A) Studies show that I'm at no greater risk of incurring head injuries while I am cycling than I do while walking, driving my car, showering, etc.
B) I do not wear a helmet while performing said activities.

Therefore, I chose not to wear a helmet while riding my bicycle.

Tell that to everyone who posts threads about why you should wear helmets then.

That is really messed up logic. I really hope you're yanking our chains.

How is that messed up? Explain it to me.

Oh, look, some more "refutation" from that same Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation:

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1034.html:

Quote:

Key facts about injury when cycling in perspective

So what? A cyclist is not a pedestrian nor a driver of any kind. Does not address the question of whether cycling helmets help prevent head injuries.

So what? A cyclist is not a pedestrian nor a motor vehicle occupant. Does not address the question of whether cycling helmets help prevent head injuries.

So what? A cyclist, even though he may very well be a child, is not a child engaged in jumping or falling. Does not address the question of whether cycling helmets help prevent head injuries.

So what? A road cyclist wasn't part of that "[m]ore than 99%". Does not address the question of whether cycling helmets help prevent head injuries.

So what? A cyclist is not a motorist, nor does he have the advantages of seat belts, interior padding, or air bags. Does not address the question of whether cycling helmets help prevent head injuries.

This entire page - which is linked to from the Wikipedia page on cycling helmet - tosses a bunch of utterly irrelevant stats in the air. It never once even tries to address the efficacy or lack thereof of bicycle helmets.

One would think the authors are deliberately trying to avoid a straight answer to the question as to whether or not bicycle helmets help to prevent head injuries.

And let's not forget official Wikipedia editor's opinions of the quality of the Wiki page on bike helmets:

Ouch.

Wow, looks like the "junk science" is coming from the "helmets aren't worth it" crowd.

Hmm, didn't closetbiker claim to have done "original research". Then he refers to the Wiki page in arguments to support his claims.

Circular argument at its best?

Look - "inappropriate citations" in the Wiki article on bike helmets.

Go talk to ten neurologists or neurosurgeons at a few local hospitals. Get their opinion. Then let them yell at you for not wearing a helmet.

First, what studies?

Where do they get accurate numbers for rates of injury, especially for a person who bikes a lot? Such a person is going to be a lot more physically fit than the average population, less susceptible to injury, and hopefully more coordinated.

Do you REALLY think biking in traffic is every bit as safe as walking from your living room to the toilet?

Also, none of that relates in any way to the question of whether or not you'd be less likely to get a head injury only while cycling were you to wear a helmet.

Your risk of head injury from walking to your john may very well be higher than when you bike in traffic, and therefore you may decide that the risk is already low enough while cycling that you decide that reducing the risk further by wearing a helmet isn't worth the effort.

But that doesn't remove that reduction in risk.

Your argument is subtly different from the argument that helmets do not help reduce injury risk. THAT argument is risible.

Closetbiker,

Apparently you cannot read charts either. If you'll look at my age group (60-69), you'll see that I have about the same risk as those in the 20-29 age group, or perhaps just slightly less risk according to that chart.

John

It's also interesting to note that the bulk of the edits to the cycling helmet Wiki page are from one Richard Keatinge, who appears to be from England and claimed to be a member of UK "CTC" cycling club.

Many of the articles referenced from the Wikipedia page on cycling helmets - especially those that attempt to (lamely) call into question the efficacy of bike helmet are from the UK's CTC.

Imagine that.

Read the Wikipedia comments page and see how this "controversy" has been created. Yes - created. There is no dispute in the scientific literature as to whether or not cycling helmets are effective in preventing head injures. Stick to reading scientific, published, peer-reviewed papers, not any "research" from any advocacy groups and you'll find UNANIMOUS conclusions that helmets do help prevent head injury.

One wonders if there might be an opinion writer somewhere who makes a living off stirring up such a "controversy"....

Now, that does NOT mean mandatory helmet laws are acceptable infringement on personal freedom.

It has NOTHING to do with cycling or the ability of bike helmets to prevent head injury anyway.

It's just obfuscating noise.

The question is: why the seemingly deliberate obfuscation?

If you aren't wearing your helmet 24/7, then you are simply making excuses for not wearing a helmet because you don't want to be bothered to wear a helmet, at least per your logic.

If you can't be bothered to consider the point of the above statement, please save us all from your worthless rambling about what others do based on how you ride your bike.

If you feel like you are at such a high risk for injury, then wear your helmet and be happy. Not all of us feel that we are at such a high risk for injury as you seem to. For most of us, the risks that we are exposed to (small as they might be) are not even alleviated by a bicycle helmet anyway. An inch of styrofoam will do very little to slow down a motor vehicle.

Why won't you answer the question regarding marshmallow phalluses providing protection or not? Or have you swallowed that too?

Oh. OK. Debate over then. If your wife says that helmets prevent serious head injuries then that's all we need to know. Don't know why this has been going on so long.

Well, why bother? I mean we can just make **** up that suits our pre-conceived notions, such as:

Brilliant. Not just your wife, but also your brother. Case closed.

