Get rid bike helmets

[Quantum Windbag]

I specifically pointed out there is no correlation, yet you worry about something that no one is pointing to.

But you are doing exactly that, in this very post:

It is, nonetheless, a statistical certainty that bicycle helmet usage does not prevent significant brain injury. If it did there would be a noticeable drop in injuries as helmet use goes up, even if people were more likely to do crazy things while wearing a helmet. Pointing out that the opposite happens is not trying to correlate helmet use and brain injury, it is pointing out that they do not work.

I believe the statistics about motorcycle helmets and brain injuries actually show a drop when helmet use goes up. That proves they work, even though there is solid evidence that they increase the chances of neck injuries.

You're taking a statistically correlation that shows people are more likely to suffer injury when wearing a helmet, and trying to offer it as 'statistical certainty that bicycle helmet usage does not prevent significant brain injury', and that doesn't follow. There are any number of reasons why injuries might be more prevalent among people wearing helmets, not the least of which is that those doing dangerous things are more likely to wear a helmet.

But you have to completely deny logical analysis to maintain that you're at more risk wearing a helmet. The only valid question is whether the design of bike helmets actually offer that much protection; there's seems reason to doubt the 'common wisdom' on that one, especially for those kind that just sort of ride on the crown of your head.

Either way, these kinds of statistical correlations say exactly nothing (pro or con) about a helmet's ability to protect a bike rider in a given circumstance. I apologize for being so strident on the issue, but its is a really common fallacy, foisted on us by leaders and advocates from every corner. Statistics can give us some useful information concerning the likeliness of different outcomes, but they don't say squat about the real risk present in a specific circumstance. In other words, once you've fucked up and your head is hitting pavement, you're going to be safer with helmet on.

How does pointing out that, if helmets actually help, brain injuries would go down when more people wore them, establish a correlation between brain injuries and helmet use? I think you need to reexamine your premise.

FYI, logic tells us that wearing a T-shirt protects against sunburn. The strange thing is that, despite logic, people still get sunburns when they wear T-shirts. This, believe it or not, does not equal a correlation between T-shirts and sunburn, it just tells us that we do not understand all the factors involved. It turns out that T-shirts that do not protect against UVA and UVB rays do not prevent sunburns.

 

[dblack]

How does pointing out that, if helmets actually help, brain injuries would go down when more people wore them, establish a correlation between brain injuries and helmet use? I think you need to reexamine your premise.

Well, you stated that "the statistics show that the more people wear helmets, the more likely it is they will get hurt. Head injuries actually increase with helmet use..."

That's a correlation relating wearing a helmet with the likelihood of injury. The observation that the frequency of injuries goes up as helmet usage goes up says very little about a helmet's ability to protect an individual user. And it doesn't prove the wearing one makes it more likely you'll get hurt. It doesn't establish causation, just correlation.

Look, you could make the same argument about football helmets. I don't have stats available, but I'm reasonably certain that they would show that, statistically, the more people wear football helmets, the more likely they are to suffer injury. That doesn't prove that it's pointless to wear a football helmet (if you're playing football). It's merely a correlation that results from the fact that people don't usually wear a football helmet unless their playing football - a fairly dangerous sport.

I think the significant thing is that the technical and personal benefits of wearing a helmet are a different question than whether a policy of encouraging helmet use will reduce overall injuries. It's very possible the latter will increase injuries overall, either by encouraging people to try more dangerous biking, or simply making them complacent. And aggressively promoting helmet use might prove to be a bad policy overall. But that doesn't mean that wearing a helmet (all other things being equal) is somehow dangerous. I think it's that conflation that people here are reacting to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How does pointing out that, if helmets actually help, brain injuries would go down when more people wore them, establish a correlation between brain injuries and helmet use? I think you need to reexamine your premise.

Well, you stated that "the statistics show that the more people wear helmets, the more likely it is they will get hurt. Head injuries actually increase with helmet use..."

That's a correlation relating wearing a helmet with the likelihood of injury. The observation that the frequency of injuries goes up as helmet usage goes up says very little about a helmet's ability to protect an individual user. And it doesn't prove the wearing one makes it more likely you'll get hurt. It doesn't establish causation, just correlation.

