I that case helmet use would reduce head injuries and fatalities... yes? Since they *don't*, then what conclusion would you reach?

"Yes" "they" "do" "!" "What's" "the" "deal" "with" "the" "strange" "quotes" "?"

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00036941.htm

(Actually, I would say that establishing the benefit of helmets is difficult. Regardless, cherry picking "data" "doesn't" "prove" "that" "they" "have" "no" "value".)

The following site, which seems the "only" "source" "of" "contrary" "information", is very peculiar.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

While I incidently criticized this study earlier, looking at it more closely, I think it's great.

The value of the study was to reveal a possible secondary effect of wearing helmets. Since it is a study of one person in one place, it would not be reasonable to draw a general conclusion from it.

It doesn't address the primary purpose of the helmet. Note that it is quite possible that the effect would go away if everybody wore a helmet.

Please explain... cause this doesn't make any sense. They safely and happily ride around the city without helmets... sometimes with a kid or two or three hanging on (also without helmets). Surely they do fall down sometimes and get hurt... but they are seriously injured much less often than US riders. So what is "their little heads don't crack like American's heads do" supposed to mean?

My conclusion would be that you would be boned either way in that scenario.

I'll modify my statement a little; for collisions where it could go either way. A helmet wouldn't be a bad thing to be wearing.

A said previously. If you are roaring down a hill at 70kp/h...not much is going to help you if hit something.

All of the references in that page are old studies (thought experiments really) done before many riders wore helmets. Their assessments are based on the following flawed reasoning..."since most bicycle riders who are killed die of head injuries, and helmets would prevent most head injuries, then helmets would prevent a large percentage of cycling deaths".

But now we have actual data on how death rates have been effected by helmet use, and a large increase in helmet use (suddenly, in the case of MHLs), has not resulted in the hoped for reduction in fatalities. So apparently, supposing that helmets will make us safer just because they "obviously" protect our heads is missing an important piece of the puzzle.

Here are some more for you. The first page has a more links in the right margin.

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/mhls.htm
http://www.roble.net/marquis/cached/...elo1/velo.html

Oh, really? They are seriously injured much less than US riders? I'd love to know what bogus study you are going to quote to try and back those nonexistent statistics. Also, something you ignored (yet again, sigh) is that another member in here mentioned that you cannot compare the US to Denmark. I visited there in 1999 and rode a bike sans a helmet four days out of the 10 that I was there. I rode through Kisserup, Holbaek and Copenhagen. My experience is that bike accidents can just as easily happen there (personal observation as there were obstacles, traffic, etc., and my friend, a long time resident, took a spill coming out of his driveway - he was just lucky not to land on his head), but that the population as a whole is more aware and accepting of cyclists. Whether that makes it safer to ride there or not can very much be disputed, but you most definitely cannot compare their roads and traffic to ours.

As for my crack about their little heads, I was being sarcastic - obviously lost on you. You keep using hyperbole with no credible research to back it other than a link to a website that could have been thrown together by a group of stoner web geeks, and then you contradict yourself. You deciding that those women in the pictures you posted with glee are safe and "happy" out riding without helmets is just your musings. And just so you know, I ride around safely and happily with my helmet on.

Unless, you're now going to ponder the emotional state of those of us who wear helmets and claim us all to be Bipolar.:rolleyes:

Based upon what? Your personal conviction that it is somehow inherently reasonable to assume that helmets improve safety? It doesn't work that way. Let me remind you that I do not know whether helmets improve safety or not and have no rational confidence whatsoever in either position. Bold claims have NOTHING to do with how you feel about them.

By the way, your "no helmets are safer" position has no place in this debate. That is a claim entirely separate from the question of whether helmets reduce the risk of head injury. The only a priori assumption that we can make about helmets are that they neither decrease nor increase the risk of injury compared to riding bareheaded. Any other conclusion (helmets improve safety, helmets reduce safety) can only be determined a posteriori from gathered evidence. In short, both positions 1 and 2 are "bold" claims in need of evidence to support them. Do tell me if I'm going too fast for you.

And what do you think my "side," is again, pray tell? I don't think you're getting it.

See again statements about anecdotes and the extent to which they constitute data. People who work with head injuries are not somehow more objective than anyone else. Subjective judgments are not sufficient for this analysis, period, full stop.

Yes, there is some evidence. Indeed, there are those who will never consider it sufficient. Okay. Let me make something crystal clear: I am NOT making an argument for or against helmets! What I'm trying to get into your silly head is that your conviction that your position is the obviously correct one does not absolve helmet advocates from providing clear, unambiguous data to back up their claims!

Frankly, if you want to continue to believe that conflicting data from second and third-rate studies present a compelling, unambiguous case for helmets, I can't help you. The issue is up in the air. But what do I care? I wear my damn helmet anyway.

