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
04-18-24, 02:21 PM
#3901
Expired Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 11,526
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3662 Post(s)
Liked 5,408 Times
in
2,747 Posts
NHTSA quote "Bicycle helmets are proven to reduce injuries and fatalities." and Link 
I know I said I was gone but it was so easy to put this foolishness to bed.
I know I said I was gone but it was so easy to put this foolishness to bed.
Likes For shelbyfv:
04-18-24, 02:44 PM
#3902
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,975
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4941 Post(s)
Liked 8,081 Times
in
3,822 Posts
NHTSA quote "Bicycle helmets are proven to reduce injuries and fatalities." and Link I know I said I was gone but it was so easy to put this foolishness to bed.
I know I said I was gone but it was so easy to put this foolishness to bed.
It seems intuitive that bicycle helmets would be an effective means of reducing head injury, and indeed helmet manufacturers and standards associations worldwide conduct rigorous tests to determine the impact absorption and other qualities of helmets. It is however, important to go beyond laboratory tests and understand whether helmets reduce injuries in the event of a crash in real‐life; hence the review by Thompson et al
This review included five well conducted case‐control studies and found that helmets provide a 63–88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets were found to provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Furthermore, injuries to the upper and mid facial areas were found to be reduced by 65%, although helmets did not prevent lower facial injuries. The review authors concluded that bicycle helmets are an effective means of preventing head injury.
And this...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7025438/
Some bicycling advocates have argued that helmeted cyclists may change their riding behavior influenced by a greater feeling of security and, thus take more risks and be more likely to crash.
The converse argument has also been made that helmeted cyclists may ride more carefully and that these behaviors account for the reduction in head injury, not helmet use. We believe these arguments to be specious. The fundamental issue is whether or not when bicycle riders crash and hit their heads they are benefited by wearing a helmet. Cyclists would have to increase their risk taking four‐fold to overcome the protective effect of helmets.
To that, I say...well, duh. This is simple stuff.
(Not sure why my quotes are being split)
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Last edited by Eric F; 04-18-24 at 02:48 PM.
04-18-24, 02:47 PM
#3903
Full Member
NHTSA quote "Bicycle helmets are proven to reduce injuries and fatalities." and Link I know I said I was gone but it was so easy to put this foolishness to bed.
I know I said I was gone but it was so easy to put this foolishness to bed.
Originally Posted by https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/bicycle-safety/countermeasures/other-strategies-behavior-change/promote-bicycle-helmet-use
Rouzier and Alto (1995) describe a comprehensive program of presentations, media coverage, messages from doctors to patients, as well as low-cost helmet availability, which significantly increased helmet purchases and use for all ages. A peer-led, social marketing program on a medium-sized college campus also raised observed helmet use, at least for the short term (Ludwig et al., 2005). A school-based injury-reduction program targeting 13- and 14-year-olds incorporating opportunities for instruction, demonstration, rehearsal, feedback, social reinforcement and practice was associated with a 20% increase in observed rate of helmet use among this challenging target age group at 6 months follow-up (Buckley et al., 2009).
A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of twenty-two studies evaluating non- legislative helmet promotion programs aimed at children under 18 found the odds of observed helmet wearing were significantly greater among those receiving the interventions (Owen et al., 2011). The study found the more effective programs were community-based (rather than aimed at people), provided free rather than subsidized helmets, and were set in schools. A Canadian program, Operation Headway, involving enforcement of bike helmet legislation, education, rewards for wearing and economic penalties for non-wearing, and provision of helmets to low-income groups was evaluated by Lockhart et al. (2010). The researchers found the program increased wearing rates (based on observations pre- and post-intervention), increased knowledge and commitment to wearing a helmet, saw greater public awareness of the law through media tracking, and improved relationships between police and the public (based on anecdotal evidence). A related theme of these studies is that population-wide, multifaceted, integrated, and repeated prevention programs are needed, which should include distribution of free helmets and safety information and strategies to increase peer and parental pressure.