Look, you could make the same argument about football helmets. I don't have stats available, but I'm reasonably certain that they would show that, statistically, the more people wear football helmets, the more likely they are to suffer injury. That doesn't prove that it's pointless to wear a football helmet (if you're playing football). It's merely a correlation that results from the fact that people don't usually wear a football helmet unless their playing football - a fairly dangerous sport.

I think the significant thing is that the technical and personal benefits of wearing a helmet are a different question than whether a policy of encouraging helmet use will reduce overall injuries. It's very possible the latter will increase injuries overall, either by encouraging people to try more dangerous biking, or simply making them complacent. And aggressively promoting helmet use might prove to be a bad policy overall. But that doesn't mean that wearing a helmet (all other things being equal) is somehow dangerous. I think it's that conflation that people here are reacting to.

There is where you are making the mistake.

People who play football and do not wear helmets are more likely to be injured than those who do not. If you watched the video you should have heard him say that the incidence of injuries went up when helmet use increased, even though the number of bike riders remained the same.

That is enough statistical evidence alone to challenge any logic or common sense that argues that wearing a helmet decreases brain injuries. If brain injuries wen up when helmet use and bicycle riding went up it might need more analysis, but that is not what happened.

All things being equal, wearing a helmet is not statistically likely to prevent brain injuries. If you are worried about getting some scrapes on your head, wear one. If you are worried about serious injury and seriously want to protect yourself, get something else. I would suggest a BMX style helmet since those are actually designed to take impacts from multiple directions at real speeds.

 

[syrenn]

I specifically pointed out there is no correlation, yet you worry about something that no one is pointing to.

But you are doing exactly that, in this very post:

It is, nonetheless, a statistical certainty that bicycle helmet usage does not prevent significant brain injury. If it did there would be a noticeable drop in injuries as helmet use goes up, even if people were more likely to do crazy things while wearing a helmet. Pointing out that the opposite happens is not trying to correlate helmet use and brain injury, it is pointing out that they do not work.

I believe the statistics about motorcycle helmets and brain injuries actually show a drop when helmet use goes up. That proves they work, even though there is solid evidence that they increase the chances of neck injuries.

You're taking a statistically correlation that shows people are more likely to suffer injury when wearing a helmet, and trying to offer it as 'statistical certainty that bicycle helmet usage does not prevent significant brain injury', and that doesn't follow. There are any number of reasons why injuries might be more prevalent among people wearing helmets, not the least of which is that those doing dangerous things are more likely to wear a helmet.

But you have to completely deny logical analysis to maintain that you're at more risk wearing a helmet. The only valid question is whether the design of bike helmets actually offer that much protection; there's seems reason to doubt the 'common wisdom' on that one, especially for those kind that just sort of ride on the crown of your head.

Either way, these kinds of statistical correlations say exactly nothing (pro or con) about a helmet's ability to protect a bike rider in a given circumstance. I apologize for being so strident on the issue, but its is a really common fallacy, foisted on us by leaders and advocates from every corner. Statistics can give us some useful information concerning the likeliness of different outcomes, but they don't say squat about the real risk present in a specific circumstance. In other words, once you've fucked up and your head is hitting pavement, you're going to be safer with helmet on.

How does pointing out that, if helmets actually help, brain injuries would go down when more people wore them, establish a correlation between brain injuries and helmet use? I think you need to reexamine your premise.

FYI, logic tells us that wearing a T-shirt protects against sunburn. The strange thing is that, despite logic, people still get sunburns when they wear T-shirts. This, believe it or not, does not equal a correlation between T-shirts and sunburn, it just tells us that we do not understand all the factors involved. It turns out that T-shirts that do not protect against UVA and UVB rays do not prevent sunburns.

SPF clothing

 

[rightwinger]

How does pointing out that, if helmets actually help, brain injuries would go down when more people wore them, establish a correlation between brain injuries and helmet use? I think you need to reexamine your premise.

Well, you stated that "the statistics show that the more people wear helmets, the more likely it is they will get hurt. Head injuries actually increase with helmet use..."

That's a correlation relating wearing a helmet with the likelihood of injury. The observation that the frequency of injuries goes up as helmet usage goes up says very little about a helmet's ability to protect an individual user. And it doesn't prove the wearing one makes it more likely you'll get hurt. It doesn't establish causation, just correlation.

