The easier way to say it is that operator is ignoring the facts he wants to in order to push his own agenda. From the same wiki site:
Notice that completely contradicts everything operator says.

So, lies, damn lies, statistics.

There are also a huge numbers of variables at play with any comparative statistics, so to say 'oh well these countries don't wear helmets and they have less head injuries so therefore helmets are bad' is ignorant bordering on stupid.

How about percentage of car ownership? Speeds on roads? Language of laws for cycling on the road? Effectiveness of law enforcement? Budgets for city planning for cycling lanes? Density of traffic? Miles driven per person per year? Size of bike lanes? Amount of training to obtain a driving license? Average length of sentences for drivers who cause wrongful deaths of cyclists? Average crime statistics (road rage)? Comparative percentage of multi-use roads vs. dedicated bike paths? That's only scratching the surface.

The real truth is other countries are built from the ground up to have more cycling infrastructure, culturally embrace the bicycle as a main mode of transportation, have different traffic laws, etc. so on so forth. Different countries are more or less effective at gathering and collating data. Etc.

So, the trick isn't to listen to statistics. The trick is to suss out the agenda of the person quoting the statistics, then go from there.

+1

It amazes me the number of people that get away with throwing out nonsense theories that sound vaguely scientific when they absolutely no understanding of the science or evidence for their assertions. Props for calling him/her out.

No, and that's what I was trying to say in the previous post. Looking at helmeted and non-helemted people doesn't work when you want to see if putting on a helmet makes people take more risks. Many of the riders who wear a helmet regularly are law-abiding, considered, uptight middle-class people, whatever you want to call it. Wearing a helmet is often one aspect of a generally responsible and safe behaviour, so it often goes hand in hand with safe cycling. Also, the fact that roadracers are forced to wear them at races and thus use them during training may do a number on the stats, too. They are experienced, safe riders who rarely crash (in training, anyway), so they bring down the average.
Of course, this doesn't mean that if somebody puts on a helmet for whatever reason, (s)he becomes a more experienced, responsible, safer rider instantly. Not at all.

Looking at deifferent people doens't tell you anything about what will happen If Joe starts wearing a helmet. You have to look at Joe (or the general population) before and after he started wearing one. You have to do a diachronic analisys instead of a synchronic one to get any meaningful result.
Which is where this comes in:

"Helmet laws in Australia, New Zealand and parts of Canada [15] have resulted in the great majority of cyclists wearing helmets, but there has been no reduction in rates of head injury relative to cycle use. An analysis of enforced laws in these countries found no clear evidence of benefit [16].

Casualty trends from other countries where helmet use has become significant also show no reductions in serious or fatal injuries attributable to helmets. In the USA, an increase in helmet use from 18% to 50% of cyclists over a decade was accompanied by a 10% increase in head injuries. There was no clear evidence of any increase in cycle use, which may have declined.

More localised studies have also failed to find population-level evidence of a significant benefit from helmet use."

Risk compesation has been shown to exist, too: "Another possibility concerns so-called 'risk compensation' - the tendency or willingness of people to take greater risks when they feel better protected. There is clear evidence of this, particularly amongst children, and it is quite likely to be a subconscious reaction. If people take greater risks (such as riding in places requiring a higher level of skill) due to a misplaced belief that their helmet makes them safer, they could be more likely to experience a crash."


But here we are probably both getting out of familiar territory... I was sort of hoping that we would go into interesting topics like this one: https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1081.html

This is a really good point. There was a quote earlier in the thread saying that the Dutch have very low rates of helmet use and very low rates of accidents (or injuries - I can't remember). However, the Dutch also have a law that says any collision between a vehicle and a bike is always the vehicle's fault. Just one small example that proves your point.

time to roll out the matmatical models and regression.

I love these helmet threads, always entertaining. I dunno where I stand though, I legally obliged (forced) to wear a helmet and I do. If they changed the law tomorrow I would still probably wear a helmet out of habit.

Exxxaccctly, the agenda is clear... then he goes on spouting hokey stats from www.cyclehelmets.org or rather, the "Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation." lol.

Alright, I know this is anecdotal, but I crashed yesterday and went head first into the pavement. My head was completely fine. While it was a slow speed crash, I know that if I were not wearing a helmet I would not be fine (actually the helmet probably worked so well because it was a slow speed crash). I probably would have survived, but I would almost definitely have a concussion.

Actually I think the black out, and damaged helmet would indicate that my head did hit.

>Of course, this doesn't mean that if somebody puts on a helmet for whatever reason, (s)he becomes a >more experienced, responsible, safer rider instantly. Not at all.

In fact you want to argue that current helmet wearers are safer than non-helmet wearers, but if you put a helmet on non-helmet wearers, then they would ride even less safely.

A reasonable theory, but doesn't have any statistical support.

\> In the USA, an increase in helmet use from 18% to 50% of cyclists over a decade was accompanied by >a 10% increase in head injuries. There was no clear evidence of any increase in cycle use, which may >have declined.
First problem-are the head injuries occuring in the helmeted population, or is there an increase in head injuries in the non-helmeted population? If you could show that people wearing helmets were getting head injuries at a higher rate than non-wearers, then you'd have an argument.

