View Poll Results: What Are Your Helmet Wearing Habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
52
10.40%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
24
4.80%
I've always worn a helmet
208
41.60%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
126
25.20%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
90
18.00%
Voters: 500. You may not vote on this poll
The Helmet Thread 2
02-08-19, 02:54 PM
#2751
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
But it's not "The" Helmet Thread. Yet. We can't abandon reason and indulge in disparagement until it gets moved.
and to be fair ... while the number of fatalities needs to be normalized by population, it doesn't necessarily harm the conclusion. But the drop in total number of trips does.
and to be fair ... while the number of fatalities needs to be normalized by population, it doesn't necessarily harm the conclusion. But the drop in total number of trips does.
Last edited by wphamilton; 02-08-19 at 02:58 PM.
02-08-19, 03:13 PM
#2752
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,539
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,537 Times
in
1,859 Posts
My issue is the fuzzy math, the fuzzy logic, and the bold but unsupported conclusion.
I see this a Lot in my job. "Scientists" often funded by trade groups) do studies, and then extrapolate wholly ridiculous claims .... they write good headlines to sell the research (or to make the research popular, not to actually sell it for money.) Then a lot of media hacks who need to post a certain number of words daily suck up the press package, change six or eight words, and regurgitate the press release without even looking at the actual research. This creates the media buzz the people who funded the study were looking for. This gets the scientists better access to future funding and creates false "scientific facts" which people with zero understanding of science then quote all day long as if they were true.
What harms the conclusion is the number of rides, the population, the lights, the bike infrastructure, and every other thing which would have a bearing on the conclusion. A good scientist doesn't ignore inconvenient facts, he goes out of his way to include them, mention them, even if ----Especially if---those facts might affect the accuracy of the conclusion.
What we have nowadays is mostly popularized pseudo-science journalism ---in effect science fiction---as a new job category. This is an excellent example.
I see this a Lot in my job. "Scientists" often funded by trade groups) do studies, and then extrapolate wholly ridiculous claims .... they write good headlines to sell the research (or to make the research popular, not to actually sell it for money.) Then a lot of media hacks who need to post a certain number of words daily suck up the press package, change six or eight words, and regurgitate the press release without even looking at the actual research. This creates the media buzz the people who funded the study were looking for. This gets the scientists better access to future funding and creates false "scientific facts" which people with zero understanding of science then quote all day long as if they were true.
What harms the conclusion is the number of rides, the population, the lights, the bike infrastructure, and every other thing which would have a bearing on the conclusion. A good scientist doesn't ignore inconvenient facts, he goes out of his way to include them, mention them, even if ----Especially if---those facts might affect the accuracy of the conclusion.
What we have nowadays is mostly popularized pseudo-science journalism ---in effect science fiction---as a new job category. This is an excellent example.
02-08-19, 03:51 PM
#2753
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: France
Posts: 1,030
Bikes: Brompton, Time, Bianchi, Jan Janssen, Peugeot
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
[QUOTE=Maelochs;20785559]Insurance companies.
Yes, but take a look back at your post, from a neutral's point of view. It did seem to lack a bit of logic at some points, and not be terribly well argued, either. Besides, I put the original post up because I thought it might interest people, not cause a few them to sputter in ill-defined anger. After all you were being sarcastic at points yourself - at least, i thought you were. Anyway, enough of the pot calling the kettle black, let's agree to differ - although I'm pretty sure we both know we are right and the other person wrong 
Anyway, taking it from the top, do you not understand cyclists use the road, as do cars, and pedestrians the pavements? [/quote** No, Captain Pomposity, i didn't know that. Really. Seriously, can you not debate a topic without trying to demean the people who don't agree with you? Maybe reading is Fun-damental never made it to your school? (See, you don't like it when people demean you ... so think about it next time.) I never suggested helmets lessen pedestrian deaths. What i said was that the people who did the study noted that both cycling and pedestrian deaths went down .... and they could not account for the drop in pedestrian deaths, which means they didn't understand some parts of the changing mechanics of the situation ... perhaps deaths of No-Car Road Users dropped because drivers started being more ware of non-car-road users? I have seen that in a lot of places I have lived. But, hey, feel free to argue against whatever, whether I said it or someone else or no one.