Look, you could make the same argument about football helmets. I don't have stats available, but I'm reasonably certain that they would show that, statistically, the more people wear football helmets, the more likely they are to suffer injury. That doesn't prove that it's pointless to wear a football helmet (if you're playing football). It's merely a correlation that results from the fact that people don't usually wear a football helmet unless their playing football - a fairly dangerous sport.

I think the significant thing is that the technical and personal benefits of wearing a helmet are a different question than whether a policy of encouraging helmet use will reduce overall injuries. It's very possible the latter will increase injuries overall, either by encouraging people to try more dangerous biking, or simply making them complacent. And aggressively promoting helmet use might prove to be a bad policy overall. But that doesn't mean that wearing a helmet (all other things being equal) is somehow dangerous. I think it's that conflation that people here are reacting to.

The only relevant correlation is people actually involved in bike accidents and the percentage of head injuries for those wearing a helmet vs those who don't

People who log thousands of miles on their bikes are more likely to wear a helmet, they are also more likely to have an accident because of exposure to more potentially hazardous situations

 

[dblack]

There is where you are making the mistake.

People who play football and do not wear helmets are more likely to be injured than those who do not. If you watched the video you should have heard him say that the incidence of injuries went up when helmet use increased, even though the number of bike riders remained the same.

That is enough statistical evidence alone to challenge any logic or common sense that argues that wearing a helmet decreases brain injuries. If brain injuries wen up when helmet use and bicycle riding went up it might need more analysis, but that is not what happened.

All things being equal, wearing a helmet is not statistically likely to prevent brain injuries. If you are worried about getting some scrapes on your head, wear one. If you are worried about serious injury and seriously want to protect yourself, get something else. I would suggest a BMX style helmet since those are actually designed to take impacts from multiple directions at real speeds.

I'm not sure what other way I can come at this. Simply put, correlation does not equal causation - and despite your denial, the argument rests entirely on a correlation. I wouldn't keep bringing it up, but it's bad science to draw conclusions about specific factors from statistical correlations. The text books are full of such fallacies. Did you know that there is rock-solid statistical evidence showing a correlation between crime and ice-cream consumption? It's true. Decades of statistics support it. When ice-cream consumption peaks, so do crime rates.

The reason this particular fallacy annoys me so much is, as I mentioned, it's usually used by the other 'side' in these public safety debates. And it's bullshit then too. (eg. if the statistics indicated the opposite, that injuries went down as helmet usage went up, it still wouldn't prove anything about the effectiveness of a helmet in a given accident).

The point I'd like to make here (again) is that we're dealing with two distinct questions: whether a blanket policy of encouraging helmet use is a good idea, and whether helmets are effective at preventing injury. They're both important questions, but the evidence supporting one doesnt' necessarily apply to the other. It's important to distinguish the two because the goals are different. The point of encouraging helmet use, I assume, is to reduce overall injury statistics. Such a campaign may, or may not, produce those results. But that gives no direct evidence on the effectiveness of wearing a helmet for a person in an accident.

Abuse of statistical arguments like this are widespread and we need to start recognizing them for what they are. All too often we accept them at face value when they don't prove anything useful.

 

[bill5]

Mikael Colville-Andersen is not the biggest fan of the bike helmet.

Mikael Colville-Andersen is a flaming moron.

Actually in a very general sense he makes a good point about the growing over coddling and paranoia etc in our society today, and frankly I don't care for the helmets myself, but I admit I should wear one when biking (esp "serious" biking), and implying bike helmets don't improve your chances of avoiding serious injury in a bike fall or that they "cripple us with fear" is laughably stupid. Yeah and rubber gloves when you're working on high-powered electric lines are bad too, don't use those.

Summary: There is no federal law in the U.S. requiring bicycle helmets. The states and localities below began adopting laws in 1987, mostly limited to children under 18. More info on helmet laws follows the list.

Bicycle Helmet Laws

If I thought this was a national issue I would have put it in politics, thanks for playing, and ignoring the point.

gasp

You missed the point: on this site, EVERY thread is a political thread. The left sucks! The right sucks! Bush! Obama! blah!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This is kind of a pet peeve with me, and the fact that I found this talk today just encouraged me to bring it up.

