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
#1076
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
I don't think that Skye misrepresented it all that much, at least not from a reading of just the abstract.
Be that as it may, there are a couple of other bits that I see as useful. In these incidents, only 15.3% of the total crashes involved motor vehicles, and crashes with motor vehicles were 3.6 times as likely to lead to serious injury. So assuming that 15.3% held true ubiquitously, and since the NHTSA traffic stats only include motor vehicle related incidents, we could multiply the previous risk calculation by 6.5 to include the total number of bicycle accidents (ER and Hospital related).
Those who have stopped riding near traffic due to fear of accidents might feel vindicated by the 3.6 times likelihood of serious injury involving motor vehicles, although it's still a very small risk in my judgment.
Be that as it may, there are a couple of other bits that I see as useful. In these incidents, only 15.3% of the total crashes involved motor vehicles, and crashes with motor vehicles were 3.6 times as likely to lead to serious injury. So assuming that 15.3% held true ubiquitously, and since the NHTSA traffic stats only include motor vehicle related incidents, we could multiply the previous risk calculation by 6.5 to include the total number of bicycle accidents (ER and Hospital related).
Those who have stopped riding near traffic due to fear of accidents might feel vindicated by the 3.6 times likelihood of serious injury involving motor vehicles, although it's still a very small risk in my judgment.
What everyone else does WRT riding in traffic is their own business, of course, and I would never chastise another cyclist who has decided that riding in traffic is just fine for him. Hint, hint.
#1077
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Speaking just for myself, I'm not looking for any kind of vindication, mostly because I do believe that the risk of being struck and killed by a car is still very, very small. I've just decided that it's the only significant risk of death while on the bike for me, and I really don't want to die in that particular way.
I don't recall chastising anyone for their choices. I respect your choice to not ride in traffic, since everyone's risk tolerance may differ. But your choice is not one I'm comfortable endorsing in general, so I disclaim it whenever I bring up something that would support it. It may be silly for me to do so (who really cares what we endorse?), but that's not about you in any respect.
#1078
Senior Member
The usual cycle is something like:
Ignorant helmeteer unfamiliar with Helmet Thread posts opinion here of "I crashed and helmet saved my life!" or the usual Darwin/Organ donor/Paying for the unhelmeted dreck.
Bareheader challenges such unfounded, ungrounded assertions.
Usual suspect helmeteer takes up defense of the newb, while newb goes through all the usual contortions they could have avoided just by reading a couple hundred pages of Helmet Thread.
Band and forth, back and forth, nothing new, nothing that hasn't been said before.
Newb rage-quits, discussion peters out.
A few weeks later, another newb helmeteer posts ignorantly, and the cycle continues.
It's rare that a bareheader starts the cycle again. Maybe a ratio of newb bareheader to newb helmeteer matching the poll results?
Ignorant helmeteer unfamiliar with Helmet Thread posts opinion here of "I crashed and helmet saved my life!" or the usual Darwin/Organ donor/Paying for the unhelmeted dreck.
Bareheader challenges such unfounded, ungrounded assertions.
Usual suspect helmeteer takes up defense of the newb, while newb goes through all the usual contortions they could have avoided just by reading a couple hundred pages of Helmet Thread.
Band and forth, back and forth, nothing new, nothing that hasn't been said before.
Newb rage-quits, discussion peters out.
A few weeks later, another newb helmeteer posts ignorantly, and the cycle continues.
It's rare that a bareheader starts the cycle again. Maybe a ratio of newb bareheader to newb helmeteer matching the poll results?
#1079
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
a) wicked ignorant
b) wicked dishonest
c) wicked ignorant AND wicked dishonest
Thompson et al., 1989 R.S. Thompson, F.P. Rivara and D.C. Thompson, A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets, N. Engl. J. Med. 320 (1989), pp. 1361–1367.
Thompson et al., 1996a D.C. Thompson, M.E. Nunn, R.S. Thompson and F.P. Rivara, Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing serious facial injury, JAMA 276 (1996), pp. 1974–1975.
Thompson et al., 1996b D.C. Thompson, F.P. Rivara and R.S. Thompson, Effectiveness of bicycle helmets in preventing head injuries: a case-control study, JAMA 276 (1996), pp. 1968–1973.
Thompson et al., 1999 Thompson, D.C., Rivara, F.P., Thompson, R., 1999. Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (4) (Art. No.: CD001855, ).
Thompson et al., 2004 Thompson, D.C., Rivara, F.P., Thompson, R., 2004. Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists.
