Do you wear a bike helmet? Is it a law where you live?
Have you ever actually fallen off of your bike and hit your head?
I don't wear a helmet when I ride my bike. I'm confident that I'm not ever going to land head-first into asphalt.
>>931310
U-U-U-U-Ultrabait!
>>931310
I've never used a helmet in my life. I don't see any point of using something that covers only top part of head. There is bigger risk of hands and legs traumas and nobody thinks about protecting them. Of course wounds in those places will heal more quickly than head so I don't criticize those who wear it, it's just my personal thought.
Yes
Yes
No
>>931317
>There is bigger risk of hands and legs traumas and nobody thinks about protecting them.
Your brain isn't in your hands and legs.
>>931342
Less than a tenth of all permanent invalidity or death is caused by head trauma.
>Do you wear a bike helmet? Is it a law where you live?
Yes. Didn't used to but started wearing one.
>Have you ever actually fallen off of your bike and hit your head?
Yes and bystander said I would be dead if it were not for the helmet. Bike went through some oil and I slipped.
>I don't wear a helmet when I ride my bike. I'm confident that I'm not ever going to land head-first into asphalt.
I used to think the same, good thing I changed my way of thinking.
>>931343
I don't know anyone who's fallen into a coma because of a broken arm, but okay sure.
>>931379
What part of 'permanent invalidity or death' did you not understand? I don't know of anyone who slippen into a coma from a broken nail either.
>>931310
not anymore
no
i've been hit by several cars and hit a nasty pothole in the dark that threw me. helmet or no, I never landed on my head. always on the sides. elbows and hips/ass.
Yes
No
I hit my helmet, not my head
>>931343
Less than a tenth of all premanent invalidity or death as a result if bicycle crashes is caused by non-head trauma.
>>931343
That's because most cyclists who crash that severely are wearing helmets.
>>931343
That's because most people die from health issues, not injury.
It's not law here but I wear a helmet because I ride fast enough to keep up with traffic, even overtaking scooters on occasion.
If you ride faster than 30km/h (18.6 handspans per second) you should wear a helmet, as insurance.
>>931425
I obviously ment in the context of bike accidents. About 9% of deaths and permanent invalidity in bike crashes is from head injury. 'Head injury' includes neck damage because silly statistic grouping by ER.
itslife,, Jim,,, but, notas we knowit.
>>931310
Oh boy, it's THAT thread again.
Yes, it's a law to wear a helmet. Yes, I wear a helmet, not for the law, but because I care about my brain
Yes, on January 2015 I had a pretty nasty crash, our lord and savior Helmet died for our sins.
Yes, I'm confident enough on my skills of not diving headfirst into concrete, but I can never be certain that some shit won't happen and I'll need my helmet to be there. Might as well wear it always I ride.
>>931439
Please, Bacon, don't EVER EVER remove that plastic cover. Ride everywhere with it.
>>931343
Because helmets
I look like a dingus in any helmet i wear and only wear it so other mountain bikers don't ridicule me. Id wear it on technical or unfamiliar trails anyway but on my local loop its just because everyone else wears one.
>>931432
nope
>do you wear bike helmet?
Yes, i care about my head and brain mainly.
>is it law where you live?
Not in all places. Our laws says that helmet must be used in urban zones. Outside urban limits, you are not obliged to wear it.
>have you ever...
Yes, without helmet and with helmet. God bless helmets.
Helmet is for protect your brain and head in a fall. You can crush into a car or just slip in dirty pavement. In any case is obvious that you head will impact any surface in any moment of the crash or fall. Is common sense, sweet lord. Wear it.
>>931469
B-but that's a nice looking helmet, anon-kun.
Perhaps you look like a dingus regardless of helmet.
>>931469
>tfw
I look like a complete retard and a 16 year old when I wear a helmet even though I am 29 ._.
The only people who don't wear helmets here are Mexicans on stolen BMX bikes and kids on mountain bikes that sound like they haven't been lubed in ten years.
I mainly do club rides and helmets are not only expected, they are required. If you do not want to wear a helmet you will most likely be fine because I guarantee that you ride mainly on the sidewalk and probably don't even ride for longer than 20 minutes at a time.