Mikael Colville-Andersen is not the biggest fan of the bike helmet. An avid cyclist, filmmaker, and fan of livable, bike-heavy cities, he delivered a talk at TEDxCopenhagen in late 2010 that slammed one of our long-held beliefs about bicycle safety — he suggested that cyclists shouldn't worry about wearing helmets.
In the talk, Colville-Andersen describes the culture of fear dominating our modern society and "an almost pornographic obsession with safety equipment." The idea that we're in danger lends itself to a "bubble-wrap society," with many people financially benefiting from the everyday person's paranoia about the risks lurking behind every corner. He identified the promotion of the bike helmet as a marketing moves. The helmet lacks a great track record of safety scientifically, he notes, and the scientific community is split on its efficiency. What he scrutinizes is the testing, the statistics surrounding helmet safety, and the deeper dangers that could affect a cycling culture crippled by fear.
What we need, according to Colville-Andersen, is logic. Looking at Copenhagen, he connects the promotion of bike helmets with strong drops in cycling due to fear. "People are getting scared away from a very intelligent, life-extending, sustainable zero carbon transport form by making it seem much more dangerous than it is," he tells the TEDx audience. He compares the great health benefits of cycling to any of the risks inherent in bike helmet promotion and enthusiastically advocates for society to encourage cycling at the expense of helmets. The criticism has emerged elsewhere in the cycling community, such as in this article tracking the emergence of the helmet in America and how it affected actual cyclist safety.

Idea of the day: Ditch the bike helmet - @TBD On Foot | TBD.com

Whatever dude. I don't need a study to tell me I need to where a helmet if I ride a bike around here. As a driver, I've witnessed other vehicles nearly wipe out bicyclists three times - always in left turns. And I have more than one friend that has been hit by a car while riding a bike. It happens all the time. Many times the drivers don't even stop. I have another friend who was in a serious accident while riding his motor bike. The helmet saved his life. He sustained brain injury even with it, but without it, his brains would have splattered all over the road like a watermelon.

Drops in cycling due to fear? The fear is of the increasingly aggressive and ignorant drivers on the road, its based in reality.

Today's drivers have no fucking clue how to drive around:
1) bicyclists
2) bikers
3) truckers

Ask anyone who is any of those three on a day to day basis.

But if you're dumb enough to not wear a helmet - that's fine with me. One less stupid person. Just make sure you sign a DNR so you don't cost your family and society a ton of money when you wind up plugged in and brain dead.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is where you are making the mistake.

People who play football and do not wear helmets are more likely to be injured than those who do not. If you watched the video you should have heard him say that the incidence of injuries went up when helmet use increased, even though the number of bike riders remained the same.

That is enough statistical evidence alone to challenge any logic or common sense that argues that wearing a helmet decreases brain injuries. If brain injuries wen up when helmet use and bicycle riding went up it might need more analysis, but that is not what happened.

All things being equal, wearing a helmet is not statistically likely to prevent brain injuries. If you are worried about getting some scrapes on your head, wear one. If you are worried about serious injury and seriously want to protect yourself, get something else. I would suggest a BMX style helmet since those are actually designed to take impacts from multiple directions at real speeds.

I'm not sure what other way I can come at this. Simply put, correlation does not equal causation - and despite your denial, the argument rests entirely on a correlation. I wouldn't keep bringing it up, but it's bad science to draw conclusions about specific factors from statistical correlations. The text books are full of such fallacies. Did you know that there is rock-solid statistical evidence showing a correlation between crime and ice-cream consumption? It's true. Decades of statistics support it. When ice-cream consumption peaks, so do crime rates.

The reason this particular fallacy annoys me so much is, as I mentioned, it's usually used by the other 'side' in these public safety debates. And it's bullshit then too. (eg. if the statistics indicated the opposite, that injuries went down as helmet usage went up, it still wouldn't prove anything about the effectiveness of a helmet in a given accident).

The point I'd like to make here (again) is that we're dealing with two distinct questions: whether a blanket policy of encouraging helmet use is a good idea, and whether helmets are effective at preventing injury. They're both important questions, but the evidence supporting one doesnt' necessarily apply to the other. It's important to distinguish the two because the goals are different. The point of encouraging helmet use, I assume, is to reduce overall injury statistics. Such a campaign may, or may not, produce those results. But that gives no direct evidence on the effectiveness of wearing a helmet for a person in an accident.

