Should I start carrying a gun around too?

Given a pretty obvious look at where the helmet took the force, and where that would have been on your head, then running the numbers of how much pressure it takes to crack a skull, and then how likely bruising and inflammation on the brain would be, I'd say you could make a pretty good assertion to the resulting injury and severity of said injury. What specifically are you not sure on? Impact on helmet would be skull without helmet. Said impact on skull would result in some effect on skull, and encased brain, no? Perhaps I'm not clear on basic physics?

Joe

Depends largely on your surroundings. If you're going into an area where everyone else is armed (like say, people in cars are armed with airbags, talking on cell phones, and pushing a few thousand pounds of metal around) then yeah, you should most likely have SOME sort of protection, although a kevlar vest would be a better analogy for the gun thing. Funny how Police wear them all the time, even when they don't plan to get shot, huh?

Joe

There's no logical argument against wearing a helmet. To wit:

RS Thompson, FP Rivara, and DC Thompson

Abstract
Bicycling accidents cause many serious injuries and, in the United States, about 1300 deaths per year, mainly from head injuries. Safety helmets are widely recommended for cyclists, but convincing evidence of their effectiveness is lacking. Over one year we conducted a case-control study in which the case patients were 235 persons with head injuries received while bicycling, who sought emergency care at one of five hospitals. One control group consisted of 433 persons who received emergency care at the same hospitals for bicycling injuries not involving the head. A second control group consisted of 558 members of a large health maintenance organization who had had bicycling accidents during the previous year. Seven percent of the case patients were wearing helmets at the time of their head injuries, as compared with 24 percent of the emergency room controls and 23 percent of the second control group. Of the 99 cyclists with serious brain injury only 4 percent wore helmets. In regression analyses to control for age, sex, income, education, cycling experience, and the severity of the accident, we found that riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in their risk of head injury (odds ratio, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.29) and an 88 percent reduction in their risk of brain injury (odds ratio, 0.12; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.40). We conclude that bicycle safety helmets are highly effective in preventing head injury. Helmets are particularly important for children, since they suffer the majority of serious head injuries from bicycling accidents.

I find it rather amusing that you link an anecdotal example as an argument for wearing a helmet and are unconvinced by the same thing from a different point of view.

It's not hard to see that this topic is far from clear cut and is quite controversial. To have a balanced view of it is sadly lacking. I certainly got the impression that you'd said you'd be open to look at all sides of the issue and not just one. What other sites have you visited that may present some evidence that challenges the anecdotal information you've presented so far?

Are we going to post photos of aborted fetuses as well ?

much worse

If you fall for this "study" you're not up on the debate.

The authors themselves have discounted these findings and significantly reduced the reduction figures in their update in 1996. They admitted they made a mistake in calculations as they admitted (in the original report) that the helmeted groups were more cautious and had less severe falls than the unhelmeted group.

Few realize these injuries were all from simple falls from bicycles. That the 85% figure was only applicable to children less than 4 years old (the 10 to 14 year old group had a 23% reduction) and that the helmeted group had better access to health care so the unhelmeted group only went for health care if their injuries were severe.

Fewer realize that the author of this study was selected to design the study because he had previously been known as a helmet promoter and I was shocked to find out when I emailed the foundation that paid for the study, that they did so because they wanted to show that helmets were effective. Not to find if they were effective, they had their conclusion in mind before the study was designed. They were actually paid for their certifications, so the more helmets that were sold, the more money they made.

This wasn't such a surprise when I found an engineer who worked with Bell helmets who said Bell supplied half the funding for the foundation who funded the study. That helmet promotion groups who use this study in it's promotions are sponsored by Bell helmets is no surprise either.

It's all a marketing ploy. Modern helmets were around long before this study came along and they weren't much different. The attitude towards them changed after this bit of promotion campaign started.

Yeah. maybe someone should have used some protection, eh?

I'm unconvinced when someone compares the statistics and mortality rates of falling out of bed or falling down stairs to that of cycling. This is just my opinion, but the comparison makes no sense and has no statistical relevance (any statisticians out there?). The only relevant comparison would be mortality rates in these situations (falling down stairs/out of bed) between those who wear helmets and those who don't (and yes, that's ridiculous). Even that would be meaningless without knowing the age and relative health of the victims. Furthermore, you would need a statistically relevant population (n number) to make any data meaningful. That "x" number of people have died falling out of bed means absolutely nothing, especially relative to the mortality rate in cycling. That someone would make that argument is amusing.