B ^ )
>>931496
I like look like a 16 year old even without the helmet ._. When I try to grow a beard I end up with some stubbles on my chin and some kind of weird 15 years old turkish boy's vacation mustache. You know the fluffy kind that boys heading into puberty grow ;__;
Shit! It feels bad! The helmet makes me look even younger and dumber ._.
>>931495
Truth have been spoken.
>>931310
>Do you wear a bike helmet?
All the time.
>Is it a law where you live?
Nope.. but the USAC rulebook says you have to wear a helmet when racing, and you don't do things different in training than you do at a race, so I wear a helmet.
>Have you ever actually fallen off of your bike and hit your head?
Yep. Crashed at a road race 3 years ago, at high speed, and there was a nice big dent in my helmet.. and a huge hematoma on my left hip.. and cuts and bruises all over my body.. and my handlebars were bent. Without the helmet, I woudn't have got up to ride back to the car, I would have to have been life-flighted out of there with a massive blunt-force head trauma.
>I don't wear a helmet when I ride my bike.
Then you're dumb.
>I'm confident that I'm not ever going to land head-first into asphalt.
Then you're *violently* dumb. You're also invoking Murphy; you'll crash and hit your head THIS WEEK since you said it. You may as well have said:
>What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Enjoy your massive head trauma, fool.
/out
i prefer helmet bait threads more than cager bait threads.
>>931591
>All the time.
Doesn't that make it difficult to wash your hair, or uncomfortable to lie in bed?
>>931310
Yes, no.
Luckily no not yet.
The only people I see not wearing a helmet are 'casuals' who use BSO mountain bikes and cycle on the Netherlands-tier cycle paths in my nearest city. Which is fair enough because you don't need them there really even though I always wear one. On roads though everyone is on a road bike and wears a helmet, I actually see a lot of cyclists on the roads, more than on the cyclepaths in the nearest city which is a bit odd, especially at weekends for obvious reasons. I don't understand the anti helmet brigade though. They seem really fucking autistic and vocal, and are obsessed with a single study done in Australia years ago that showed cars pass closer to people with helmets. Without getting into a debate, that's a load of a bollocks, cars barely give you any room helmet or not, I don't want to risk getting clipped by a car and braining myself on a road.
Also the 'people with helmets cycle dangerously because they felel safe' is again bollocks, I forget I'm even wearing a helmet, and if you watch all these videos online of twatty cyclists in London jumping lights and filtering like idiots a lot of them don't even bother with a helmet.
>but if you get run over what good is a helmet?
People seem to think that every incident involving a cart involves you getting dragged underneath it and crushed to death. Car bonnets are built to stop that, what would happen is that you'll go flying and land, in which case I would personally like something on my head in case my skull smacks the ground. Cyclists in London get dragged under lorries and crushed though because they sit in their blind spot, then the lorry turns left. There's a new law that requires lorries in the centre of London to have special barriers either side to stop that though iirc.
Honestly I don't think many of the anti helmet people even cycle.
>>931652
>anti-helmet people
You mean on /n/? Most of them are trolls. Irl? Do they even exist irl?
>and if you watch all these videos online of twatty cyclists in London jumping lights and filtering like idiots a lot of them don't even bother with a helmet.
lol this, bmx kids are the least likely to wear helmets yet the most likely to need helmets (or second most, after freeriders/extreme DHers)
Fucking idiots
>Do you wear a bike helmet?
When the situation calls for one. Namely, when I foresee riding a bicycle at or near the limit of my abilities or my equipment's capabilities.
>Have you ever actually fallen off of your bike and hit your head?
A few times. I was wearing a helmet on all of those occasions.
>>931346
>Yes and bystander said I would be dead if it were not for the helmet.
You're lucky you had a random and presumably unqualified bystander there to pass judgement on the issue. RIP this lady who suffered a similar accident without a helmet https://youtu.be/yBJq7kvSMZs?t=1m28s
>>931484
>Is common sense, sweet lord. Wear it.