Abuse of statistical arguments like this are widespread and we need to start recognizing them for what they are. All too often we accept them at face value when they don't prove anything useful.

I am not making a statistical correlation. I pointed out that brain injuries increased when helmet use went up, and I commented that this might be because people took more risks. It certainly was not because more people were riding bikes. That was simply a guess.

I then argued, separately, that, if helmets are effective at preventing up to 85% of brain injuries, as one study claimed, helmet use should cause brain injuries to go down. For some reason you want to combine the two different statements into one.

I am not arguing that helmets are unsafe, I am arguing that they are ineffective. I then point to statistical evidence that supports that argument.

You seem to be focused on me using the statistics to prove that helmets are bad policy. I am not, I am pointing to statistics to show that helmets are useless.

Is there a chance that wearing a helmet will prevent some brain injuries? Of course there is. Longer hair prevents some brain injuries. Anything you can do to cushion your head might make things better, but bicycle helmets are the least effective method of protecting yourself against most brain injuries.

The CPSC standards for helmets actually make things worse. Couple that with the fact that helmets are designed to look good and to ventilate the rider and things get worse.

The marketing of helmets is driven by one key design concept: vents. Vents are the holes in the helmet. The vents in helmets have increased dramatically in number and size over the past ten years. The vents create an aerodynamic appearance and also allow air ventilation to the cyclist’s head. The vents also make the helmet look “cool” based
upon marketing studies conducted by manufacturers. Manufacturers know that the vents provide no aerodynamic advantage to individuals other than professional cyclists.
Manufacturers also know that the thinner the helmet is and the more vent space there is – the more dense the foam has to be to manage any energy from an impact.

PDF

Manufacturers use hard foam, and that actually reduces the safety factor. You are better off building a helmet out of cardboard yourself, it will cushion your head better.

Guess what? The government knows this, and does not care.

CPSC statistics show that since 1991 the number of head injuries in bicycle accidents has increased 10 percent, even though helmet use has risen significantly. Safety experts concur that while helmets do not always prevent injury, they are very effective at reducing head injury
severity when accidents do occur. Therefore, this data is puzzling to many safetyengineers. Numerous explanations have been posed, but a solution to the problem can only result from the implementation of more stringent safety standards which require manufacturers to place more focus on safety design with little room for marketing driven concepts.

If you read the PDF you will see that helmets are designed not to crack under an impact of less than 20 mph directly on the top of the helmet. They are not designed not to pass the force of that impact on to the wearer. They do not protect the weakest bones in the skull, nor do they protect the face or jaw. Try falling off a bike and landing on the top of your head sometime.

Helmets are many things. They look good, they do not overheat your head, and they make you look like you are a professional rider. They are designed to do all of that.

They are also designed to make manufacturers money.

What they are not designed to do is keep your brain safe.

That is what this thread is about. That is what the video was about, and the culture of fear that helps to sell a product that is effectively useless.

This is not a statistical correlation, it is a fact that I used statistics to help demonstrate. The fact that you got distracted by one of your pet peeves, which I actually understand, does not make my argument wrong. It does, however, mean I could have presented it better.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How does pointing out that, if helmets actually help, brain injuries would go down when more people wore them, establish a correlation between brain injuries and helmet use? I think you need to reexamine your premise.

Well, you stated that "the statistics show that the more people wear helmets, the more likely it is they will get hurt. Head injuries actually increase with helmet use..."

That's a correlation relating wearing a helmet with the likelihood of injury. The observation that the frequency of injuries goes up as helmet usage goes up says very little about a helmet's ability to protect an individual user. And it doesn't prove the wearing one makes it more likely you'll get hurt. It doesn't establish causation, just correlation.

Look, you could make the same argument about football helmets. I don't have stats available, but I'm reasonably certain that they would show that, statistically, the more people wear football helmets, the more likely they are to suffer injury. That doesn't prove that it's pointless to wear a football helmet (if you're playing football). It's merely a correlation that results from the fact that people don't usually wear a football helmet unless their playing football - a fairly dangerous sport.