Utter lack of reading comprehension for the total loss. What I said was that possibly, because of the news coverage in Australia about the changes in bicycle law and the encouragement to have cyclists wear helmets in compliance with the law, more drivers thought more about cyclists. Why you would think drivers could see cyclists better because the cyclists were wearing helmets ... yeah,. Whatever. if anyone had said that, it would have been a ridiculous thing to say.
Whose "beloved driver?" Had to resort to ad hominem again because you ran out of logic?
Try to understand this: In the U.S. drunk driving used to be widely accepted. over a span of a few decades, ad campaigns ot change that attitude and redefine drunk driving as a selfish, dangerous, and socially unacceptable behavior were very effective. Law enforcement jumped on board, and drunk driving (and the tolerance thereof) went Way down.
By the same mechanic----"Share the Road" ad campaigns have drastically altered the average drivers's view of cyclists (based on the reactions I get from drivers now versus several decades ago when such campaigns started. More drivers accept cyclists as legitimate road users and fewer throw things, swerve, or shout threats. See the correspondence? Public ad campaigns affected both drunk driving and cycling safety? Clear now?
Because i started riding in the 1960s and have seen a dramatic increase in people biking over the years.. Are you prepared to state that bicycle use has Not increased in Australia since 1070? Are you prepared to back that up with research data? Otherwise, you are just bickering, not actually debating.
As for the rest .... I know that data has been posted here several times showing that a large percentage of the under 1000 people killed annually on bikes in the U.S. were either riding ninja, salmoning, or drunk. So in those cases, it is unlikely they were wearing helmets. How many such deaths occur in Australia? How many of those were wearing helmets? In those cases ... simply sing lights, following the laws, and not riding drunk would likely prevent any death or injury. Helmets are not so much a factor as smart operating.
As for "estimate," again, you seem to need to insult me, and cannot simply discuss this like an adult. Yes, I know what ;'estimate" means. In this case, these people built a mathematical model based on deaths during a 20-year period, invented a method for calculating how many riders were actually riding then, invented another method to estimate how many riders are riding now, and estimated, based on their made-up growth rate (it is notoriously hard to track miles ridden, conditions, and number of riders---if you are honest you will admit this) and basically Invented a number, based on vague statistics, which Within Their Model (not in reality) corresponded to a growth in cycling fatalities. They then assumed that all reductions in deaths were due helmets .... not bike lanes, not an increase in awareness of cyclists, not hi-vis clothes and the ready availability of bike lights (I am not sure if people who have not been riding for decades understand how amazing our lighting options are now, versus even 30 years ago--I can buy more candlepower today than ever before and for far, far less money, i don't need a huge battery or a heavy, bulky, expensive generator, I can get ten to fifty times the brightness out of a tail light and because of improved battery tech can have really bright lights All the time---I am Tremendously more visible (and thus less likely to get hit) just because I can put so much light on my bike so cheaply,) not "share-the-road" campaigns ..... they decided that helmets were the sole significant difference.
Yeah, I understand scientific studies pretty well.
Say ... do you understand that people can disagree and not have to ridicule each other? How about if you do, in your next post you try that?
Utter lack of reading comprehension for the total loss. What I said was that possibly, because of the news coverage in Australia about the changes in bicycle law and the encouragement to have cyclists wear helmets in compliance with the law, more drivers thought more about cyclists. Why you would think drivers could see cyclists better because the cyclists were wearing helmets ... yeah,. Whatever. if anyone had said that, it would have been a ridiculous thing to say.
Whose "beloved driver?" Had to resort to ad hominem again because you ran out of logic?
Try to understand this: In the U.S. drunk driving used to be widely accepted. over a span of a few decades, ad campaigns ot change that attitude and redefine drunk driving as a selfish, dangerous, and socially unacceptable behavior were very effective. Law enforcement jumped on board, and drunk driving (and the tolerance thereof) went Way down.