A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of twenty-two studies evaluating non- legislative helmet promotion programs aimed at children under 18 found the odds of observed helmet wearing were significantly greater among those receiving the interventions (Owen et al., 2011). The study found the more effective programs were community-based (rather than aimed at people), provided free rather than subsidized helmets, and were set in schools. A Canadian program, Operation Headway, involving enforcement of bike helmet legislation, education, rewards for wearing and economic penalties for non-wearing, and provision of helmets to low-income groups was evaluated by Lockhart et al. (2010). The researchers found the program increased wearing rates (based on observations pre- and post-intervention), increased knowledge and commitment to wearing a helmet, saw greater public awareness of the law through media tracking, and improved relationships between police and the public (based on anecdotal evidence). A related theme of these studies is that population-wide, multifaceted, integrated, and repeated prevention programs are needed, which should include distribution of free helmets and safety information and strategies to increase peer and parental pressure.
04-18-24, 02:49 PM
#3904
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,971
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,534 Times
in
1,044 Posts
Classic answer (AKA dodge) when assertions cannot be substantiated by posters when challenged. This time the unsubstantiated assertions, presumably based on guesswork, concern "follow[ing] the money" and "what insurance companies think" concerning bicycle helmet wear and insurance rates,
04-18-24, 02:53 PM
#3905
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,094
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 555 Post(s)
Liked 638 Times
in
376 Posts
Classic answer (AKA dodge) when assertions cannot be substantiated by posters when challenged. This time the unsubstantiated assertions, presumably based on guesswork, concern "follow[ing] the money" and "what insurance companies think" concerning bicycle helmet wear and insurance rates,
Me: "no"
You: "Waaaaaah! Classic dodging! I wanna ride with no helmet!! Science is lies!!! WAAAAAH!!!"
04-18-24, 02:56 PM
#3906
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,971
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,534 Times
in
1,044 Posts
NHTSA quote "Bicycle helmets are proven to reduce injuries and fatalities." and Link I know I said I was gone but it was so easy to put this foolishness to bed.
I know I said I was gone but it was so easy to put this foolishness to bed.
Likes For I-Like-To-Bike:
04-18-24, 03:00 PM
#3907
Full Member
I found this... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598379/
Thompson was a leader in claiming that helmets are effective, but his more recent research now finds otherwise.
Originally Posted by https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/3/2/110
RESULTS: There were 3854 injured cyclists in the three year period; 3390 (88%) completed questionnaires were returned 51% wore helmets at the time of crash. Only 22.3% of patients had head injuries and 34% had facial injuries. Risk of serious injury was increased by collision with a motor vehicle (odds ratio (OR) = 4.6), self reported speed > 15 mph (OR = 1.2), young age (< 6 years), and age > 39 years (OR = 2.1 and 2.2 respectively, compared with adults 20-39 years). Risk for serious injury was not affected by helmet use (OR = 0.9). Risk of neck injury was increased in those struck by motor vehicles (OR = 4.0), hospitalized for any injury (OR = 2.0), and those who died (OR = 15.1), but neck injury was not affected by helmet use.
CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of serious bicycle injuries cannot be accomplished through helmet use alone, and may require separation of cyclists from motor vehicles, and delaying cycling until children are developmentally ready.
CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of serious bicycle injuries cannot be accomplished through helmet use alone, and may require separation of cyclists from motor vehicles, and delaying cycling until children are developmentally ready.
04-18-24, 03:16 PM
#3908
Clark W. Griswold
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: ,location, location
Posts: 13,505
Bikes: Foundry Chilkoot Ti W/Ultegra Di2, Salsa Timberjack Ti, Cinelli Mash Work RandoCross Fun Time Machine, 1x9 XT Parts Hybrid, Co-Motion Cascadia, Specialized Langster, Phil Wood Apple VeloXS Frame (w/DA 7400), R+M Supercharger2 Rohloff, Habanero Ti 26
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4348 Post(s)
Liked 3,984 Times
in
2,661 Posts
I did not ask you to find the data, I only require that you stand behind your position, and commit to admitting that you are wrong once I prove it. And you are too frightened to do so, for obvious reasons.
