Get rid bike helmets

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I keep pointing out I am not pointing to a correlation, I am just pointing to the data to prove that helmets are not the answer if you are worried about brain injury. They definitely help prevent abrasions, and may prevent some fractures, but they do not offer the cushioning needed to provide protection where it should be focused, the brain.

Thanks for seeing the obvious.

 

[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.

I keep pointing out I am not pointing to a correlation, I am just pointing to the data to prove that helmets are not the answer if you are worried about brain injury. They definitely help prevent abrasions, and may prevent some fractures, but they do not offer the cushioning needed to provide protection where it should be focused, the brain.

Thanks for seeing the obvious.

I'm only joking with my correlation.

Until they make the inner walls of our craniums softer to absorb impact, there will be concussions. Any company that implies that it protects against such injuries should be brought to court.

 

[bill5]

The point is this. Helmets for people riding bikes is the silliest thing I have ever seen in my life.

I'd rather be "silly" than seriously hurt, or dead.

It's one of those "feel good" rules that don't do a damned thing except create a sale at the bike shop.

Tell you what, let's have a contest. We'll both have our rocks shot at our heads. Or how about get all bundled up in protective gear and repeatedly slammed into a highway. The only diff is I'll wear a bike helmet, you won't. Let's see who holds up better. Winner gets a big bundle of money that the loser has to pay. You good w/that?



I again agree with the general premise of many people being overly worried about many things eg bike injuries to an extent, but it's a reasonable precaution and calling it "silly" is itself silly.

 

[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.

The key to a correlation is not to accept the correlation as statistical proof, but to use the correlation as a basis to test other hypothesis

If your correlation shows that head injuries are up as bike helmet use has increased your first hypothesis to verify is ....what are the percent of head injuries for those wearing a helmet vs those who do not?

The statistical evidence supporting the wearing of helmets to prevent head injuries is overwhelming meaning you need to look somewhere else for the overall increase in head injuries

 

[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.

The key to a correlation is not to accept the correlation as statistical proof, but to use the correlation as a basis to test other hypothesis

If your correlation shows that head injuries are up as bike helmet use has increased your first hypothesis to verify is ....what are the percent of head injuries for those wearing a helmet vs those who do not?

The statistical evidence supporting the wearing of helmets to prevent head injuries is overwhelming meaning you need to look somewhere else for the overall increase in head injuries

I am not talking about head injures, I am talking about the sub category of brain injuries. The statistics clearly show three things.

1. Bike ridership is remaining constant, or even decreasing.
2. Helmet use is increasing.
3. Brain injuries are increasing.

There are a couple of ways to interpret this data. You can look at it an conclude that, for some reason, the people who are not wearing helmets are managing to get more brain injuries than at any point in history, or you can look at it and conclude that helmets are not effective at preventing brain injury.

As I have repeatedly said, all I am doing is pointing at the statistics. Just because you do not like the conclusion that you are forced to reach from them does not mean I am making some type of invalid correlation.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The key to a correlation is not to accept the correlation as statistical proof, but to use the correlation as a basis to test other hypothesis

If your correlation shows that head injuries are up as bike helmet use has increased your first hypothesis to verify is ....what are the percent of head injuries for those wearing a helmet vs those who do not?

The statistical evidence supporting the wearing of helmets to prevent head injuries is overwhelming meaning you need to look somewhere else for the overall increase in head injuries

I am not talking about head injures, I am talking about the sub category of brain injuries. The statistics clearly show three things.

1. Bike ridership is remaining constant, or even decreasing.
2. Helmet use is increasing.
3. Brain injuries are increasing.

There are a couple of ways to interpret this data. You can look at it an conclude that, for some reason, the people who are not wearing helmets are managing to get more brain injuries than at any point in history, or you can look at it and conclude that helmets are not effective at preventing brain injury.

As I have repeatedly said, all I am doing is pointing at the statistics. Just because you do not like the conclusion that you are forced to reach from them does not mean I am making some type of invalid correlation.

Except that the data does not support your conclusion

To verify your conclusion, you would look at available data of bicycle accidents without a helmet and with a helmet and look at the percentage of brain injuries. If your conclusion were correct, the direct measurement of brain injuries would show you are safer without a helmet......it does not

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The key to a correlation is not to accept the correlation as statistical proof, but to use the correlation as a basis to test other hypothesis

If your correlation shows that head injuries are up as bike helmet use has increased your first hypothesis to verify is ....what are the percent of head injuries for those wearing a helmet vs those who do not?

The statistical evidence supporting the wearing of helmets to prevent head injuries is overwhelming meaning you need to look somewhere else for the overall increase in head injuries

I am not talking about head injures, I am talking about the sub category of brain injuries. The statistics clearly show three things.

1. Bike ridership is remaining constant, or even decreasing.
2. Helmet use is increasing.
3. Brain injuries are increasing.

There are a couple of ways to interpret this data. You can look at it an conclude that, for some reason, the people who are not wearing helmets are managing to get more brain injuries than at any point in history, or you can look at it and conclude that helmets are not effective at preventing brain injury.

As I have repeatedly said, all I am doing is pointing at the statistics. Just because you do not like the conclusion that you are forced to reach from them does not mean I am making some type of invalid correlation.

Except that the data does not support your conclusion

To verify your conclusion, you would look at available data of bicycle accidents without a helmet and with a helmet and look at the percentage of brain injuries. If your conclusion were correct, the direct measurement of brain injuries would show you are safer without a helmet......it does not

I outlined two conclusions, which one is it the data does not support?

FYI, there is no study that exists anywhere that measures brain injury while wearing helmets, so you telling me the data from said study disproves whatever conclusion you have a problem with is you not looking at the data, not me.

 

[bill5]

You can get statistics to say dang near anything you want.

 

[Dot Com]

They should just be refused healthcare like they said in the GOP t-party debate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can get statistics to say dang near anything you want.

I can, but I am pretty sure you would end up looking like an idiot if you tried.

 

[bill5]

Clearly.

 

[LAfrique]

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

I enjoy cycling, but often along familiar routes and without helmet. Sometimes I have cars honking and attempting to intimidate me off the street. Once I had an unattended driver exiting a restaurant drive-thru hit me, and in another instance I had a distracted cell phone user hit me. In both cases, I had guessed they had not seen me and took quick action by jumping off my bike and was not hurt, though my bike was dented. They both immediately gave me money enough to repair my bike and keep hefty change.

While I believe assigned lane for cyclists would alleviate most accidents en route, I think helmets for motor bikes are an essential. I have witnessed 3 accidents involving bikers, with one fatality involving a biker not wearing helmet. One involved a biker who had gone into gear and his bike took off faster than he was prepared for, dropping him head-first on the paved road. As some of us hurried to the biker, the man stood up with a little limp and laughed and we cheered. If it had not been for his helmet, there is no doubt that man could never have made it through that unfortunate incident walking.

Therefore, I think helmets for motor bikes and bicycle races are smart. And casual cyclists who want helmets are welcome to do so.