Originally Posted by slide

He was enjoying himself as much as he was enjoying making you miserable because you can't tolerate the sight of anyone who is happier than you are as you wallow in a pathetic self rightous piety.

Originally Posted by ElJamoquio

Not as small as "Me and my imaginary friends".

Originally Posted by botto

Perhaps, but considering it's a Neurologist based in Amsterdam, then he statistically sees a hell of a lot more T.B.I.s from cycling than your average North American Neurologist, and definitely more than the OP.

Originally Posted by bmclaughlin807

Another factor that's hard to judge/account for in these studies is the economic standing of the victims. If helmets are voluntary, but expensive ($25 for a helmet is 'expensive' to a lot of people) then the people wearing them are going to be people with more money. Those people are also the most likely to have good medical insurance, so much more likely to go to the doctor or ER with a relatively minor injury than someone with no insurance and who is hard up for money.

Case in point: I was hit by a truck on my bike... The truck was going approx. 20 mph, I was sprinting as fast as I could the other direction, so... 25 mph or so. The truck made a left turn, and struck me, I flew over the hood and landed in a bush on the other side. I was severely bruised, and could barely walk, had road rash on both legs, and tore my pants. Did I go to the emergency room? No. I got up and went to work. (Damage to the truck was approx. $1000, bent the frame on my bike, and I walked stiffly for a week or so)

On the other hand, I saw someone the other day who fell off a bike sideways at fairly low speed, and skinned their elbow. Someone called an ambulance, and off they went to the ER.

On the other hand, if the helmets are expensive and mandated by law, the lower income people are effectively priced off of bicycles. The number of riders will go down, but the people that go to the hospital for bike incidents will likely remain mostly the same. Hence the 'injury rate' would appear to go up.

Very complicated.... is it any wonder there are so many different and apparently contradictory studies out there?

Originally Posted by sportbiker

This mirrors many discussions in the motorcycling community about mandatory helmet laws. In both cases, it seems there are statistics that support your position no matter what your position is.

Here's how I look at it: Let's break it down to the risk of head injury per mile ridden. Let's say (pulling a number out of a hat) the risk is 1:50000, so that I can expect a bicycling-related head injury once every 50,000 miles ridden. (In my riding career I haven't yet had a head injury incident and my career mileage is probably approaching 50,000 miles. Maybe I'm due.). I'm not talking about a guaranteed fatality, just some adverse event of unknown intensity.

Now let's say that a helmet would be significant in half of those events but not significant in others because of angle, speed, point of impact, whatever. So every 50,000 miles I can expect an event with a 50% chance of the helmet helping. I'm probably average in that I ride between 2-3000 miles/yr., so I can expect that event to happen once every 15-25 years.

Now, what does that say about the risk of riding 30 miles this weekend *with* a helmet vs. the risk *without* a helmet? They're both so vanishingly low as to be inconsequential. Granted, should that "every 25 year" event occur during that one 30-mile ride and should that should that event be one of the 50% where a helmet would be significant then the consequences can be pretty severe; but still, the risk during any one mile of riding isn't going to be materially changed whether or not I have on a helmet.

As an aside, I wear a helmet 99% of the time, partly to play the odds, but partly because it's the carrier for the hemet mirror I'd be lost without. On my riding, I think the mirror does more for my safety than the helmet, actually.

Originally Posted by slide

He was enjoying himself as much as he was enjoying making you miserable because you can't tolerate the sight of anyone who is happier than you are as you wallow in a pathetic self rightous piety.

Originally Posted by GuitarWizard

Ya know what's realllllllllllly great about statistics? They don't mean **** when something actually happens to you. People LOVE to quote statistics, but in reality, they're just numbers. As most people know, anything can happen at any time.

In the end, it's a personal choice. Yes, some states have mandatory laws, and some don't.....but then again, that hasn't stopped people from not wearing helmets. It doesn't make one person more or less intelligent per se (wearing a helmet versus not wearing a helmet), but then again the general public has never had an overabundance of common sense to begin with. Ask any police officer, firefighter, or EMT.

And yes, I also ride a motorcycle.....

Originally Posted by chromedome

Does that mean I have imaginary friends? I'd like to meet them, and go on rides with them. I could yell, "ON YOUR LEFT!" and feel good about myself.

Originally Posted by DrPete

OK... I think we've reached that point in the discussion...



Patriot, I think you have all the info you need to make an informed decision.

DrPete

Originally Posted by nova

Infact i have to ask why in the hell hasnt such a thing already been done? There are a huge number of people yearly who infact donate their bodies to science so why havent ssome of these bodies been used for this express purpose? Isnt the reason people do this to save lives And wouldnt such a study lead to 1 improvements in helmets safty and 2 prove they do save lives.

Originally Posted by DrPete

OK... I think we've reached that point in the discussion...



Patriot, I think you have all the info you need to make an informed decision.

DrPete

Originally Posted by bmclaughlin807

Ok. Now we wait a week and do it again the next time this subject comes up in a thread?

*ducks*

Originally Posted by Travelinguyrt

Its a repeative question which I think is posted only to raise hackles in others


Let those who think they are smarter do as they please but also let them carry cards in wallets attesting that they don't want tens of thousands of public dollars spent on thier hospital costs

I'm curious if those same folks refuse to wear auto or plane seat belts or refuse to strap in their family members

Originally Posted by DrPete

The problem is that the skull is the strongest thing you're dealing with. It's actually quite difficult to fracture a skull. The other issue is that it would be difficult to diagnose a brain injury (bleed, contusion, etc.) in a cadaver because 1. cadavers don't bleed, and 2. without a neurologic exam it would be tough to diagnose a brain injury.

Just my guesses, though...

DrPete

Originally Posted by Travelinguyrt

Its a repeative question which I think is posted only to raise hackles in others


Let those who think they are smarter do as they please but also let them carry cards in wallets attesting that they don't want tens of thousands of public dollars spent on thier hospital costs

I'm curious if those same folks refuse to wear auto or plane seat belts or refuse to strap in their family members

Originally Posted by DrPete

I will say that this WAS a pretty intelligent, level-headed discussion about the topic... Nobody even accused anyone of any conspiracies or grand cabals...

We have to keep it toned down for the OCP Prez after all...

DrPete

Originally Posted by slide

He was enjoying himself as much as he was enjoying making you miserable because you can't tolerate the sight of anyone who is happier than you are as you wallow in a pathetic self rightous piety.

Originally Posted by chromedome

If those were the study groups, we'd have to compare Dutch commuters and NA commuters, or Dutch and NA recreationists, or Dutch and NA racers. Dutch commuters will probably have significantly different cycling habits than NA recreational cyclists.