It is a bit entertaining to watch you contort yourself around these red herrings, like a security blanket. You claimed that helmet manufacturers rigorously test their helmets to assure that they are all as effective as you hope they are -- so I was forced to educate you that nothing could be further from the truth. Try to keep up -- no one is talking about hair, except in your imagination.
Would ya look at that! It can learn.
After I do so, will you admit that you are wrong?
It is a bit entertaining to watch you contort yourself around these red herrings, like a security blanket. You claimed that helmet manufacturers rigorously test their helmets to assure that they are all as effective as you hope they are -- so I was forced to educate you that nothing could be further from the truth. Try to keep up -- no one is talking about hair, except in your imagination.
Would ya look at that! It can learn.
After I do so, will you admit that you are wrong?
Your realize that was your argument I was putting forth not my argument but yours the one you have been pathetically sort of trying to make(ish) all these posts.
Would you look at that still not able to argue for your own position and think you are winning because my position hasn't changed and I was pointing at a known fact that doesn't help your case or hurt mine it is just a fact of business.
You still cannot argue for your case. You are standing atop your crumbling tower demanding that I admit something that is well known to be false as everyone around you laughs because not even you are willing try and save your tower.
Helmets do help prevent injuries and death we know this we can talk with people whom we may not have been able to talk with had they not been wearing a helmet. We know helmets are not perfect nothing in this world is but saying they are dangerous and completely bad is again silly beyond silly and now you are at the point where you cannot even argue for your own position, it is so sad.
Water is universally recognized H2O and you are the voice in the corner jumping up and down while saying no it's not but I refuse to tell you why.
04-18-24, 03:27 PM
#3909
Expired Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 11,526
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3662 Post(s)
Liked 5,408 Times
in
2,747 Posts
As for insurance companies, all I can recall being said was they might be the reason club and shop rides require helmets. You could ask your club or shop if you really want to know.
Likes For shelbyfv:
04-18-24, 04:10 PM
#3910
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 5,124
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1581 Post(s)
Liked 1,189 Times
in
605 Posts
It is unfortunate for you that you needed to cite Thompson. Robert Thompson authored the famous retracted study that claimed helmets were "85% effective" -- a number that the Federal government parroted for years, until forced to stop under modern data quality laws.
Thompson was a leader in claiming that helmets are effective, but his more recent research now finds otherwise.
So simple that one of the most productive researchers in the field has been forced to retract his earlier work and now finds no benefit to helmets.
Thompson was a leader in claiming that helmets are effective, but his more recent research now finds otherwise.
So simple that one of the most productive researchers in the field has been forced to retract his earlier work and now finds no benefit to helmets.
"CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of serious bicycle injuries cannot be accomplished through helmet use alone, and may require separation of cyclists from motor vehicles, and delaying cycling until children are developmentally ready."
In fact, those conclusions are at odds with your rather transparent and silly 'vehicular cycling' viewpoint.
So, here is a much more recent -- and rigorous -- literature review/statistical analysis for you to consider: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/1/278/2617198
At the end of the day, none of your nonsense (and that of others) really matters. No one here, as far as I know, has claimed that wearing an 'approved', properly fitted, bicycle helmet is going to completely eliminate the risk of serious -- even fatal -- injury in the event of a fall, crash, severe impact, etc. To do so would indeed be stupid. The real question, rather obviously, is whether or not a proper helmet reduces the risk of serious/fatal injury (facial, brain, whatever) in the event of a fall/collision. Notice: not 'eliminate' the risk ... 'reduce' the risk.
Correctly wearing a modern cycling helmet that meets current standards will 'reduce' (not eliminate) the risk of serious injury in the event of a fall/collision. That is what the epidemiological evidence suggests. That is good enough for me, and should be good enough for anyone who is a) rational and b) not simply trolling the interwebz in order to stir up a mess.
And that is all. I am out of this stupid discussion.
04-18-24, 04:17 PM
#3911
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,945
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3948 Post(s)
Liked 7,291 Times
in
2,945 Posts
For those that are interested in what the recently linked study actually says:
For fatal injuries, lack of use of a bicycle helmet or involvement with a motor vehicle in the crash were each associated with a 14-fold increase in fatality rate.