Arrogant turkey, idiot .. projection about people trying to get attention, class prejudice about Camaro drivers ... total ignorance of the Australian, NZ data. You're proof that some of the people riding bicycles are not very smart and not very nice.

1. Several of your links don't work

2. We've been through these studies before. They're based on two or three "root" studies which are then re-cycle through "meta-analysis". None of them have to stood up to examination by professional statisticians. In one especially bad case the study authors had assumed that the difference in injury rate between two cherry picked groups of children could be ENTIRELY explained by helmets - ie they credited them with preventing torso injuries! In fact, one group was riding on inner city roads without supervision, and another in parks, with adults present to herd them. For another discussion of the errors in some of this work take a look at https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html

3. It is literally the case that NONE of the papers you quoted (so far as your bad links allow me to say this) have survived scrutiny by a professional statistician. They are the work of unscientifically qualified activist doctors who go out to prove what they want to believe and distort data through incompetence and enthusiasm. Again, take a look at that link- which is commentary by a professional statistician.

4. One of the 85% benefit studies was based on a factor of 10 error in arithmetic - it is still quoted, however!

Conclusion: you're either lazy or deliberately selecting papers that only prove what you want to believe - which on a safety issue is very stupid.

As achoo probably didn't think to check this:

This team's results have been found to be riddled with errors and "bodging" to get the numbers they want. No one else has found a benefit to wearing a helmet in collisions with cars. Which is where virtually all cyclist deaths occur.

So, once again, a helmet may be useful in reducing minor injury - but as a tool for reducing the possibility of death it is ineffective. Which is the point that you have failed to grasp. In fact, your stupidity is putting lives at risk - because if people believe that a helmet largely precludes the possibility of death then they will fail to take other safety measures and engage in riskier behaviour.

..Just don't spam the rest of us with stupid arguments. If you want to take part in the debate, do your homework.

Not according to expert witness testimony by helmet engineers or neurologists, no.

Absolutely brilliant retort.

Not.

Laughing-out-loud emoticon? Nice to know that you're easily amused at your own penis references.

Cut-and-pasted from the thread in Commuting.

Note the number of independent studies here - it's NOT just "one small group".

Here is a link to a bunch of other published, scientific, peer-reviewed studies on bicycle helmets and their ability to prevent head and/or facial injuries, especially to the upper face.

https://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/pr...meteffect.html

And cyclehelmets.org as an organization? At BEST they incompetently cook their numbers:

WRONG.

That study is NOT faulty.

The pathetic attempt from our friends at the "Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation"? I already gutted that like the dead fish it is here. I'll repeat the gutting for your perusal:

And now to deconstruct the "refutations" of the studies that concluded bike helmets conclusively help prevent head injuries. First, this one, from the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (whoever they are...)

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html:

Well, let's see. Will the conclusions change radically?

FAIL, right there.

Book cooking in progress.

The "28.6% of cyclists who wore helmets" but "still had head injuries" are from the SUBSET of cyclists who were admitted to the hospital. In other words, the criteria for hospital admission is independent of whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet.

The "refutation" of the study I linked is FATALLY flawed. One wonders if it's deliberately misleading. There's no real need to continue, now is there?

But let's continue anyway...

Woo, that's a strong statement. Not.

Some more hemming and hawing...

Well, duh.

That's the entire point of the study.

Wow.

When we get to the conclusion, we find we waded through lots of noise and fury and got NOTHING. "may have influenced the results"?!!? Where's the "radical change" to the conclusions we were promised?

Did those "conclusions change radically", as promised above?

No. Not at all.

The "refutation" goes from that promise to "may have influenced the results".

Good God, that's lame.

I did check it. They're an unreliable advocacy group that I've already shown how they cook the numbers.



WRONG.

How many DIFFERENT studies did I refer to where ALL showed some benefit to wearing a helmet? Twenty? Twenty-five?

WRONG again.

Also, nothing more than an ad hominem attack disguised as a straw-man argument with no evidence to back it up.

Pictures that graphically demonstrate helmet effectiveness for six or seven independent studies, once again cut-and-pasted from the thread in Commuting:

Piling on:



More piling on:



How many DIFFERENT studies using DIFFERENT methodologies do you have to be shown?

I really want to know how you can come to any conclusion that helmets can't help prevent injuries while biking.

Helmets are used in (American) football. Get on a bike, and suddenly they're useless.

Helmets are used in hockey. Get on a bike, and suddenly they're useless.

Helmets are used in automobile racing. Get on a bike, and suddenly they're worthless.

Helmets are used in horse racing. Get on a bike, and suddenly they're worthless.

Helmets are used in construction. Get on a bike, and suddenly they're worthless.

Helmets are used in lacrosse. Get on a bike, and suddenly they're worthless.

That's risible.

If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. Don't wear one.

But don't go all ballistic and try to deny they help prevent head injuries. That's like arguing the earth is flat.

It's funny how all the arguments against helmets have to rely on small subsets of populations from certain research papers: THIS study showed that helmets didn't help prevent death when cyclists are involved in crashes with cars.

WHY do you have to add all that qualifications to helmet efficacy? Hmm?