I think the significant thing is that the technical and personal benefits of wearing a helmet are a different question than whether a policy of encouraging helmet use will reduce overall injuries. It's very possible the latter will increase injuries overall, either by encouraging people to try more dangerous biking, or simply making them complacent. And aggressively promoting helmet use might prove to be a bad policy overall. But that doesn't mean that wearing a helmet (all other things being equal) is somehow dangerous. I think it's that conflation that people here are reacting to.

The only relevant correlation is people actually involved in bike accidents and the percentage of head injuries for those wearing a helmet vs those who don't

People who log thousands of miles on their bikes are more likely to wear a helmet, they are also more likely to have an accident because of exposure to more potentially hazardous situations

Statistics show that brain injuries are going up even as helmet use goes up. That should tell you something, even if you do not like what it tells you.

 

[Ravi]

Well, you stated that "the statistics show that the more people wear helmets, the more likely it is they will get hurt. Head injuries actually increase with helmet use..."

That's a correlation relating wearing a helmet with the likelihood of injury. The observation that the frequency of injuries goes up as helmet usage goes up says very little about a helmet's ability to protect an individual user. And it doesn't prove the wearing one makes it more likely you'll get hurt. It doesn't establish causation, just correlation.

Look, you could make the same argument about football helmets. I don't have stats available, but I'm reasonably certain that they would show that, statistically, the more people wear football helmets, the more likely they are to suffer injury. That doesn't prove that it's pointless to wear a football helmet (if you're playing football). It's merely a correlation that results from the fact that people don't usually wear a football helmet unless their playing football - a fairly dangerous sport.

I think the significant thing is that the technical and personal benefits of wearing a helmet are a different question than whether a policy of encouraging helmet use will reduce overall injuries. It's very possible the latter will increase injuries overall, either by encouraging people to try more dangerous biking, or simply making them complacent. And aggressively promoting helmet use might prove to be a bad policy overall. But that doesn't mean that wearing a helmet (all other things being equal) is somehow dangerous. I think it's that conflation that people here are reacting to.

The only relevant correlation is people actually involved in bike accidents and the percentage of head injuries for those wearing a helmet vs those who don't

People who log thousands of miles on their bikes are more likely to wear a helmet, they are also more likely to have an accident because of exposure to more potentially hazardous situations

Statistics show that brain injuries are going up even as helmet use goes up. That should tell you something, even if you do not like what it tells you.

Statistics show that brain injuries are going up as the temperature rises.

Therefore, global warming causes brain injuries.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, you stated that "the statistics show that the more people wear helmets, the more likely it is they will get hurt. Head injuries actually increase with helmet use..."

That's a correlation relating wearing a helmet with the likelihood of injury. The observation that the frequency of injuries goes up as helmet usage goes up says very little about a helmet's ability to protect an individual user. And it doesn't prove the wearing one makes it more likely you'll get hurt. It doesn't establish causation, just correlation.

Look, you could make the same argument about football helmets. I don't have stats available, but I'm reasonably certain that they would show that, statistically, the more people wear football helmets, the more likely they are to suffer injury. That doesn't prove that it's pointless to wear a football helmet (if you're playing football). It's merely a correlation that results from the fact that people don't usually wear a football helmet unless their playing football - a fairly dangerous sport.

I think the significant thing is that the technical and personal benefits of wearing a helmet are a different question than whether a policy of encouraging helmet use will reduce overall injuries. It's very possible the latter will increase injuries overall, either by encouraging people to try more dangerous biking, or simply making them complacent. And aggressively promoting helmet use might prove to be a bad policy overall. But that doesn't mean that wearing a helmet (all other things being equal) is somehow dangerous. I think it's that conflation that people here are reacting to.

The only relevant correlation is people actually involved in bike accidents and the percentage of head injuries for those wearing a helmet vs those who don't

People who log thousands of miles on their bikes are more likely to wear a helmet, they are also more likely to have an accident because of exposure to more potentially hazardous situations

Statistics show that brain injuries are going up even as helmet use goes up. That should tell you something, even if you do not like what it tells you.

That does not establish a cause and effect relationship. You need to also consider all other relative data like is bike ridership up?

Show me the data on head injuries while wearing a helmet vs head injuries without........that is the only direct correlation

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only relevant correlation is people actually involved in bike accidents and the percentage of head injuries for those wearing a helmet vs those who don't

People who log thousands of miles on their bikes are more likely to wear a helmet, they are also more likely to have an accident because of exposure to more potentially hazardous situations

Statistics show that brain injuries are going up even as helmet use goes up. That should tell you something, even if you do not like what it tells you.