Cummings et al., 2005 Peter Cummings, Frederick P. Rivara, Diane C. Thompson, Robert S. Thompson., 2005. Misconceptions regarding case-control studies of bicycle helmets and head injury
-mr. bill
Last edited by mr_bill; 01-30-15 at 09:32 AM.
#1080
Senior Member
I bothered to look at the poll and had to vote some way, but my mode of use is not listed: I wear a helmet most of the time, but there are infrequent times when I don't... and I honestly don't worry about it at all.
Here's a story: I used to not wear a helmet because they were for sissies and stuff. Then one day I decided to wear one. Crashed on my head that day -- super deep pothole I didn't see because I was paying more attention to Boston drivers trying to kill me. Right over the bars, smack on my head. Risk mitigation had nothing to do with it. Being a newb to commuting in Boston had everything to do with it.
Post crash, I ended up with what I now recognize as a minor concussion. Also, because I've crashed motorcycles before, I knew what to look for in the (cracked) helmet. Sure enough, foam had deformed via crushing during the crash. Some energy had been absorbed, transfer of energy to my skull must have been mitigated. Right? That's what I thought, but Helmet Thread forced me to reconsider. How much energy? Who knows. Would my injury have been worse without a helmet? Probably, but more on the abrasion/contusion end of things -- minor injury -- than moderate or serious TBI. Would I have died if I wasn't wearing a helmet. Maybe, maybe not. But probably not.
I am an organ donor. You should be one, too, regardless of your helmet use status. Riding through the city -- or anywhere -- w/o a helmet is not a Darwinistic endeavor. All y'all who fume at having to pay for any of the public dime which goes into medical attention to an injured bareheader seem to assume that anyone careless enough to ride without a helmet are also so irresponsible that they probably don't have insurance. Stop that -- you have no idea one way or another.
Here's a story: I used to not wear a helmet because they were for sissies and stuff. Then one day I decided to wear one. Crashed on my head that day -- super deep pothole I didn't see because I was paying more attention to Boston drivers trying to kill me. Right over the bars, smack on my head. Risk mitigation had nothing to do with it. Being a newb to commuting in Boston had everything to do with it.
Post crash, I ended up with what I now recognize as a minor concussion. Also, because I've crashed motorcycles before, I knew what to look for in the (cracked) helmet. Sure enough, foam had deformed via crushing during the crash. Some energy had been absorbed, transfer of energy to my skull must have been mitigated. Right? That's what I thought, but Helmet Thread forced me to reconsider. How much energy? Who knows. Would my injury have been worse without a helmet? Probably, but more on the abrasion/contusion end of things -- minor injury -- than moderate or serious TBI. Would I have died if I wasn't wearing a helmet. Maybe, maybe not. But probably not.
I am an organ donor. You should be one, too, regardless of your helmet use status. Riding through the city -- or anywhere -- w/o a helmet is not a Darwinistic endeavor. All y'all who fume at having to pay for any of the public dime which goes into medical attention to an injured bareheader seem to assume that anyone careless enough to ride without a helmet are also so irresponsible that they probably don't have insurance. Stop that -- you have no idea one way or another.
#1081
Senior Member
#1082
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
AND....
Thompson et. al, 2009 Thompson DC, Rivara F, Thompson R., 2009. Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists(Review)
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
Wearing a helmet dramatically reduces the risk of head and facial injuries for bicyclists involved in a crash, even if it involves a motor vehicle. [emphasis theirs]
Cycling is a healthy and popular activity for people of all ages. Crashes involving bicyclists are, however, common and often involve motor vehicles. Head injuries are responsible for around three-quarters of deaths among bicyclists involved in crashes. Facial injuries are also common. The review found that wearing a helmet reduced the risk of head or brain injury by approximately two-thirds or more, regardless of whether the crash involved a motor vehicle. [emphasis mine] Injuries to the mid and upper face were also markedly reduced, although helmets did not prevent lower facial injuries.
-mr. bill
Thompson et. al, 2009 Thompson DC, Rivara F, Thompson R., 2009. Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists(Review)
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
Wearing a helmet dramatically reduces the risk of head and facial injuries for bicyclists involved in a crash, even if it involves a motor vehicle. [emphasis theirs]
Cycling is a healthy and popular activity for people of all ages. Crashes involving bicyclists are, however, common and often involve motor vehicles. Head injuries are responsible for around three-quarters of deaths among bicyclists involved in crashes. Facial injuries are also common. The review found that wearing a helmet reduced the risk of head or brain injury by approximately two-thirds or more, regardless of whether the crash involved a motor vehicle. [emphasis mine] Injuries to the mid and upper face were also markedly reduced, although helmets did not prevent lower facial injuries.
