The only thing I like less than closed threads, is being unable to have a civilized conversation.

Zealotry tends to shut things down but it doesn't stop the issue. Issues can't be improved or settled unless they can be discussed.

Because accusing people who dare ask a simple question of insanity is civilized:

So, here's the question again:

Do bike helmets help prevent head injury while biking?

Why do you have to resort to name calling instead of providing a simple answer? Heck, I'm not even asking you to provide supporting research to your answer.

Here it is again, that "uncivilized" graphical representation of seven different studies of bicycle helmet effectiveness in preventing head injuries, all of which show SIGNIFICANT protection:

http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/pr...es/helmet1.gif

Yes, posting that is "uncivilized" and prevents discussion.

All because I'm "stupid" for daring to say that studies on DIFFERENT SUBJECTS like helmet ventilation or prevention of PEDESTRIAN injures that say things like "helmets MAY prevent injury" don't refute the multiple studies directly investigating bike helmet injury prevention presented in that graph.

Since the thread can't remain open without turning into a WWE cage match, I'm closing it. Gentlemen, agree to disagree and move on. The choice as to whether to wear a helmet or not is an individual one, and if you want to smack your skull onto the pavement unprotected, that's your choice. Helmet or no helmet is apparently that divisive a topic. The zealotry is not limited to just one side of the debate, either. If you want to continue this discussion, take it to A&S.