Why is it that so few people wear them then? It seems that the common sense is that helmets are not necessary for day-to-day activities.
>>931591
>Then you're dumb.
On the contrary buddy: you are dumb because you blindly assume that everyone who rides a bike subjects themselves to the same high risks that you do.
>>931652
>They seem really fucking autistic and vocal, and are obsessed with a single study done in Australia years ago that showed cars pass closer to people with helmets.
You seem really autistic and blinkered. I know of no such study from Australia, but here's a list of other studies which cast doubt on the usefulness of bicycle helmets: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1157.html I have no doubt that many of those studies will have been presented to you previously.
>here's a new law that requires lorries in the centre of London to have special barriers either side to stop that though iirc.
top fukking kek
>Honestly I don't think many of the anti helmet people even cycle.
You contradict yourself: you said in the very first substantive sentence of your post that you do see such people cycling.
>>931843
>FR/DH riders
>Likely not to wear helmet
Absolute hogwash. You will never find a rider doing enthusiast-or-above level riding publicised on any major MTB website without wearing a helmet (can you find the one minute exception?).
>>931996
Not knowing how to read, the thread.
>Do you wear a bike helmet? Is it a law where you live?
I usually try to wear my helmet for any ride that will be longer than 5 minutes, though I do forget from time to time.
It probably is law where I live, but I doubt anyone actually wears a helmet just because of the law.
>Have you ever actually fallen off of your bike and hit your head?
That's actually the reason I wear a helmet now. I was commuting to uni when I got in a really nasty wreck. Luckily my backpack full of books came up and behind my head mid air, otherwise I would have likely suffered serious brain injury (concussion at minimum). I was thrown approximately 8-10 feet, my pack was obliterated, and my rear wheel was completely fucked.
>live in Sydney
>fines are increased for not wearing helmets
>police catching out riders without helmets everywhere
>be in King's Cross one day
>see police on POLICE BIKES
>"oh cool police have their own bikes"
>minutes later realise they weren't wearing helmets
fkn cunts
>>931622
Don't quit your day job
>>931996
Do you 'ride' only a stationary bicycle? You must if you think you're not subjecting your head to risk of injury every single time you go out and ride. Either that or you can see into the future with perfect clarity and therefore always avoid any sort of risk. But no, you're actually just dumb, very very dumb.
ITT no-one except this guy >>931996 does more than one type of riding
I wear a helmet when its appropriate and don't when its not, regardless of the law
If you don't wear a helmet while riding fast on busy roads with cars then you're suicidal
If you do wear a helmet while riding to the corner store or on a bicycle path you're a fucking dork or a fred
>>931310
>Do you wear a bike helmet?
Yup, always. It doesn't matter if I'm pushing my limits or not. Mistakes happen, other people happen, shit outside your control happens.
>Is it a law where you live?
Only for minors.
>Have you ever actually fallen off of your bike and hit your head?
Yup, when I was in high school. I really couldn't tell you how it happened, because I barely remember lunch that day. Even then, I didn't remember any part of the day until a couple years later. The helmet's probably still in my father's basement. It was split almost in two, right down the center. That would have been my skull if it weren't for the helmet. It's one of two reasons I'm still alive, with the other being that I apparently crashed in front of a doctor, who happened to be a trauma specialist, who was out for an afternoon walk.
>>932233
While riding on a road increases the chances of an accident, a helmet is not going to save you from a collision. It's going to save you from when you get bumped, clipped or cut off, causing you to crash and go for a bit of a tumble. The same kind of accident that can happen on a cycle path or even running over a pedestrian.
>>932247
Yes, all those things are incredibly obvious and self-evident. What is the point of your post? Is it that an accident can happen anywhere, so you should always wear a helmet? Because your own first sentence explains why that doesn't make sense. I don't understand, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?
>>931310
>Do you wear a bike helmet?
no
>Is it a law where you live?
no
>Have you ever actually fallen off of your bike and hit your head?
Fallen off? yes. Hit my head? yes Both at the same time? no.
A helmet is useless in a dangerous high impact crash and pointless in a low impact crash so I don't wear one.