I also agree that any statistics about whether it's safer to ride while wearing a helmet vs. not, would likely be misleading. The population would have to be large enough to outweigh anomolies and it is my hope that there aren't enough people landing on their heads, helmet or not, to produce a statistically viable sample.

My example/argument showed a specific result of a cycling injury of someone who wasn't wearing a helmet, and by their own admission wishes that they had. Is it statistically relevant? no... I didn't make that argument. Is it relevant to cycling? My opinion is yes. I did also note in the original post that she admitted that her behavior was risky, but even riding presumably safely doesn't guarantee that you won't land on your head if you had an equipment failure.

That this makes you so angry, has given me more amusement than you can know.

If you are so concerned that "nobody will be asking 'what if?' " should you get hurt/killed "while doing something 'dangerous' such as riding a bike, " then I suggest you stop riding a bike immediately for your peace of mind.

You can then rest assured that nobody will be ever be weeping over your foolish decisions and saying about you "what if he only hadn't been riding a bicycle, then this never would have happened!"

Or ride a recumbent instead where you can't go flying over the handlebars

you could read up a bit from a neutral source of info such as wiki's bicycle helmet page.

Contributions come from all sides of the debate and there are over 100 sources of reference papers to back up the contributions.

Anybody who has to fall back on anyone-in-the-world-can-edit-it Wiki as an "authoritative source" is desperate.

Just read the discussion about that Wiki page:

just where did anyone say wiki is an authoritative source? It's a starting point that offers references from both sides of the debate to be examined.

As the discussion on your Wiki page alluded to, there are no "both sides of the debate" as to whether bicycle helmets help prevent head injuries.

Why is exactly why you won't answer the simple question: "Do bike helmets help prevent head injuries?"

you've been here for a month. I've been discussing this issue here for 7 years. I've been researching it for 12 years. Do yourself a favor and try to learn a little bit before you stick your foot in your mouth.

Irreleveant and just more ad hominem.

Wow, you PUBLISHED your PEER-REVIEWED research?

Where?

Where is this PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC research that shows no injury-risk reduction when wearing a bike helmet strongly enough to utterly refute all TEN OR SO that I linked that all show a DRAMATIC reduction in head-injury risk when wearing a bike helmet?

It's not if you haven't done any research and don't know what you're talking about.


Nope, but I am a newspaper columnist for a nationally syndicated chain specializing in cycling issues that didn't have to apply for the job. I was solicited by my editor who had read some of my opinions and lobbied the chain to hire me.



do yourself a favor and lok at wiki for that peer reviewed research

So, if you've done all this research and know the issue inside and out, and understand it thoroughly. You can answer the question: Do bike helmets help protect against head injuries?




So, you're an OPINION writer....





I did. It's not there.

All your "refutations" of SOME of the articles I linked fail to get to the heart of the matter:

Do bike helmets help prevent head injuries?

Simple question, simple answer.

Which you refuse to provide.

CB, where would we read your columns? I'm a sucker for newspapers.

I appear to have scared him off.

Heck, I've gone without a helmet many times. But at least I can acknowledge the fact that helmets DO help prevent head injuries, and when I don't wear a helmet it's because I either forgot (oops), or simply don't want to. Neither of which is a logical argument against wearing a helmet.

Me too.

Every now and then, I wouldn't mind riding without a helmet; the place I get my haircut is only a few blocks from home, but my wife and my son request that I always wear my helmet, and that's enough for me. I hope their position on this doesn't make anyone angry.

This is always funny to me...this and basing someone's credibility on their number of posts. It's not just here either, I've seen it in non-cycling forums as well.

Can't some clueless guy sit around all day posting opinions and end up with a ton of posts, but still be clueless? And there are some pretty good riders, mechanics, and all around knowledgeable bike guys out there who have never heard of this forum (If you want statistics just let me know, I'll go create a wiki post to back it up and post it here).

Of course you may be familiar with someone based on how often they post, but blindly assuming someone knows nothing and dismissing their opinion because they just recently joined the forum is ridiculous. The joining of bikeforums.net does not equal your birth into the cycling world or mean you've just recently started riding a bike.