By the same mechanic----"Share the Road" ad campaigns have drastically altered the average drivers's view of cyclists (based on the reactions I get from drivers now versus several decades ago when such campaigns started. More drivers accept cyclists as legitimate road users and fewer throw things, swerve, or shout threats. See the correspondence? Public ad campaigns affected both drunk driving and cycling safety? Clear now?
Because i started riding in the 1960s and have seen a dramatic increase in people biking over the years.. Are you prepared to state that bicycle use has Not increased in Australia since 1070? Are you prepared to back that up with research data? Otherwise, you are just bickering, not actually debating.
As for the rest .... I know that data has been posted here several times showing that a large percentage of the under 1000 people killed annually on bikes in the U.S. were either riding ninja, salmoning, or drunk. So in those cases, it is unlikely they were wearing helmets. How many such deaths occur in Australia? How many of those were wearing helmets? In those cases ... simply sing lights, following the laws, and not riding drunk would likely prevent any death or injury. Helmets are not so much a factor as smart operating.
As for "estimate," again, you seem to need to insult me, and cannot simply discuss this like an adult. Yes, I know what ;'estimate" means. In this case, these people built a mathematical model based on deaths during a 20-year period, invented a method for calculating how many riders were actually riding then, invented another method to estimate how many riders are riding now, and estimated, based on their made-up growth rate (it is notoriously hard to track miles ridden, conditions, and number of riders---if you are honest you will admit this) and basically Invented a number, based on vague statistics, which Within Their Model (not in reality) corresponded to a growth in cycling fatalities. They then assumed that all reductions in deaths were due helmets .... not bike lanes, not an increase in awareness of cyclists, not hi-vis clothes and the ready availability of bike lights (I am not sure if people who have not been riding for decades understand how amazing our lighting options are now, versus even 30 years ago--I can buy more candlepower today than ever before and for far, far less money, i don't need a huge battery or a heavy, bulky, expensive generator, I can get ten to fifty times the brightness out of a tail light and because of improved battery tech can have really bright lights All the time---I am Tremendously more visible (and thus less likely to get hit) just because I can put so much light on my bike so cheaply,) not "share-the-road" campaigns ..... they decided that helmets were the sole significant difference.
Yeah, I understand scientific studies pretty well.
Say ... do you understand that people can disagree and not have to ridicule each other? How about if you do, in your next post you try that?
02-08-19, 04:21 PM
#2754
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,539
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,537 Times
in
1,859 Posts
I do not think you are wrong, Avole ... I think the article you cited ans the study it cited are wrong. I think the headline is outrageous---Nothing about science can determine that bicycle helmets are "a must." that is just click-bait headline writing.
but ... if the hed was "a study shows that bicycle helmets could potentially prevent an undefined number of hypothetical fatalities" n one would click on it. So we get sensationalized pseudo-science based on junk science, and then people cite that trash as support for invasive and unnecessary legislation, or use it ti support arguments which didn't need to be started int he first place.
There is "right" and "wrong" in science---inaccurate data, incorrect data analysis, and claiming unsupported hypotheses to be proven. There is "right" and "wrong" in journalism ... again, inaccurate or misinterpreted data, false conclusions, invented theorems .... but in science and in journalism, standards have pretty much gone out the window.
There is no "wrong" or "right" about wearing a helmet.
However ... If I posted "person X does some unmentionable thing with a family member on a bicycle" and had nothing to back it up ... I am sure you could see why some of person X's family members might be upset, and even any decent person with a sense of honesty and propriety might be upset. "Let's not stoop to making unfounded accusations and imaginary claims here, alright?" Not many people would disagree I hope.
So, in this case, I say, Let's not stoop to making unfounded accusations and imaginary claims here, alright?
Wear your helmet if you choose, though. I have never in my life suggested that anyone not wear a helmet, or that there should be a law forbidding people whose chose to wear helmets, to wear them.
but ... if the hed was "a study shows that bicycle helmets could potentially prevent an undefined number of hypothetical fatalities" n one would click on it. So we get sensationalized pseudo-science based on junk science, and then people cite that trash as support for invasive and unnecessary legislation, or use it ti support arguments which didn't need to be started int he first place.
