet. One of them is "clearly" safety-conscious, and one of them "is going to get themselves or someone else killed." The question is: which category does this helmet put you in? "Is he wearing a helmet because he's a safe, responsible bike rider? Or is he wearing it because he's about to try and jump my car on his bicycle?"

It's always good to keep them guessing.

A helmet totally saved my skull and brain about four months ago whilst skateboarding. In case anyone cares. And you probably don't.

Best argument yet. :thumb:

C'mon, join the helmets cramp my style thread. It's been going on for years

I was just reading a thread about the Dutchs' attitude towards helmets and kendall had a good reply,

"I just learned don't argue with people who feel a helmet is the total solution to prevent injuries, you get nowhere fast."

Agreed.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wearing a helmet and they even do provide a certain amount of protection in certain situation, and if the OP wanted to get an idea of what others thin what is "cool" that's cool, but if helmets contained all the properties many people claim they contain, there would be much more widespread use. But there isn't. Even in legislated areas there is mixed use. Only in heavily enforced areas there is widespread use. Most people have a realistic assessment of what they are and how much they are needed and they go without. Those who make outrageous claims about others who choose to go without reveal their ignorance but that's OK too because you can always learn. I did. I used to be firmly in the camp of "wear your helmet all the time" but I learned and changed my stance. I'm much more tolerant now.

The links examine the results of increased helmet use. Those results are underwhelming at best. Everything else -- including your wholly imaginary "half-million foot pounds" nitpick -- is angels dancing on pinheads.

+1

and her best friend has a twin brother who is severely brain damaged from a head injury, so i'd catch hell from both of them. so +2.

Hear here!

Of course,in the more likely scenario, he just brushed you, but it caused you to fall and hit your head on the curb just so. All of the sudden that few ounces of foam just made a pretty big difference.

Also: Kinetic energy is not measured in foot/lbs.

And don't worry about feeling uncool with your helment. I leave mine on while grocery shopping since it's easier than taking it off. Flaunt your Fredness![/QUOTE]





I do the same thing. I have a specialized aurora, black.

God spare me from the internet experts.

You forgot to provide a cite supporting your opinion about what is a "more likely scenario". You forgot to cite evidence that bicycle helmets are designed for impacts against angular objects such as curbs. You forgot to cite evidence that, regardless of design, helmets actually do protect against such impacts. And, "also", you forgot to provide evidence that foot pounds is not a commonly accepted and practiced method of expressing kinetic energy.

Aside from that, great post!

You know what we helmet-wearing motorcycle riders call non-helmet wearing riders?

Organ Donors.

Which is fine by me. I might need your organs someday. So I thank you and my family thanks you for being so thoughtful and giving. :D

You know what non helmet-wearing motorcyclists call people who insult them for making decisions for themselves?

I'll bet you can guess!

Superior humans with attitude? Moms?

A statement like this is so ignorant, it doesn't even recognize it's own ignorance.

Pack it up guys. You're not making your case, you're destroying it.

:roflmao2: Right back you ya!

It's even funnier how you keep saying you're not advocating against helmets but against the debate... yet you feebly try to argue every point made for wearing a helmet. Complaining when no hard data is posted yet not posting any data to disprove anyone's statement and support your own obvious opinion. Even my "i don't care what you do" statement pushed your buttons. :lol:

I understand though. It's probably all a big conspiracy. Same with wearing your seatbelt... what a load of bull! And that whole smoking thing has gotten out of hand... my grandmother smoked well into her eighties. Second hand smoke? Bahhhh! And there is no real evidence that we even made it to the moon, let alone walked on so I wish people would just drop that one... they're so ignorant.

Oh yeah, and thanks again... in advance. :D

Bicycle helmets most definitely will reduce your risk of death or a serious head injury in the event of an accident. No one disputes this. Anyone arguing the contrary is frankly just wrong. If you had a choice between wearing a helmet and not wearing one and being struck by a car on a bike, you would be a moron to not wear a helmet.

The argument against helmets, however, is the effect of compulsory helmet laws. In those countries where this has been implemented, the result is a substantial drop in the uptake of cycling in the community. Apart from negative public health implications of a more sedentary lifestyle, a reduction in the number of cyclists on the roads leads to an increased risk to the remaining cyclists. For the most part, the introduction of compulsory helmets has a deleterious effect on the overall population (despite the reduction of serious head trauma as a proportion of cycling accidents).

Regards.

It's a good thing to explain and discuss what you've learned to challenge a position and strengthen an argument. Holes come into view and adjustments can be made but as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink, or think in this case. A jack ass will always be a jack ass and even if it's not obvious to themselves, it's plain to see to others.

I like that you can look up a posters history to get a better sense of what that posters writes, how they've described themselves, and what their experiences are. It helps in responding. As always, learning makes things better. If you don't, you get stuck.

If you want debate helmet use, use another thread, the OP here is simply looking for advice on what looks cool. It's the coolness factor that's important to him, not safety. He said, " I won't wear the helmet if I think I look stupid in it" His honesty is refreshing

You're the internet expert apparently. I don't think I need to provide evidence that kinetic energy is not measured in foot-lbs anymore that I need to provide evidence that distance isn't measured in bushels. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I cite your posts as evidence of this.