Likes For tomato coupe:
04-18-24, 04:21 PM
#3912
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,262
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4246 Post(s)
Liked 1,351 Times
in
937 Posts
So, there are links?
"For the record" what other people fail to do doesn't excuse you.
Further more, the "conventional wisdom" (right or wrong) is that helmets help. That means that claims that the make things worse is the "extreme" claim and, as such, requires more support.
Last edited by njkayaker; 04-18-24 at 04:26 PM.
04-18-24, 04:39 PM
#3913
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,975
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4941 Post(s)
Liked 8,081 Times
in
3,822 Posts
LOL! Typical; you cite an article from 1997. And by the way, the 'conclusions' even of that article don't support your position:
"CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of serious bicycle injuries cannot be accomplished through helmet use alone, and may require separation of cyclists from motor vehicles, and delaying cycling until children are developmentally ready."
In fact, those conclusions are at odds with your rather transparent and silly 'vehicular cycling' viewpoint.
So, here is a much more recent -- and rigorous -- literature review/statistical analysis for you to consider: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/1/278/2617198
At the end of the day, none of your nonsense (and that of others) really matters. No one here, as far as I know, has claimed that wearing an 'approved', properly fitted, bicycle helmet is going to completely eliminate the risk of serious -- even fatal -- injury in the event of a fall, crash, severe impact, etc. To do so would indeed be stupid. The real question, rather obviously, is whether or not a proper helmet reduces the risk of serious/fatal injury (facial, brain, whatever) in the event of a fall/collision. Notice: not 'eliminate' the risk ... 'reduce' the risk.
Correctly wearing a modern cycling helmet that meets current standards will 'reduce' (not eliminate) the risk of serious injury in the event of a fall/collision. That is what the epidemiological evidence suggests. That is good enough for me, and should be good enough for anyone who is a) rational and b) not simply trolling the interwebz in order to stir up a mess.
And that is all. I am out of this stupid discussion.
"CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of serious bicycle injuries cannot be accomplished through helmet use alone, and may require separation of cyclists from motor vehicles, and delaying cycling until children are developmentally ready."
In fact, those conclusions are at odds with your rather transparent and silly 'vehicular cycling' viewpoint.
So, here is a much more recent -- and rigorous -- literature review/statistical analysis for you to consider: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/1/278/2617198
At the end of the day, none of your nonsense (and that of others) really matters. No one here, as far as I know, has claimed that wearing an 'approved', properly fitted, bicycle helmet is going to completely eliminate the risk of serious -- even fatal -- injury in the event of a fall, crash, severe impact, etc. To do so would indeed be stupid. The real question, rather obviously, is whether or not a proper helmet reduces the risk of serious/fatal injury (facial, brain, whatever) in the event of a fall/collision. Notice: not 'eliminate' the risk ... 'reduce' the risk.
Correctly wearing a modern cycling helmet that meets current standards will 'reduce' (not eliminate) the risk of serious injury in the event of a fall/collision. That is what the epidemiological evidence suggests. That is good enough for me, and should be good enough for anyone who is a) rational and b) not simply trolling the interwebz in order to stir up a mess.
And that is all. I am out of this stupid discussion.
Here's another more recent link... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24686160/
"In the 2m (6.3m/s) drops, the middle of our drop height range, the helmet reduced peak accelerations from 824g (unhelmeted) to 181g (helmeted) and HIC was reduced from 9667 (unhelmeted) to 1250 (helmeted). At realistic impact speeds of 5.4m/s (1.5m drop) and 6.3m/s (2.0m drop), bicycle helmets changed the probability of severe brain injury from extremely likely (99.9% risk at both 5.4 and 6.3m/s) to unlikely (9.3% and 30.6% risk at 1.5m and 2.0m drops respectively)."
I'm no rocket surgeon, but these numbers seem pretty meaningful, as does this conclusion...
"contemporary bicycle helmets are highly effective at reducing head injury metrics and the risk for severe brain injury in head impacts characteristic of bicycle crashes."