There is "right" and "wrong" in science---inaccurate data, incorrect data analysis, and claiming unsupported hypotheses to be proven. There is "right" and "wrong" in journalism ... again, inaccurate or misinterpreted data, false conclusions, invented theorems .... but in science and in journalism, standards have pretty much gone out the window.
There is no "wrong" or "right" about wearing a helmet.
However ... If I posted "person X does some unmentionable thing with a family member on a bicycle" and had nothing to back it up ... I am sure you could see why some of person X's family members might be upset, and even any decent person with a sense of honesty and propriety might be upset. "Let's not stoop to making unfounded accusations and imaginary claims here, alright?" Not many people would disagree I hope.
So, in this case, I say, Let's not stoop to making unfounded accusations and imaginary claims here, alright?
Wear your helmet if you choose, though. I have never in my life suggested that anyone not wear a helmet, or that there should be a law forbidding people whose chose to wear helmets, to wear them.
02-08-19, 08:08 PM
#2755
20+mph Commuter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Greenville. SC USA
Posts: 7,520
Bikes: Surly LHT, Surly Lowside, a folding bike, and a beater.
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1435 Post(s)
Liked 336 Times
in
221 Posts
No one is arguing that under a very narrow set of circumstances a bicycle helmet MIGHT reduce the severity of an injury.
No one is arguing that tobacco use is unhealthy at least and deadly at most.
I am offended by second-hand smoke. I am NOT offended by seeing someone riding a bicycle without a safety helmet. I do not feel compelled to tell EITHER of them how to handle their health concerns.
Until every tobacco product is banned under law, leave the bare-headed folks alone. First things first. People worry about the wrong things sometime.
Isn't there a special Helmet Thread?
No one is arguing that tobacco use is unhealthy at least and deadly at most.
I am offended by second-hand smoke. I am NOT offended by seeing someone riding a bicycle without a safety helmet. I do not feel compelled to tell EITHER of them how to handle their health concerns.
Until every tobacco product is banned under law, leave the bare-headed folks alone. First things first. People worry about the wrong things sometime.
Isn't there a special Helmet Thread?
02-08-19, 10:02 PM
#2757
Senior Member
Nobody is addressing the reason for the bicycle helmet: bad drivers.
I guess it's easier to legislate bicycle helmets than good driving.
I guess it's easier to legislate bicycle helmets than good driving.
02-09-19, 12:30 AM
#2758
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: France
Posts: 1,030
Bikes: Brompton, Time, Bianchi, Jan Janssen, Peugeot
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
Unfortunately there is a right and wrong
I do not think you are wrong, Avole ... I think the article you cited ans the study it cited are wrong. I think the headline is outrageous---Nothing about science can determine that bicycle helmets are "a must." that is just click-bait headline writing.
but ... if the hed was "a study shows that bicycle helmets could potentially prevent an undefined number of hypothetical fatalities" n one would click on it. So we get sensationalized pseudo-science based on junk science, and then people cite that trash as support for invasive and unnecessary legislation, or use it ti support arguments which didn't need to be started int he first place.
There is "right" and "wrong" in science---inaccurate data, incorrect data analysis, and claiming unsupported hypotheses to be proven. There is "right" and "wrong" in journalism ... again, inaccurate or misinterpreted data, false conclusions, invented theorems .... but in science and in journalism, standards have pretty much gone out the window.
There is no "wrong" or "right" about wearing a helmet.
However ... If I posted "person X does some unmentionable thing with a family member on a bicycle" and had nothing to back it up ... I am sure you could see why some of person X's family members might be upset, and even any decent person with a sense of honesty and propriety might be upset. "Let's not stoop to making unfounded accusations and imaginary claims here, alright?" Not many people would disagree I hope.
So, in this case, I say, Let's not stoop to making unfounded accusations and imaginary claims here, alright?
