I've hit pavement hard enough to shatter my helmet. It isn't hard to figure out the results sans helmet would have been bad - real bad. And technically, you're incorrect in saying surgeons with experience treating head injuries have "NO clue what kind of injuries would have resulted from just seeing a smashed up helmet", because they have PLENTY of clues: all the busted noggins of those who crashed without helmets compared to the lesser head injuries suffered by those wearing helmets.

Just man up and admit you don't think the marginal increase in safety from wearing a helmet is worth the hassle. Don't try to justify not wearing a helmet by trying to claim they're useless.

Oh don't be so ridiculous. Off course your intent is to re-ignite the debate when you post this.

There's a perfectly good thread for this debate in A&S but then maybe you don't want to go there because your ridiculous post would be immediately dismissed.

A helmet saved my skin, and perhaps a trip to ER a few times, so I'm a firm believer in helmets. The picture doesn't load for me, maybe that's a good thing?

Oh, and I'm not even talking about brain injuries. If a car hits you at 40+ mph a helmet would do squat for you. But a helmet can mean a difference between a large bump versus cuts requiring stitching and serious skin loss.

Adam

What seems to have gotten lost in this discussion is that the fault of that accident was not a lack of helmet, but rather participation in alley cat races. Perhaps we would more profitably debate the merits of such activities.

Debate the merits? What are you, insane?

You're incorrect; this was not my intent. I was merely posting up a weblog entry that may give someone who hadn't come to their own conclusions yet, (I was one of those people 20 years ago) some food for thought. That others allow themselves to get wrapped around the axle over this issue isn't my fault as I personally don't get angry over issues like this. I make my choice and move on.

I posted this in the commuting forum since commuting is a "jumping on" point for many new/returning cyclists. When I was a returning cyclist in 1990, the concept of a helmet never crossed my mind. I was given the pro view many times, and resisted. In 1992 I started wearing a helmet, and that's my choice, a choice that I made after considering the factors that I felt important. Someone else may take the same data set, and come to a different conclusion. That's called free will. If someone gets angry when presented with one persons viewpoint, I can't help that.

I never used to wear helmets when cycling as a child and teenager. Now that I've grown up, I do.

Here are some cycling injury findings.

https://www.preventable.ca/articles/7...-have-crashed-

Coles' notes for the lazy.
" ...
Half of all cycling injuries and deaths happen in the summer.

The majority of bicycle injuries do not involve motor vehicles. Most are falls, collisions with stationary objects, and collisions with other bikes or pedestrians resulting from the bicyclist losing control.

Helmets can reduce the risk of head injury by 88 per cent if worn appropriately while cycling.

Those who survive unprotected bicycling brain injuries may suffer epilepsy, intellectual and memory impairment and personality changes.
"

Some stats from Alberta Health regarding head injuries for cyclists.
https://www.stop-injury.ca/documents/...adInjuries.pdf

I wear not because of the law, I wear because my head is worth it.

Well, you used the words "argument" and "helmets" in the subject so observe this thread going down the gutters quickly when the trolls from A&S find it

Adam

OK... my bad.

I have to say, I've never ventured into A&S. If there's this much anger in that room, it can't be a happy place.

Well, it doesn't take much time on these boards to understand that a post like yours would ignite a debate and you've been here a year.

You posted straight away after someone showed up with the popcorn saying you knew someone would show up with popcorn. I wonder why.

There is such a thing called free will and you can do what you like and post what you like where ever you like, but when you lead in with a ridiculous comment, don't be surprised when someone points out the obvious.

That's my reason too. I realize bike helmets are not a guarantee that my head will be safe, but it's better than nothing IMO. And if I get hurt while wearing one, at least nobody will be asking "what if?" and the judgment of doing something "dangerous" such as riding a bike won't be questioned as much. Oh, and I've had two bike accidents in my life where I hit my head on the ground and I was wearing a helmet both times. Didn't get seriously hurt either time, but one of those falls was hard enough to give me temporary amnesia. On those occasions, I was very glad to have one.

I replied to the popcorn as I still think it's kinda funny that people get so angry over this. But, the purpose of my post was to merely to provide information. If I find an article/blogpost where someone has injuries related to wearing a helmet, I'll post that too.

My dad taught me to consider all the alternatives, and make my own choices. I still think that's good advice.

My take would be someone who uses "argument" in a thread title, but then says he doesn't want to ignite a debate, is being a bit disingenuous.

well consider the alternative that cyclists are no more prone to head injury than anyone else. That all of cyclings head injuries are a small drop in the bucket compared to what most people enter a hospital for treatment of a head injury for. That far more people receive head injuries from simple falls, driving in cars, or using the stairs. That seniors receive an inordinately higher rate of head injury than anyone else.

Maybe it's time to consider it's prevention rather than mitigation that's a far superior form of injury reduction.

CB, I don't know if you wear a helmet or not.... I don't care, it's really none of my business. If your opinion differs from mine, I'm very ok with that. At the end of the day you have to weigh your pros and cons make your choices and be happy with them.

But if you get angry every time someone presents you with information that contradicts your beliefs, you're going to live an angry life. Chill a little, I really didn't mean to get anyone all steamed up.

You shouldn't wear a hard hat or steel-toe boots on a job site either. I mean, after all, if a 3 ton I-beam falls on you, a hart hat isn't going to save your life.

Same argument, different application.

Actually, this happened to one of my friend. His back-bone was broken, but he didn't get the head injury.

and I don't really care what you think or do either, but when you post that you don't want to ignite a debate, while posting what you did, you're either lying or not understanding what it is that you posted.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're just a bit oblivious to your contradictions. I'll even give you that you didn't want to get anyone all steamed up, but I'd be pretty surprised to find you weren't expecting some kind of visceral reaction by posting a link to the image you did.

every piece of equipment has a limitation. Limitations that are exceeded pretty much eliminates the equipments benefits.

Don't go there then I haven't seen a forum that mad and mean and so full of drooling trolls yet and I survived Mac vs. PC, ATI vs. Nvidia etc. wars, it's really that bad

Adam

Argument:

"Discourse intended to persuade."
"A coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion."

In a non-totalitarian society, you need not be persuaded nor do you have to agree with the conclusion.

This argument was provided by the person who posted the blog entry. I was merely re-posting it so that people who are still making up their minds (as I was a long time ago) might be able to consider this viewpoint. I stated my disclaimers. I don't see the contradictions.

That you choose to define Argument as "Quarrel or Disagreement" speaks to your mindset.

I'll be looking forward to that. There's lots of information on this.

Here's a start.

Lets see if you can find some others.

So you want to persuade without opposition?

Healthy debate is good. Anger generally is not. I've read the link that you posted and I'm unconvinced, but I'm not angred by it. In fact I found it rather amusing.

You might want to start somewhere else. I didn't look through all the links that were listed there but the ones I checked (that actually worked) were stories about cyclists who were killed while wearing a helmet, - not injured or killed because they were wearing a helmet.

If your argument is that a helmet is not always going to save you I don't think you'll find many that disagree.