There are also many other things other things which have changed over that decade along with helmet use. For example:
popularity of mountain biking -> more injuries
frequency of suv's on streets
movement of people to car-focused suburbs
etc. etc.
protection due to helmet use my very well be masked by these changes.

> I was sort of hoping that we would go into interesting topics like this one: >https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1081.html[/QUOTE]

I'm not a material scientist, so i can't discuss joule absorption rates, other than to note that helmets designed for big impacts are less good at dissipating small impacts.

However, the point he makes about the problem with helmets retained by chinstrap alone is a good one. Those helmets suck to wear, and wearing a helmet only to have it fly off when you crash sucks even more.
however, the whole industry has really stepped up on this one. Any but the cheapest helmets you can buy these days have much better retention systems & are much easier to wear comfortably and securely than those produced a decade or so ago.

No real comment on the helmet issue, but this thread and some of the other threads have lead me to the conclusion that the girls that are on this forum are harder than most of the guys I know. You girls ****ing rock. Big ups.

That's the extent of your rebuttal? Duret's opinion? No counter-argument? How scientific of you, eagle's ass.

There is still not counter-argument. Although I think explanation may be a better term. I just had no clue what you where talking about or what "gyronomic equilibrium" even was? balance due to gyroscopic motion? your vestibular system? Why not explain yourself instead of criticizing a critique.

Your rebuttal was fine. It's your wacky cheerleader that I had to call out.

Real theory isn't written in a day. I've been following some research in sports "geniuses" which some researchers claim have what is termed "spatial genius". I took some of their studies, and threw it against the wall.

I may be a fan of Pollack, but I'm not about to make up some psuedo-science just to impress a few web junkies.

Give me a few weeks, and check back with me, I should have a paper ready by then. (busy with other writing projects right now).

I'd be dead without one.

I once rode without a helmet -in the 80's. I have a really cool dent in my head that happened 23 years ago that for some reason won't go away. The road rash I got on the side of my face was cool till they used this brillo pad thing at the hospital to get the bits of blacktop out of my skin. Feels so cool and free to ride without the helmet until you meet the road with your head.

You figure it out on your own or learn from others.

Bottom Line: If you crash and hit your head, a helmet may save you life or prevent PERMANENT brain damage. The choice is yours, of course.

I received a concussion and 5 staples in the back of my head from a crash where I wasn't wearing a helmet. I'm not officially qualified to evaluate my injury and accident, but I can't logically see how I would have been hurt nearly as bad if I had been wearing a helmet.

I think a lot of the arguments against wearing helmets are like the arguments against seatbelts. there are incidents where a helmet or seatbelt can actually cause injury, but for 99% of crashes, it's beter to wear one.

wearing a helmet is the new rockin a tri-spoke.

hahah, my new signature!

helmets are good if you think you will hit your head but guess what most trucks or cars are gunna hit you in the torso guess what helmet will preserve your brain but not your heart lungs and other vital organs

If I get in a wreck I will probably die anyway so I don't wear a helmet

The question is - do you post that way because of that fact, or in spite of it?

Yup

Just going to add a point here that I've mentioned a few times before.

You do not have to hit your head to get a concussion. A helmet will not protect you from such. You don't even have to hit your head. I found this out the hard way in a auto crash. I dismissed the police officer's efforts to call for an ambulance. I kept telling him nothing was wrong with me, I didn't even hit my head on anything.

Long/short: Three days later, I'm in the emergency room being diagnosed with a concussion. Seems that a hard jolt can cause the brain to impact the inside of your skull.

Do I wear a helmet? Yes, sometimes.
Do I believe it will protect me from a concussion or a black out after a minor crash? No, I've already have been given proof that an external impact is not required.
Do I believe, like my co-workers seem to think, that a helmet will save my life if I'm hit by a car? No. Everyone I know that has been hit (or killed) by a car, were wearing helmets and suffered internal injuries, broken bones, or cuts. None suffered from head injuries from an car/bike crash.

When you have a crash and you hit your head, it's highly unlikely that's the only part of your body that hit the ground and sustained an injury. But afterwards, your head is probably fine while your shoulder or knee or backside is in some serious hurt. When this topic comes up in the Roadie forum, almost everyone says they wear a helmet.

I've already cracked two helmets riding my mtb. and when I'm flying down a mountain at 45mph I'd like to think they'd find my head in one piece after my crash.

I wear a helmet even when I'm tooling around the neighborhood because you never know when grandma or that idiot high schooler is gonna come flyin' around the corner and you've got to ditch or die.

There's a very good, very fast roadie here in Huntsville that's currently not wearing a helmet and I'm sure that if I'm going 45mph down the mountain, he's up over 50 and taking chances that would have me peeing my shorts. All it takes is something small in the road, a bad tire/tube, or even an unexpected gust of wind and BAM! Game over.

Wear the damn helmet.

Unfortunately, at 45mph, the helmet isn't designed to protect you.

i do think wearing a helmet gives me a false sense of security