>But I or my friend crashed and would be dead without my helmet!
You have no way of knowing that and there isn't any strong evidence to support helmet effectiveness. Cycling is so incredibly safe that even if it does help I still won't wear one just like I don't wear one while walking down the street, running or driving.
>>932201
I never said that there is no risk of head injury when cycling. There is a risk of head injury applicable to almost all activities at all times.
>>932233
>>931417 here and I do many types of cycling. I have two road bikes, an enduro bike, and a randonneur/commuter bike. I ride lift accessed downhill, I ride enduro-style singletrack, I ride xc singletrack, I ride paved cycle paths and MUPs, I ride on city streets, I ride on rural county roads and highways, I commute, I randonneur, I ride just for the sake of riding. I always wear a helmet because I'm not a fucking moron. Of course different types of cycling require different levels of protection, hence why when mountain biking I wear a helmet that offers a bit more coverage than normal helmets, when riding enduro terrain I also wear knee pads, and when riding lift accessed downhill I wear a full face helmet, whereas for general cycling I wear a standard road helmet.
>>932412
Ok, I would wear a helmet doing all those activities (except the cycle path) as well?
I don't understand what the problem is, it's only logical that some bicycling activities are more dangerous than others, some are so dangerous that you need to wear much more than just a helmet, and some are so safe that wearing a helmet is pointless.
Its basic risk analysis: (chance of risk)*(consequence of risk) = risk level, obviously if the risk is low enough then its stupid to wear a helmet. If you're gonna say "you should ALWAYS wear a helmet no matter what" then by the same logic you should ALWAYS wear a faraday cage and cover yourself in bubble wrap and also never expose yourself to sunlight because even though the risks are extremely tiny, its still there?
So really what we are arguing about is "are ALL bike related activities dangerous enough that a helmet is appropriate" to which you say yes, because all the bike activities you do personally are that dangerous, whereas I say no, because SOME of the activities I do aren't anywhere near as dangerous, but some are and I wear a helmet for those?
So what's the big deal?? why cant I say "wear a helmet when appropriate and don't when its not"??
>>932443
>it's only logical that some bicycling activities are more dangerous than others,
Correct.
>some are so dangerous that you need to wear much more than just a helmet,
Correct.
>some are so safe that wearing a helmet is pointless.
Incorrect.
>Its basic risk analysis: (chance of risk)*(consequence of risk) = risk level, obviously if the risk is low enough then its stupid to wear a helmet. If you're gonna say "you should ALWAYS wear a helmet no matter what" then by the same logic you should ALWAYS wear a faraday cage and cover yourself in bubble wrap and also never expose yourself to sunlight because even though the risks are extremely tiny, its still there?
In nearly all situations, cycling presents a high enough risk to head impact that wearing a helmet is a worthwhile precaution. In some very specific situations, such as cycling across blocks of foam or cycling across a balance beam over a lake, obviously it would be fairly pointless to wear a helmet. However, such situations almost never occur. Therefore, it is almost always worthwhile to wear a helmet while cycling.
>So really what we are arguing about is "are ALL bike related activities dangerous enough that a helmet is appropriate" to which you say yes
No. Almost all.
>because all the bike activities you do personally are that dangerous, whereas I say no, because SOME of the activities I do aren't anywhere near as dangerous, but some are and I wear a helmet for those?
Why do you think that the safest bicycle related activities that you do are safer than the safest bicycle related activities that I do? What is the safest bicycle related activity that you do? I don't wear a helmet when I'm working on bikes in my workshop. I wouldn't wear a helmet if I was riding a stationary bicycle on a trainer.
>why cant I say "wear a helmet when appropriate and don't when its not"??
Of course you can. Riding a bicycle on a mountain bike trail, a paved bicycle path, a MUP, or a road makes appropriate the use of a helmet.
>>932445
This is bizarre. Youre disagreeing with yourself in your own post:
>>some activities are so safe you dont need a helmet
>incorrect
>>"are all bike related activities dangerous enough that a helmet is appropriate?"
>no
??
Helmets are the law where I live and I use a shitty $5 one because why bother spending money on it?
