Stupid forum code put the semicolon as part of the URL. :-P

No. There are many, many more studies than those.

And cyclehelmets.org is an unreliable advocacy group with an agenda. I'll take AMA or NEJM or similiar published, peer-reviewed research over anything posted at cyclehelmets.org any day.

I've gutted the "refutation" of the 1989 Thompson paper from cyclehelmet.org, which seems to be the "refutation" most referred to.

ONE, maybe. Once again, you're picking ONE thing and using it to ignore everything else that's independent of that one thing.

And even then that 85% figure is consistent with all the other studies I quoted. Which are independent of that one study, now aren't they?

Look at the graphs I posted.

Nope - look at that list of papers I quoted. Some of them did find some cases where helmets didn't appear to help, or didn't appear to help much.

You're glomming onto those few outliers with their very specific circumstances and expanding their findings to cover everything and ignoring all the other studies that completely contradict not only bicycle helmet ability to prevent head injury but also the totality of helmet research.

Straw man.

What I "feel like" is not relevant to the objective question of whether or not bike helmets help prevent head injury.

Amazing how people want to avoid that one simple question at all costs, isn't it?

NONE of that is relevant in any way, shape, or form to the question of whether or not bike helmets help prevent head injuries to cyclists while biking.

The tap dancing that question generates is interesting, to say the least.

I'll bet you never could guess just how insane this thread could get about an hour after you made this post, did you?

It's become considerably more insane with the participation of someone displaying more insanity than I've seen in quite some time.

There will always been insane people, it's just too bad when they disrupt productive discourse with their insanity.

Yeah, I do have an argument, it's just that you can't see it or you don't want to face it.

In more plain terms, the argument is, cyclists receive no more head injury than the general public. Sure, they do receive their fair share of head injuries as does everyone else, so why would a priority be place on having people on bikes wear helmets when they can suffer the same injury when they are off the bike? If head injury is a concern, why aren't people wearing helmets 24/7?

If you stand against this argument, fair enough, but it would help this position to provide some type of reasonable evidence that cyclists receive head injuries at a greater rate than the general population. It's not enough to say something has happened, you have to show the likelyhood of something happening.

apparently you just displayed how you can't read charts. The 20-29 group shows a marked decline in injury, whereas the 60-69 groups shows a rapid rise in injury

You never cease with the ad hominem attacks, do you?

Come on, answer the objective question:

Do bike helmets help prevent head injuries while cycling?

Yes or no. It's not hard.

WHY does asking you that ONE simple question cause you to resort to personal attacks?

Wearing a baseball cap could help prevent (insignificant) injuries; wearing a helmet could help prevent (insignificant) head injuries.

Any other questions?

Where is the published, peer-reviewed research showing that cyclists do NOT have a higher injury rate than equivalently-aged, equivalently-conditioned people?

And how are rates of accidents and injuries for non-cyclists relevant to the rates for cyclists, anyway? It's a different activity.

And STILL none of that goes to answering the question of whether or not bike helmets help prevent head injuries to cyclists. You SIMPLY REFUSE to address that.

Yes:

Did you even bother to read all the links to published scientific research on the efficacy of bike helmets?

What a reasoned reply.

And how is ANY of that related to helmeted vs. non-helmeted rates of injury while cycling?

Oh, wait. It's not.

And you bragged about being a professional writer?

I love Helmet threads!

If I wear a Cat on my head, will my risk of injury be significantly reduced?

my cat is really concerned about this.

I love how these threads reveals human behavior. Endlessly entertaining. Sad at times. Just like the movies! :

Pictures or it didn't happen!

Yes, it is entertaining how when you're asked a simple objective question, YOU resort to personal attacks.

So, answer the qeustion:

Do bike helmets help prevent head injuries?

Or are you going to continue to dance and hurl insults?

and that's just all he's doing. Spamming. He has no interest in understanding and can't tell good research from bad.

What about the marshmallow phallus? Does it or does it not provide protection to the head? Yes or no? A simple question which you continue to evade.

I'll repeat it here, too:

Is that ALL you have: ad hominem attacks?

Well, let's put it this way: If you are in reality a professional writer, that makes you a shining beacon of hope for all the downtrodden and less-priveleged people on this planet. The fact that YOU can get paid to write such CRAP that consists of NOTHING but personal attacks means that in this great society of ours even an anencepahilic howler monkey stands a good chance of having a decent-paying career as a professional writer, if the standards of that career are as low as you're going with your incessant personal attacks.

If you can't support your logical argument, calling me names doesn't help your case.

Seven different, INDEPENDENT studies comparing probability of head injury between helmeted vs. non-helmeted cyclists:

well considering head injuries are rising despite the increased use of bike helmets, it seems the neurologists are getting the same or more work than they ever have. And besides their speciality isn't really the mechanism of bicycle helmets now is it? A more credible source of information would lie in the experts that design and maintain the standards of the protection helmets provide. like Brain Walker the director of Head Protection Evaluations, the principal UK test laboratory for helmets. (there are views of leading neurologists in this paper, if you're interested enough to read them)

Every link you use always winds up going back to cyclehelmets.org, doesn't it?

Even the Wikipedia page on cycling helmets has them linked in.

Remember, folks, those guys are the ones that think the percentage of head injuries to the subset of cyclists who were admitted to hospitals in ONE study being the same between helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists is some sort of evidence against the efficacy of bike helmets. They gloss completely over the odds of getting admitted in the first place, which was much higher for non-helmeted cyclists.

And that laughable "logic" is the basis of their refutation of the 1989 Thompson study that showed that bike helmets prevent 85% of head injuries.

Also, that's just a pap piece on helmets in general from a commericial magazine with the objective of selling as many copies as possible. Nowhere does it even come close to addressing the issue of whether or not bike helmets help prevent injuries.

It's just more noise and obfuscation.

Imagine that.

You're certainly on your way to winning the most annoying poster of the year award. Every post of yours reads like you're screaming at the top of your lungs. Take a breath, please.

The only problem with this chart is that it was prepared either by or for an idiot...

1. It is meaningless as "head injury" defined.

2. There is no guarantee that the studies used the same definition. This allows the results to be anything the author likes according to the studies that he selects.

3. A broad definition of injury treats all injuries as the same. If a helmet offers you a 50% chance of reducing minor injury at the cost of a 50% chance of making a severe injury worse, would you wear it? Such a helmet would look great in these charts - because trivial injuries are much common. But do 10 prevented minor concussions really outweigh 1 death? And this isn't just an academic point: there is a lot of evidence that helmets make rotational damage, the bigger killer of cyclists, worse.

This is idiot logic. One group can easily perform multiple studies! Plus a lot of studies in this area are "meta studies" which just add up results from previous studies.

And you've quoted the disgraced 85%/88% study again.