Wear your helmet if you choose, though. I have never in my life suggested that anyone not wear a helmet, or that there should be a law forbidding people whose chose to wear helmets, to wear them.
but ... if the hed was "a study shows that bicycle helmets could potentially prevent an undefined number of hypothetical fatalities" n one would click on it. So we get sensationalized pseudo-science based on junk science, and then people cite that trash as support for invasive and unnecessary legislation, or use it ti support arguments which didn't need to be started int he first place.
There is "right" and "wrong" in science---inaccurate data, incorrect data analysis, and claiming unsupported hypotheses to be proven. There is "right" and "wrong" in journalism ... again, inaccurate or misinterpreted data, false conclusions, invented theorems .... but in science and in journalism, standards have pretty much gone out the window.
There is no "wrong" or "right" about wearing a helmet.
However ... If I posted "person X does some unmentionable thing with a family member on a bicycle" and had nothing to back it up ... I am sure you could see why some of person X's family members might be upset, and even any decent person with a sense of honesty and propriety might be upset. "Let's not stoop to making unfounded accusations and imaginary claims here, alright?" Not many people would disagree I hope.
So, in this case, I say, Let's not stoop to making unfounded accusations and imaginary claims here, alright?
Wear your helmet if you choose, though. I have never in my life suggested that anyone not wear a helmet, or that there should be a law forbidding people whose chose to wear helmets, to wear them.
Your wrong and right argument is entirely fallacious. Wearing a helmet is a basic safety measure, whether you like it or not, and to argue against it remarkably silly. As to science, have you ever wondered why helmets are an accepted norm in many sports, industries and so on. It helps PREVENT serious injury to that vital human organ, the brain. Personally, if I go through my cycling life wearing a helmet without ever bring in a situation where it was required I’ll be delighted. As you surely you should be aware, a device that helps prevent injury does not is just that. I do not expect to get thrown around an aircraft by turbulence on a flight, but I am not stupid enough to ignore the advice re seatbelts.
I don’t wish to be hard, but do not understand where you are coming from. As mentioned, your ‘right and wrong’ argument is simply incorrect. If you were a scientist or a journalist, you would understand that, and why. As to your ‘unmentionable ‘ things argument, it is not an analogy, more an attempt to trivialise in a particularly nasty way.
02-09-19, 01:30 AM
#2759
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,539
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,537 Times
in
1,859 Posts
Okay ... I tried to be nice. Now you are being a mule. We are done. it was almost nice almost having a discussion with you.
02-09-19, 01:36 AM
#2760
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,009
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2507 Post(s)
Liked 745 Times
in
526 Posts
Actually a negative interaction with a car while you are on a bicycle is likely to produce impacts that no helmet can save you from. If all you care about is your precious brain, I suppose a helmet is better than nothing but being a C5 quadriplegic has little attraction for me. 50% of serious bike accidents DO NOT involve a car! Cyclists are capable of getting into plenty of trouble on their own. Motorcyclists as well.
02-09-19, 01:59 AM
#2761
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,009
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2507 Post(s)
Liked 745 Times
in
526 Posts
As I said earlier, there is no such law in Portland, OR. I don't feel like looking up just how many other American states or cities have no law requiring adults to wear bicycle helmets but Portland can't be the only one. I am 60 years old. I came of age in the 1970's. I must have been riding a good 20 years before anything called a helmet came along. Even then no one I knew had actually seen one in real life. I commuted 6 miles each way in NYC traffic between 1988 and 2001 sans helmete. Actually I got my first and only helmet when I moved to Portland in 2008 and only because me and mine wanted to join a tandem club and helmets were mandatory for the group rides. I've had two or three bad falls on a bicycle that never caused impacts to my skull. I had one bad crash on a motorcycle that did involve impact to my skull but I was wearing a helmet. I don't think a law requiring cyclists to wear helmets because it is safer is as easy to justify as it might be for motorcyclists. The push-back you are getting is that you are preaching your helmet adoption as a proven factor in survival outcomes. That may be the case in Australia but it doesn't appear to be the case in the United States.