-mr. bill
Last edited by mr_bill; 01-29-15 at 05:06 PM.
#1083
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,364 Times
in
945 Posts
It doesn't seem he realized what he linked to was an old study (he's implying that it's new).
Cherry-picking that one study that he twisted (more or less) to support his position is part of the misrepresentation. And he cherry-picked the one study from other studies which do not support his position written by the same exact authors! His implication that this one study (the one he cherry-picked) definitively proves his position is clearly false. His conclusion isn't anything like the conclusions in the abstract the authors of the study wrote. He's "in the business" sort-of (an ER doctor), which means he should know better. There's a whole lotta misrepresentation going on!
One can't really assume the "3.6" number applies universally. Also, in many places, basically one rides in/near traffic or not at all.
Last edited by njkayaker; 01-30-15 at 10:52 AM.
#1084
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,364 Times
in
945 Posts
Your implication that antihelmeteers don't derail threads just because you "don't see it" was easily proven incorrect.
Your lack of awareness is your problem.
Last edited by njkayaker; 01-30-15 at 10:58 AM.
#1085
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
It seemed to me that the abstract conclusion itself was a bit off.
#1086
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
Ah, now I get it. You once again saw what you wanted to see rather than what was actually posted. In other words, it's still a conversation between you and your imagination. I'll leave you to it.
#1088
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,364 Times
in
945 Posts
If he actually treated the study seriously (like you did), he would have known about the other publications. Clearly, he opportunistically linked to it just because he was able to twist into "supporting" his position. Keep in mind that his ilk keep arguing that "pro helmet" results always are "compromised".
(It took me a bit of work to establish that it was an old study. I'd really like to understand what the deal with that was.)
His link to the abstract isn't sufficient to "prove" his claim. He knows that (or he should) but he did it anyway.
Last edited by njkayaker; 01-30-15 at 01:26 PM.
#1089
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bastrop Texas
Posts: 4,486
Bikes: Univega, Peu P6, Peu PR-10, Ted Williams, Peu UO-8, Peu UO-18 Mixte, Peu Dolomites
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 969 Post(s)
Liked 1,632 Times
in
1,048 Posts
I do not support MANDITORY HELMET LAWS for adults!
My helmet saved my life in August 2012 and I personally will never ride without one...
My helmet saved my life in August 2012 and I personally will never ride without one...
#1090
Senior Member
#1091
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Posts: 7,663
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: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1612 Post(s)
Liked 2,594 Times
in
1,225 Posts
I had a 'discussion' with my wife about her belief that if something was written in a book it was fact. My point was that personal experience should usually trump what others believe. Even though it was about religion, I see similar arguments here.
Last edited by curbtender; 01-30-15 at 08:45 PM.
#1092
Senior Member
Oh no, you mean God needs to come down here, and actually say that it's safer to ride a bike with a helmet than without...? OMG, us helmeteers have lost the battle... Nobody has ever been "saved" by a helmet must be true...
Last edited by 350htrr; 01-30-15 at 08:30 PM. Reason: spelling
#1094
Senior Member
#1095
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Posts: 7,663
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: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1612 Post(s)
Liked 2,594 Times
in
1,225 Posts
Hell, I'd ride with my helmet of thorns if God came down and asked me to.
#1096
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
Actually the usual senario here is someone like myself reports that their helmet reduced or eliminated injury in an accident. Then------------the usual anti helmet posters decend on that person and pretty much claim he or she is totally wrong. Sorry to say that is tanamount to calling that cyclist a liar. It also decreases the believeability of any of the anti helmet posters. In the matter of wearing helmets the anti helmet posters are their own worst enemies, and they prove it with most every post they put on this thread.
#1097
Senior Member
Actually the usual senario here is someone like myself reports that their helmet reduced or eliminated injury in an accident. Then------------the usual anti helmet posters decend on that person and pretty much claim he or she is totally wrong. Sorry to say that is tanamount to calling that cyclist a liar. It also decreases the believeability of any of the anti helmet posters. In the matter of wearing helmets the anti helmet posters are their own worst enemies, and they prove it with most every post they put on this thread.
And then there are all those who get labeled anti-helmet, when they are nothing of the kind.
#1100
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
mcon
Got nothing?? I my case yes you could say that is true. My nothing was the lack of road rash on the side of my head. How can you argue against that?
Got nothing?? I my case yes you could say that is true. My nothing was the lack of road rash on the side of my head. How can you argue against that?