As for the personal opinions of head injury experts, it's a big world out there. There is more than one physicians' association out there that will not officially endorse helmet legislation precisely because of the lack of good data. We could cherry-pick facts and opinions all day. What's the point? I'm just trying to jar you out of your cognitive dissonance, I have little interest in which 'side' is correct.


Next time, try reading my words.

Exactly how many bicycle falls transpire in such a way as to render this little thought experiment even remotely relevant to the real world? Think carefully.

You know, my first boss was a contrarian, and my ex-wife always had to be right. Both are extremely pathological and messed-up character traits. And both types blatantly disregard logic (yeah logic - what a nuisance!). We've definitely got some (well, a lot) of that going on in this thread.

+1,000

Shoot me now - I think someone suggested stopping replying to this thread some time around 1953.

These things are not difficult to find via google. In 2002-2005 the death rate per 100 million km cycled, was:

US 5.8
UK 3.6
Germany 1.7
Denmark 1.5
Netherlands 1.1

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pu...resistible.pdf

Of course you are welcome to look up some yourself if you don't trust these for some reason.


There are plenty of ways to compare. They don't wear helmets and they ride around like maniacs (see photos of the ones carrying kids). There are a lot more cyclists. The car traffic isn't as bad. Their chances of getting killed are a lot less.

Were you happy riding around without a helmet on in Denmark? And you were surely safer there without it than you are in the US with it.

I really don't feel like digging through this mess... But the general discussion is always about car-accident deaths. Someone can argue to me as much as they want about how a helmet isn't going to do anything in that situation, or it "draws" cars closer, but the odds of me hitting a bad pothole or having a nasty front wheel taco are much more likely that getting hit by a car (coming from someone who's been hit). It is these day-to-day situations that the brain bucket is designed for, and has a real influence on the outcome of your crash (personal example= my dad before helmets were widely accepted, cracked his skull riding around the neighborhood!)

You guys are still here?

http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/c1f5dce205.jpg

Regarding potholes and obstacles. I can't speak for other countries but I know here, we never crash because of potholes. I kid you not! Why? We expect them - why do you think we go so slow? That and chickens, cows waiting to be milked and a stray snake or two. You crash because of potholes because either you were going too fast to avoid one or you weren't watching for them.

Speed kills folks, much more than a lack of helmet. This is my core reason for NOT wearing a helmet. I want to remind myself that I am unprotected instead of thinking that if I cover my noggin I am okay going too fast. Prevention is worth a lot more than a light piece of protection. The key - avoid accidents. If that means going slower - so be it.

Sorry folks, but these arguments about helmets always strike me as hypocritical when they are made by people who will post threads about how fast they have gone down hill. Sort of like someone yelling about people to wear their seat belt but who drives down the freeway at 100+ MPH. Once you go above a certain speed - the helmet isn't going to help much. Why don't people foam at the mouth about that? Honestly, I think we are attacking a sacred cow here. People so want to believe that the helmet is going to protect them when they are going fast and to suggest otherwise makes them reevaluate their activities - and one that they love.

I had a Volvo once that could go 140 MPH - and I went that fast. One of the dumber things I have done. If I had crashed, I would have been dead. Just because your bike can go fast - does that mean you should? Those who race should have whatever protective stuff they can find - but racing is inherently dangerous. It is the wrong message to send that tooling around on a bike at a reasonable speed is more dangerous than walking - because frankly, it isn't. The excercise benefits far outweigh danger. In England, on average, to be involved in a accident involving your head, you would have to ride 3,000 years.

Therefore, wearing the same kind of protection that you would to walk is appropriate. The reason kids should wear protective gear is obvious - they don't just ride - they jump obstacles and do all sorts of dangerous stunts - part of being and kid and thinking you are indestructable. Most serious bike accidents involve kids by the way. Many a parent would like to send Johnny out bubblewrapped - and given how Johnny plays, it might be appropriate!

personal experience shows me that crashing without a helmet can land in hospital with a fractured skull and the need to have the top half of your ear sewn back on from sliding along the road without a lid.

experience also shows that 2 other helemets destroyed in crashes, both racing (touch of wheels in front) and training that had to be replaced so I can ride again the next day.

Don't be a stooge. Put on the helmet, it wont fill you with dutch courage or attract cars and go enjoy your ride.

Or, you could say, "Don't race a bike and not expect to crash..."

You couldn't get me to race - too dangerous.

so you dont ride fast or race, because its dangerous and you might crash and that scares. So you rather not so you dont have to wear a helemet.

Exactly like the vast majority of the world. To say that wearing a helmet while racing (or being a wannabee racer) is at least SOME protection - cool. Notice the severity of the injuries WHILE wearing a helmet. But please, don't act like those of us who choose not to race are silly for not wearing a helmet.

We aren't the foolhardy ones - right?! Going at high speed with nothing around you besides air while pounding your chest about people who just ride around at relatively slow speeds for enjoyment seems pretty weird to me.

Does anyone disagree that the number ONE issue is speed?