02-09-19, 02:04 AM
#2762
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: France
Posts: 1,030
Bikes: Brompton, Time, Bianchi, Jan Janssen, Peugeot
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
I also don't think calling anyone names on a forum is a good idea - tends to reflect more on the caller than the callee..Speak to you anon no doubt.
02-09-19, 02:21 AM
#2763
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: France
Posts: 1,030
Bikes: Brompton, Time, Bianchi, Jan Janssen, Peugeot
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
As I said earlier, there is no such law in Portland, OR. I don't feel like looking up just how many other American states or cities have no law requiring adults to wear bicycle helmets but Portland can't be the only one. I am 60 years old. I came of age in the 1970's. I must have been riding a good 20 years before anything called a helmet came along. Even then no one I knew had actually seen one in real life. I commuted 6 miles each way in NYC traffic between 1988 and 2001 sans helmete. Actually I got my first and only helmet when I moved to Portland in 2008 and only because me and mine wanted to join a tandem club and helmets were mandatory for the group rides. I've had two or three bad falls on a bicycle that never caused impacts to my skull. I had one bad crash on a motorcycle that did involve impact to my skull but I was wearing a helmet. I don't think a law requiring cyclists to wear helmets because it is safer is as easy to justify as it might be for motorcyclists. The push-back you are getting is that you are preaching your helmet adoption as a proven factor in survival outcomes. That may be the case in Australia but it doesn't appear to be the case in the United States.
As to your point about falls, that doesn't mean the next you won't do damage to the skull next time you do fall, or the time after, or the time after. Do wear the helmet, it is a basic safety measure.
I'm not a preacher, nor a necessarily a christian. I posted the original because I though it might interest cyclists in general. Australia has had the laws in for a while now, plus all the other adjuncts - cycle paths, bike parking etc. France has a high awareness of cyclists, and most do wear helmets, except in the cities where they often have their own lanes and style counts for rather too much
.
Last edited by avole; 02-09-19 at 03:16 AM.
02-09-19, 04:17 AM
#2764
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 980 Post(s)
Liked 776 Times
in
402 Posts
I have personally known cyclists that stated that they had a fall and their helmet saved them from a head injury.
I have read many accounts on this forum where members have clearly stated that wearing a helmet protected them from a head injury.
Funny though that I have never heard about or read about even one person credibly stating that wearing a helmet caused them to have a head injury.
I have occasionally read some nonsense about risk compensation though lol.
I have read many accounts on this forum where members have clearly stated that wearing a helmet protected them from a head injury.
Funny though that I have never heard about or read about even one person credibly stating that wearing a helmet caused them to have a head injury.
I have occasionally read some nonsense about risk compensation though lol.
02-09-19, 09:58 AM
#2766
Senior Member
02-09-19, 10:08 AM
#2767
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 6,208
Bikes: ...a few.
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked 410 Times
in
236 Posts
I know anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much here but I've been involved in two crashes in the past three years. One was my own fault and the other involved a car. I am thankful that both times I wore a helmet. So it amuses me that folks are arguing against the helmet as a piece of safety equipment.
02-09-19, 10:13 AM
#2768
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,995
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,546 Times
in
1,052 Posts
I have personally known cyclists that stated that they had a fall and their helmet saved them from a head injury.
I have read many accounts on this forum where members have clearly stated that wearing a helmet protected them from a head injury.
Funny though that I have never heard about or read about even one person credibly stating that wearing a helmet caused them to have a head injury.
I have occasionally read some nonsense about risk compensation though lol.
I have read many accounts on this forum where members have clearly stated that wearing a helmet protected them from a head injury.
Funny though that I have never heard about or read about even one person credibly stating that wearing a helmet caused them to have a head injury.
I have occasionally read some nonsense about risk compensation though lol.
BF posters make all sorts of statements about ideas/opinions they believe to be true.
A lot of the opinions held to be alleged "facts" ARE nonsense no matter how passionately held the belief in their objective reality.
Any BF thread on the subject of Bicycle Helmet Safety, especially when it includes heated rhetoric and specious arguments about their alleged effectiveness in risk reduction, will provide ample evidence of this sort of nonsense.