Yep. I'm still going to wear a helmet when I ride. Probably in about an hour from now.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Likes For Eric F:
04-18-24, 04:49 PM
#3914
Clark W. Griswold
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: ,location, location
Posts: 13,505
Bikes: Foundry Chilkoot Ti W/Ultegra Di2, Salsa Timberjack Ti, Cinelli Mash Work RandoCross Fun Time Machine, 1x9 XT Parts Hybrid, Co-Motion Cascadia, Specialized Langster, Phil Wood Apple VeloXS Frame (w/DA 7400), R+M Supercharger2 Rohloff, Habanero Ti 26
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4348 Post(s)
Liked 3,984 Times
in
2,661 Posts
You should post the links anyway. No one can tell what you are talking about.
So, there are links?
"For the record" what other people fail to do doesn't excuse you.
Further more, the "conventional wisdom" (right or wrong) is that helmets help. That means that claims that the make things worse is the "extreme" claim and, as such, requires more support.
So, there are links?"For the record" what other people fail to do doesn't excuse you.
Further more, the "conventional wisdom" (right or wrong) is that helmets help. That means that claims that the make things worse is the "extreme" claim and, as such, requires more support.
They are trying to build a wall out of dry sand on an eroding hillside. They aren't really interested in actually telling us "this is why I believe that helmets (in general) are outright dangerous and make things worse and here is proof of it" because they really can't as they don't have anything to hold up their argument.
04-18-24, 05:07 PM
#3915
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,262
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4246 Post(s)
Liked 1,351 Times
in
937 Posts
It's the NHTSA website. Do you think they are going to have pages that are inconsistent with the agency position? If you want to second guess their position you'll need some qualifications. As for insurance companies, all I can recall being said was they might be the reason club and shop rides require helmets. You could ask your club or shop if you really want to know.
As for insurance companies, all I can recall being said was they might be the reason club and shop rides require helmets. You could ask your club or shop if you really want to know.It appears that most clubs get liability insurance from LAB. They don't require helmets (except for mountain biking).
The following is from 2019 (so, it could have changed but I don't think so).
https://www.smwbikeclub.org/resource...nce%201-15.pdf
It's common for clubs to require the use of helmets but an explanation that "insurance made us do it" would seem to be wrong.
Medical insurance doesn't deny coverage for lack of helmet use.
If you want to sue somebody, it's possible that your case will be weaker if you weren't using a helmet.
Likes For njkayaker:
04-18-24, 05:44 PM
#3916
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,262
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4246 Post(s)
Liked 1,351 Times
in
937 Posts
You are making a mistake in assuming that link is the only thing the NHTSA has said about helmets.
A more careful person would look for NHTSA links where the topic is more about effectiveness.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/counterme...8ye%2C%202018b).
Several meta-analyses conducted over the past 2 decades have concluded that bicycle helmets are effective at reducing head injuries among bicyclists involved in falls or crashes with a motor vehicle (Attewell et al., 2001; Elvik, 2013; Høye, 2018b; Olivier & Creighton, 2017; Thompson et al., 1999). The most recent meta-analysis found that the use of bicycle helmets reduced head injuries by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously injured bicyclists by 34% (Høye, 2018b). A study that examined emergency room visits of children that had bicycle-related injuries found that unhelmeted children were more likely to sustain injuries (40% versus 25.7%), meet the trauma activation criteria (45.5% versus 16.8%), and be admitted to the hospital (42.4% versus 14.9%). Overall, injury severity was worse with unhelmeted children, and these children were significantly more likely to have brain injuries, skull fractures, and facial fractures (Michael et al., 2017).
What you are doing is misrepresenting the NHTSA's position. This is either dishonest or careless. It's pretty clear the NHTSA's position is that helmets actually work.
Last edited by njkayaker; 04-18-24 at 05:50 PM.
Likes For njkayaker:
04-18-24, 08:47 PM
#3917
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,971
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,534 Times
in
1,044 Posts
It's the NHTSA website. Do you think they are going to have pages that are inconsistent with the agency position? If you want to second guess their position you'll need some qualifications. As for insurance companies, all I can recall being said was they might be the reason club and shop rides require helmets. You could ask your club or shop if you really want to know.