Statistics show that brain injuries are going up as the temperature rises.

Therefore, global warming causes brain injuries.

Thanks for proving you can't read.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only relevant correlation is people actually involved in bike accidents and the percentage of head injuries for those wearing a helmet vs those who don't

People who log thousands of miles on their bikes are more likely to wear a helmet, they are also more likely to have an accident because of exposure to more potentially hazardous situations

Statistics show that brain injuries are going up even as helmet use goes up. That should tell you something, even if you do not like what it tells you.

That does not establish a cause and effect relationship. You need to also consider all other relative data like is bike ridership up?

Show me the data on head injuries while wearing a helmet vs head injuries without........that is the only direct correlation

Where did I say there was correlation, causation, or even dependance? The problem here is not that I am making a correlation, it is that you know just enough about statistics to think you can make an argument about them.

You can't.

I already posted the data. Bicycle ridership is declining, helmet use is increasing, and brain injuries are increasing. That should tell you everything you need to know. If you need more, go look for yourself.

 

[bobcollum]

There is also a correlation between the use of marijuana and chocolate milk.

But really, I slightly get your angle. It should be obvious to most that helmets do little to prevent certain head injuries, like concussions, but do have an effective use against other head injuries, like skull fractures. Anyone that thinks they're the end-all in head protection are wrong, but at the same time it doesn't completely invalidate their use. This is more of an issue about the stupidity of some people.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Thinking back over my youth, if a friend of mine had of been wearing a bike helmet when he was struck by a truck while riding his bike, he may have survived. That is, if all of those internal injuries would not have killed him. He was a mess. So was his bike. The 18-wheeler that hit him didn't even have a dent in the bumper. I guess that little plastic helmet protected the truck's paint job.

 

[rightwinger]

Thinking back over my youth, if a friend of mine had of been wearing a bike helmet when he was struck by a truck while riding his bike, he may have survived. That is, if all of those internal injuries would not have killed him. He was a mess. So was his bike. The 18-wheeler that hit him didn't even have a dent in the bumper. I guess that little plastic helmet protected the truck's paint job.

Not sure what your point is...

Are you joking about your friends death?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Thinking back over my youth, if a friend of mine had of been wearing a bike helmet when he was struck by a truck while riding his bike, he may have survived. That is, if all of those internal injuries would not have killed him. He was a mess. So was his bike. The 18-wheeler that hit him didn't even have a dent in the bumper. I guess that little plastic helmet protected the truck's paint job.

Not sure what your point is...

Are you joking about your friends death?

The point is this. Helmets for people riding bikes is the silliest thing I have ever seen in my life. It's one of those "feel good" rules that don't do a damned thing except create a sale at the bike shop.

 

[bobcollum]

Thinking back over my youth, if a friend of mine had of been wearing a bike helmet when he was struck by a truck while riding his bike, he may have survived. That is, if all of those internal injuries would not have killed him. He was a mess. So was his bike. The 18-wheeler that hit him didn't even have a dent in the bumper. I guess that little plastic helmet protected the truck's paint job.

Not sure what your point is...

Are you joking about your friends death?

The point is this. Helmets for people riding bikes is the silliest thing I have ever seen in my life. It's one of those "feel good" rules that don't do a damned thing except create a sale at the bike shop.

I disagree. A helmet can be the difference between a concussion and a fractured skull or just a concussion. I'm not implying that it prevents it every time, but it certainly does sometimes.

 

[rightwinger]

Thinking back over my youth, if a friend of mine had of been wearing a bike helmet when he was struck by a truck while riding his bike, he may have survived. That is, if all of those internal injuries would not have killed him. He was a mess. So was his bike. The 18-wheeler that hit him didn't even have a dent in the bumper. I guess that little plastic helmet protected the truck's paint job.

Not sure what your point is...

Are you joking about your friends death?

The point is this. Helmets for people riding bikes is the silliest thing I have ever seen in my life. It's one of those "feel good" rules that don't do a damned thing except create a sale at the bike shop.

Oh ...I see your point now

Since a bike helmet won't save you if you are hit by an 18 wheeler, you shouldn't bother to wear one