02-09-19, 10:16 AM
#2769
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,995
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,546 Times
in
1,052 Posts
02-09-19, 11:36 AM
#2770
20+mph Commuter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Greenville. SC USA
Posts: 7,520
Bikes: Surly LHT, Surly Lowside, a folding bike, and a beater.
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1435 Post(s)
Liked 336 Times
in
221 Posts
Do not forget that bike helmets increase the SIZE of your HEAD, which makes is substantially more likely that your head will hit the ground in the first place.
What about all of those cyclist involved in crashes where their heads missed the ground completely by an inch or so? They would have zero injuries to their heads as compared to if their helmet smacked the ground with their heads in them. Do they get counted in statistics? Do they say "I would have surely sustained brain damage had I been were wearing a helmet"?
(I wear a bike helmet BTW, just not for crash safety concerns).
What about all of those cyclist involved in crashes where their heads missed the ground completely by an inch or so? They would have zero injuries to their heads as compared to if their helmet smacked the ground with their heads in them. Do they get counted in statistics? Do they say "I would have surely sustained brain damage had I been were wearing a helmet"?
(I wear a bike helmet BTW, just not for crash safety concerns).
02-09-19, 01:22 PM
#2771
Full Member
I know a cyclist who a) insisted on wearing no helmet "because it doesn't look cool," b) crashed on an abandoned dirt mountain road in China, c) admitted to having a concussion and black out for at least a few minutes (but doesn't know for how long). d) He returned to the U.S. stating "maybe I should wear a helmet more often when cycling." Then, e) in the very same breath, insisted, on a 20 mile bike ride on country roads, NOT to wear a helmet. And this person relies on his brain for his profession.
02-09-19, 03:01 PM
#2772
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,539
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,537 Times
in
1,859 Posts
I know anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much here but I've been involved in two crashes in the past three years. One was my own fault and the other involved a car. I am thankful that both times I wore a helmet. So it amuses me that folks are arguing against the helmet as a piece of safety equipment.
I see two debates here. One is about the study, which some people accept without examining because it supports their biases.
The other is about mandatory helmet laws.
No one here has said that a helmet is not a piece of safety gear. No one has said that in some situations, it can prevent some injuries. Those are straw men thrown up by people who do not want a discussion, but rather want everyone to agree with their opinions.
If people used the slightest bit of intellectual honesty and rigor when discussing things here, we might actually have profitable discussions ... some folks might, anyway.
Man, do i miss the days when passionately held but logically unsupportable views were deemed less important than fact-based arguments ... or maybe I just miss being part of a community that actually cared about making logical, fact-based arguments.
02-09-19, 10:08 PM
#2774
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 980 Post(s)
Liked 776 Times
in
402 Posts
Cyclists (like everybody else) make all sorts of statements about ideas/opinions they believe to be true.
BF posters make all sorts of statements about ideas/opinions they believe to be true.
A lot of the opinions held to be alleged "facts" ARE nonsense no matter how passionately held the belief in their objective reality.
Any BF thread on the subject of Bicycle Helmet Safety, especially when it includes heated rhetoric and specious arguments about their alleged effectiveness in risk reduction, will provide ample evidence of this sort of nonsense.
BF posters make all sorts of statements about ideas/opinions they believe to be true.
A lot of the opinions held to be alleged "facts" ARE nonsense no matter how passionately held the belief in their objective reality.
Any BF thread on the subject of Bicycle Helmet Safety, especially when it includes heated rhetoric and specious arguments about their alleged effectiveness in risk reduction, will provide ample evidence of this sort of nonsense.
Way to completely miss the point. It only takes one.
You keep believing that every single person is clueless or lying about their own experience though 👍
Last edited by downhillmaster; 02-10-19 at 03:43 AM.
02-09-19, 11:17 PM
#2775
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,955
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4847 Post(s)
Liked 3,979 Times
in
2,584 Posts
I know I am just one data point but I would not be posting here if not for a helmet. (I don't know that I would had died. I might have survived in vegetative state.)
Ben
Ben