>>932453
>>>some activities are so safe you dont need a helmet
All BICYCLING activities
>>>"are all bike related activities dangerous enough that a helmet is appropriate?"
>>no
Because anon was clearly referring to activities that involve riding a bicycle (as opposed to riding a stationary trainer, working on bikes in a workshop, etc) and because the scenarios such as riding on foam or riding on a balance beam over a lake never actually occur.
>>931310
Just started recovering from a car vs bike accident. Didn't wear helmet but will from now on. I really lucked out, got slight head trauma and broken left arm.
>Do you wear a bike helmet?
Yes. Planning on upgrading to MIPS helmet once they drop in price
>Is it a law where you live?
For kids yes. No law for adults
>Have you ever actually fallen off of your bike and hit your head?
I was stupid a few years back. Broken arm and a few stitches on my chin. Helmet visor broke and the outside got scratched. Kept me from getting scalped.
IMO gloves help more for injury prevention in common accidents. Helmets are for serious accidents. $50 for reducing the risk or death or being a vegetable is money well spent,
Its the law.
I'd wear one anyway.
I respect your right to break the law and be an idiot.
But the first three bicycle safety items I'll suggest to you are rear light, front light, gloves.
>>932528
>Just started recovering from a car vs bike accident
Been there, done that. I wasn't wearing a helmet either, but I was fortunate to keep my head off the ground.
I was less fortunate to land on my ass and send a shockwave up my spine, with one vertebra crashing into the next, that one crashing into the next, etc, until my L1 shattered under the pressure. That sucked.
That was also the accident that made one of my friends realize that shit happens outside of your own control, and finally went and bought a helmet for himself.
>>932528
A helmet would not have protected you.
Bicycle helmets are a huge scam.
>>932620
>>932620
True, a helmet would not have stopped him from breaking his arm. Did you miss the part about head trauma though? Have you suffered some sort of head trauma yourself?
>>932258
>A helmet is useless in a dangerous high impact crash and pointless in a low impact crash so I don't wear one.
this guy
>>932553
>I respect your right to break the law
>>932807
Actually, it will. Helmet users suffer less serious damage overall. If you don't correct for this, you end up with the assumption that helmets protect again broken arms and legs. If you _do_ correct for this, so that injuries of the two groups with and without helmets are weighted the same, the helmets effects on head trauma all but disappears.
This is why the EU survey of bike helmet research and the inquery about bike helmet laws concluded there is no scientific basis for the theory that bike helmets protect against head trauma in traffic, and advised against bike helmet laws.
Not just indifferent - adviced against.
>>932832
There are all kinds of reasons to advise against a law. It could be something as simple as problematic enforcement. That doesn't mean there's no benefit to a helmet. Going without one is just Darwinism at work.
>>932832
No one gives a fuck if you want to throw away your worthless life. Now shut the fuck up and gtfo.
>>932565
Sorry dude. Recovering sucks. I still haven't picked my bike up from the fire station and I'm nervous as all shit. A cop told me it was fine but I know that's not the truth. How long was your recovery time?
My friends keep plying me with food and I'm grateful but all I can think about is all my work going down the drain :(
>>932841
But the specific stated reason is because there is no scientific evidence that helmets save lives or prevent injury. Combined with the fact that there _is_ scientific evidence that bike helmet laws have a negative impact on cycling, and reinforces the belief that cycling is a particularly dangerous activity.
>>932845
>countering scientific fact with emotional outburst
Better luck next time, bub.
>>931310
yes
i don't know
probably
I think anybody who doesn't wear a helmet is a fucking moron.
A helmet is like a condom. Far better to have and not need than to need and not have.
>>932970
If you were to a parent/teacher meeting and your teacher informed you he wore a condom at all times when teaching, just in case, would you applaud his safety conciousness?
>>932977
kek you missed the point entirely.
>>933010
No, you missed the counter point. Your whole argument rests on the premise that riding a bike is more dangerous to your cranial health than some other activity, say walking or driving, where you choose not to wear a helmet.