Speed itself doesn't scare me - I rather like it personally. But I am realistic in knowing that a puny little helmet isn't going to help much if I crash and burn - so I don't. To me, that is a reasonable position.

Again - I am not suggesting people don't wear helmets - but at least acknowledge that it isn't the lack of helmet that is dangerous - it is the dangerous behavior itself, which normal riding of a bike, isn't.

Just to be clear - I rather not be in a neck brace - or paralized, so I don't race. A helmet won't help a bit against either of those two things - who knows, it might increase the odds since my scalp won't catch on things, but a helmet with holes in it just might.

Besides - I am nearly 50, I rather doubt I will ever compete at this point. But I do enjoy riding a bike.

You border on bizarre. :rolleyes: Those numbers above prove nothing. Those are not statistics regarding helmet use. Those numbers don't show how a person died when killed riding a bike (i.e. the cause of death precisely) nor do they reveal who was wearing a helmet during the time of accident (believe it or not, some Danes DO wear helmets). And for all you know, the deaths in the US could have been due to head injuries sustained while riding without a helmet. Maybe you need to go back to Google and try again?

There is no valid method to compare the two countries with respect to helmet use, deaths caused from accidents where a helmet would prove useful, etc. (we can't even do that here in the states). The size of our population alone coupled with our obsession with motor vehicles completely negates any substantive comparison. You may assume that their chances of getting killed by a car may be less, but you cannot assume that their chances of getting badly inured and/or killed are less if they were to fall and hit their heads (unless, again, you want to suggest that their little heads don't crack like our American heads do).

As for my riding in Denmark without a helmet, it made no difference one way or the other on my mood. I'm lucky I didn't have any type of bike accident in which my exposed head was injured. Lucky and that's all.

This is an argument against speed/racing/whatever. I do not see how this justifies not wearing a helmet. It is a horrible statement to say there is a high correlation between injury frequency and helmets. Just because your not racing or speeding doesn't mean that the unavoidable, unseen accident isn't going to hit you. That accident can happen at any speed. If you crash even at 5mph and your noggin is the first thing to hit the concrete/rock, you are not going to be walking away.
A human head can be compared to a melon right? Take a melon and drop it on concrete from 6ft or however tall you are. See what happens. Gravity itself is enough to crack your skull/cause serious brain damage. Riding a bike at any speed should require the use of a helmet.
At the same time, I don't know why I'm telling you or anyone to wear a helmet. It's your own fault if you injure yourself because not wearing a helmet, and ain't your mother so I don't have to give sympathy if you do.;) Darwinism at it's finest (and yes, you can say the same thing about speed).

Those numbers address your uh... comment, quite precisely... which was:"Oh, really? They are seriously injured much less than US riders? I'd love to know what bogus study you are going to quote to try and back those nonexistent statistics."

As for all the other issues you've brought up in the paragraph above, I've addressed those and more elsewhere in this thread. Those stats are not difficult to find either.

Obviously, evidence and logic are irrelevant in this discussion, since the pro-helmet group tend to view this as a religious issue... ie they wish to believe that helmets make them safe (or at least considerably safer) than riding without one, and the mountain of statistical evidence showing otherwise (and zero bolstering their claims) be damned. It is curious, because this attitude also seems particularly pervasive in our present attitudes toward politics and foreign policy, and our view of the world in general. What the hell has happened? I don't think things were this bad 10 years ago...

'Border on bizarre'? Mr. ruff crossed the border into Bizarro Land at the very beginning of this thread.

1 - my comment was in reference to this discussion about helmets, rruff, and you know that. You can't lump all deaths by bicycle into this discussion, obviously, which renders your google findings useless. Not to mention that my comment was about serious injury to those without helmets (i.e. head injuries) - stats you've not provided and can't.

2 - Really? - provide them then. You certainly haven't although you've grandstanded enough on this topic and your ample statistics to back up your opinion. So, where are they?

3 - "mountain of statistical evidence?" Again, you've provided nothing but a couple of links to websites that have no credibility and you make no sense.

4 - This isn't a religion to me, sir. I don't care whether you wear your helmet or not, but you coming on to this website promoting the ridiculous notion that helmets cause harm and do nothing to protect, while posting pics of Danish models on bikes and links to statistics that are not valid or relevant to this discussion, is something I'm speaking to.

Luckily, it's a free country. I can debate you all I want and you can not wear a helmet. Both of us run the risk of harming our heads - so, I'm officially done. I wish for you a sudden move to Denmark where you can ride helmet free and be happy. Really...please...move there.

Even on the other side of the world I will be happy (and able) to associate with you as easily as before.

BTW, if any hapless fools have wandered here who are actually interested in information regarding bicycle helmets and the statistics proving that they are completely ineffective at reducing fatalities, please search my posts in this thread. I am a bit weary... and I fear the helmet faithful will not rest until all the heathens are beaten down and banished...