As for insurance companies, all I can recall being said was they might be the reason club and shop rides require helmets. You could ask your club or shop if you really want to know.Bottom line is that I can find no evidence to give credence to the claims made on this thread about "following the money" and/or insurance company "thinking"/rates to come to any credible conclusion about the risk reduction effectiveness of bicycle helmets. It seems obvious that the posters those assertion can also provide no evidence of any connection of bicycle helmets to insurance rates/benefits/payout for bicyclists.
04-18-24, 10:36 PM
#3918
Along for the ride
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: PNW US
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked 212 Times
in
107 Posts
Your straw men about helmets increasing head size and thereby increasing hazard are just that. I'm not worried about a glancing blow such as might occur if the impact vectors are perfectly aligned so that the helmet makes contact, but my head would have cleared. Those impacts are by definition at a speed and an angle that makes the likelihood of injury small to start with, and I'm willing to incur the slight increased possible frequency of this kind of contact by wearing a helmet. No, I wear a helmet to protect me against the kinds of solid, straight-on impacts where my head will be making direct contact with a hard object — I want something to crush to dissipate some energy such that 100% of the impact is not transmitted to my head. You are free to choose otherwise, but to try to claim that I am less safe via this choice is utter nonsense.
Earlier in this discussion you pointed out that:
After reading through your dozen or so posts since that, I can't help but remind you of the same.
Likes For retswerb:
04-19-24, 10:01 AM
#3919
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,262
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4246 Post(s)
Liked 1,351 Times
in
937 Posts
It is nowhere near as simple as you seem to think, as evidenced by the fact that you got your calculation wrong -- it's not 100%. Hint: Consider what happens when the foam is fully compressed.
And again, you are missing half of the equation. The increased size of your effective "head" necessarily results in more and more-severe impacts. So the question is not "Does foam absorb some energy?" It is "Does foam absorb sufficient energy to offset the increase caused by the effective head-size increase?"
Road riders aren't "threading the needle" such that the small increase in size would result in more collisions. There could be rare (really rare) situations where the small increase resulted in a collision but that's a case of "nothing is perfect".
Mountain bikers, who are much, much more "threading the needle" (and still not even that often) nearly all wear helmets.
============================
The "question" is whether you would whack branches/whatever more with a helmet than without (missing your head by a couple of inches).
The answer is obviously "yes". But the defect of this as an argument against helmets is that, for road riders, it's a microscopic risk (so small it should be ignored).
For mountain bikers (who nearly all wear helmets), the risk is (likely) going to be much higher but they (implicitly) treat it as a risk that is outweighed by other benefits.
It's a "grasping at straws" argument. It's an argument one uses when one doesn't have a compelling argument.
Last edited by njkayaker; 04-19-24 at 02:32 PM.
04-19-24, 10:34 AM
#3920
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Posts: 7,656
Bikes: Miyata 618 GT, Marinoni, Kestral 200 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina, Miyata team Ti, Santa Cruz Highball
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1608 Post(s)
Liked 2,587 Times
in
1,223 Posts
You didn't understand what you replied to and said something silly.
You "wanting to educate" somebody about something you aren't understanding is hilarious.
This is silly and seriously disconnected from the real world. If you have go there to make your case, it means you really don't have a case.
Road riders aren't "threading the needle" such that the small increase in size would result in more collisions. There could be rare (really rare) situations where the small increase resulted in a collision but that's a case of "nothing is perfect".
Mountain bikers, who are much, much more "threading the needle" nearly all wear helmets.
You "wanting to educate" somebody about something you aren't understanding is hilarious.
This is silly and seriously disconnected from the real world. If you have go there to make your case, it means you really don't have a case.
Road riders aren't "threading the needle" such that the small increase in size would result in more collisions. There could be rare (really rare) situations where the small increase resulted in a collision but that's a case of "nothing is perfect".
Mountain bikers, who are much, much more "threading the needle" nearly all wear helmets.