>>932949
>there is no scientific evidence that helmets save lives or prevent injury
This is pretty much what it comes down to. You can ride with a helmet if you want but I don't want to and I have never been convinced that I need to.
>>932939
I was stuck in a plastic torso brace for 23 hours a day for about 4 months. That last hour was spent lying in bed flat on my back without moving to give my skin a chance to breathe. I wasn't allowed to lift more than 5 lbs, so I was basically helpless and had to move back in with my mom. After that it was probably another 6 months or so of physiotherapy to get back to an acceptable point of strength and mobility. But I was left with permanent and degenerative spinal damage, so you know, not ever going to be the same. This was all about 3.5 years ago.
The funny thing is, my bike came out of it better than I did. It got some road rash and a ripped seat, but nothing major.
>>932977
People don't fuck while teaching, fucktard. The chance of a male teacher being raped by a woman while teaching is orders of magnitude lower than the chance of a cyclist being in a crash that involves a head/helmet impact.
>>933038
Damn man I'm sorry. I hope everything is going a lot better now.
I'm stuck to my house for a little over two months. Doctors don't want me around too much stimuli.
Do you still ave that bike?
>>933068
>Damn man I'm sorry. I hope everything is going a lot better now.
Sort of. Took the insurance settlement (lower than you're thinking, not in the sue-happy USA and my province has a particularly low history of awards for injury cases) and used it as a >50% down payment on a condo. It got me out of a bad living situation and has me paying less per month on a mortgage than I would to rent a room in someone's basement. I still haven't had a day without at least some degree of pain since though, so there's that. It's something I've learned to live with.
>I'm stuck to my house for a little over two months. Doctors don't want me around too much stimuli.
I know how that feels. I practically jumped at the chance to go back to work on modified duty once I started physio. Turns out I hurt my insurance case by doing so, as they tried to argue that it was because I wasn't so seriously impaired after all.
>Do you still ave that bike?
I did, until recently. Some shit sucking cock goblin cut the lock and stole it on tuesday.
>>932553
>gloves
>>933070
Were you hit by a car? Or where did you get your insurance claim from.
I'm in the US so I need to learn everything about the accident through reports before doing anything.
And fuck that person
>>933073
Yeah, it was a car. Some asshat didn't think he needed to pay attention when turning onto the road and T-boned me. You know, silly me, I assumed he would slow down approaching an intersection, not speed up. I saw him as I entered the intersection going straight, saw that I (should have) had plenty of time to clear before he got there. The next time I saw him was a flash of grey hood out of the corner of my eye, leaving me with just enough time to think "Fuck, this is going to hurt." before he hit the frame of the bike in front of my knee. I never actually made contact with the car, but it knocked the bike out from under me. I don't know how, but I managed to flip in mid-air, and landed in a sitting position with my legs straight out in front of me facing the opposite direction I'd been traveling. There was a bus stop at that corner and about a dozen people standing waiting, so a bunch came over to help. I could hear someone on the phone with 911, and an older lady came over and was telling me not to move. I remember telling her that if I didn't lie down, I was going to fall down, so I went to my back. It was probably the best thing I could have done for my condition, now that I can look back at it. Ambulance, back board, neck brace, hospital, X-rays, and three hours later, and they're telling me I broke my back. I was kind of stunned. It didn't sink in right away. I lived with my father at the time, and he was a rotting piece of human excrement through the entire process, largely the reason why I bought my condo.
I hope your case goes well though. If I can give any advice, it's lawyer up early. If it's anything like in Canada, lawyers in injury cases take a flat percentage of the payout for their fee, so get someone who knows the law on your side and let them do as much of the work and communication with the insurance company as possible.
And yes, I plan on fucking that person (I assume you're talking about the bike thief) in the kidney with a knife.
Yes
Yea
Yes
I always wear a helmet. I know the chances of hitting my head is quite low, but it can be serious if you do hit it. As a kid I was making a turn when I hit some loose sand or gravel or something, bike slipped out and I landed on my back and my head came down quite hard onto the road. I got up and rode away. If I didn't have a helmet on who knows if I would of been able to ride away.
>>931996
Casual people on cyclepaths are not anti helmet autists like you mate.
I wear one
I ride in the road and have gotten around 40mph on my bike (really long steep hill)
I'd shit myself all the more if I wasn't wearing a pussy deflector on my head
I wear a helmet. Is it always necessary? No, of course not. It's insurance and part of the uniform.
I'm not familiar with the helmet laws where I currently live, largely because I don't need to be.
I have fallen off my bike and hit my (helmeted) head. With some regularity when I used to enjoy riding a mountain bike like a retard, and only a couple times on the road, once thanks to a car and once because turning on wet pine needles going downhill is not something I know how to do safely. I've fallen a handful of times without hitting the helmet.
I'm aware that a helmet doesn't make me invincible, but it seems like a minimal effort to improve my odds of not being permanently/seriously fucked up.
>>931317
>fall at 20kmh
>hit head on curb
You can die. It's actually a likely scenario. Had a cop friend see some fuck on a scooter just slip from almost standstill (so, 20kmh or slower) and hit his head square on the curb. Died on the spot.
If you don't die there's a pretty good chance you'll be a vegetable/retarded/suffer from light brain damage which will have all sorts of fun side effects, like panic attacks for the rest of your life.
>hit leg/arm
Worst case scenario you break it and it's bad but shit happens. You can possibly die from a very bad exposed fracture but to get one of those you need to be unlucky, and going pretty fast.
So this is why helmets are important and people see a point in wearing them.
I'm looking to buy one soon, just evaluating the market as I'm a newb.
>>931996
>RIP this lady who suffered a similar accident without a helmet
She didn't even hit her head. I can assure you that that's enough speed to knock you out for good if you hit the curb angle and then it's all a matter of luck, you can die or you can just have a very bad headache for a few weeks.
vs. wearing a helmet and making sure that you're okay if shit happens.
>>931310
>Do you wear a bike helmet?
Yes, been wearing them since I was 17 after I gained some sense
>Is it a law where you live?
No.
>Have you ever actually fallen off of your bike and hit your head?
No, but I did while skiing and I'd be dead if I wasn't wearing a helmet, so I apply that concept to riding.
>>931310
Yes, for anything longer than going to the store three blocks away from me.
Yes
Yes, fortunately I was wearing a helmet, there's really no reason not to.
Why hasnt anyone tested hair vs helmet aero differences?
>>931996
>You're lucky you had a random and presumably unqualified bystander there to pass judgement on the issue. RIP this lady who suffered a similar accident without a helmet
Too bad she didn't hit her head, could have learned a lesson...
>>931996
>Absolute hogwash. You will never find a rider doing enthusiast-or-above level riding publicised on any major MTB website without wearing a helmet (can you find the one minute exception?).
Are you fucking illiterate? I said FR/DH riders are the most likely to need helmets, not the least likely to wear helmets. You must be American, your lack of education is showing.
Going to ask here because I can't see a /bqg/ anymore.
My bike is a blue/white Giant (2015 model), I've only got a couple of jerseys because I'm jewish with my money, one white, one white and blue.
In the market for a new helmet, since the one I've got currently is one of those dorky £15 Bell ones.
Wondering if I should go blue+white on the helmet, or just white (and it be a bit more universal in terms of jerseys)
My autism demands I colour coordinate but my wallet says no.
>>935115
When in doubt, go black. (Full colour coordination makes you look like a fag and your shit all retarded.)
>>935159
I went with white, neutral colour while also having a bit more visibility.
Got 2 weeks off work so I'm splashing out on some cycling gear, just remembered it's a bank holiday so my delivery dates are going to be fucked.
>>931310
no
no
no
>100 posts in and still no evidence that cycling in general is dangerous enough that it should not be undertaken without wearing a helmet
>>936043
who is that semen demon
>>936043
Yeah but one time a guy I knew crashed his bike and it hurt really bad so if he didn't have a helmet on he would probably be dead.
>>931310
Yes. Yes. Yes.
They're designed for 6' falls at 0 km/h onto flat surfaces and curbs.
"It has saved my life." Fucking bollocks, still, I wear it.
>>936043
Helmets protect against the gravity acceleration of a 6' fall. So any time you would have died from a head injury from falling to the ground without use of arms, a bicycle helmet would have saved you.
Like when you fell walking.
>>936082
When was the last time you fell off a cliff on a bike? When was the last time your head was farther than 6' away from the ground on a bike? When was the lack time you were doing sick jumps and fell head first?
>>931310
>Do you wear a bike helmet? Is it a law where you live?
I've forgotten to wear a helmet a couple of times, but most of the times I wear one. Adults are not required to wear helmets, but club rides require them for legal reasons.
>Have you ever actually fallen off of your bike and hit your head?
yes, my front wheel dropped into a hole while I was riding off-road and I was thrown over the bars. later I found a pencil eraser sized indentation in the front of my helmet and I think that would have been in my head if I wasn't wearing a helmet
>I don't wear a helmet when I ride my bike. I'm confident that I'm not ever going to land head-first into asphalt.
I was drafting behind a truck when I was hit head-on by an idiot cyclist who was riding the wrong direction
I fell and slid while riding over black ice and my helmet (with my head inside) got lodged underneath a parked car
I can't think of incident where I was unhappy I was wearing a helmet
>>936084
Not the design standard to which standard bicycle helmets are tested.
>>936101
The standard is based on the height you head normally starts at from the ground when you crash
>>936102
Yes, but it isn't based on thrown impacts, such as thrown impact to curb, head on vehicle at speed or oncoming speed, etc.
I wear a helmet. I know it is designed to protect me only for the fall from the bike to the road, not from forward motion and sliding into a stationary or moving object. Might protect me a bit from road rash on the head. But it is only designed at tested for 6' falls.
>>936084
>when was the last time your head was farther than 6" away from the ground
Manlet detected, lmao
>>935115
It arrived, took longer than it should have because of bank holiday monday. (and me ordering it on a saturday night).
It's only an entry level KASK helmet, but it looks fucking miles better than my £10 Bell one (and looking good is half the battle). It also weighs a fraction of the Bell, and feels much more comfy (bigger padding and a better adjustment system).
>>936383
Grats, /n/igger. Now strap that shit to your noggin' and go out for a ride.
>>936125
>6"
Please learn how to use the quotation feature
>>936389
Just about to, wiating for my phone to charge up for strava and incase of emergencies.
Starting to think I should have gotten a large, the straps are pretty tight to my ears and I don't seem to be able adjust to compensate because of the D-clips at either side of the chin strap.
Only 5'6 and my last helmet was a medium.
Still, if I need to return it I can use the free return shipping because there's some collection places near me.
>>936391
I'm 90% sure you can get the straps to be comfortable if you fiddle with them enough. Unless you have a skull shaped like a horse's, straps aren't gonna be the issue when fitting a helmet.
>>936393
Here, unless I'm missing something (and I probably am), there doesn't seem to really be a way to get past those D-clip things, since they're sewn back onto themselves.
On my (same size, medium) bell helmet, I had more spare strap that I knew what to do with.
Also I need to shave, got 2 weeks off work (need to take it before the end of the fiscal year) so I'm not bothering to.
I didn't really notice it when I was on the bike, because the helmet itself fits enough so there's no movement and rubbing, but it's still not ideal I guess.
If you can see something I'm missing feel free to point it out.
>>936394
Helmets are like any other piece of clothing. Even more so because they're rigid. You realy need to try it on before buying.
You dun goofed, anon.
>>936394
you got some spare strap on the other side? Most helmets have some sort of removable locking mechanism to allow strap from one side of the helmet to be pulled or pushed to create more or less strap tension on the other side.
>>936394
That looks incredibly uncomfortable
>>936441
Neck looks bad for whatever reason in that pic but the chin strap is completely adjustable, it's just the ears I was having issue with. Yanked on it a bit and got it slightly better, like I said I don't really notice it when I'm on the bike so I guess it's not an issue.
Checked wiggle to see if it would be worth me returning them (free of charge as I have a collection point near me) and getting another, larger size, but the price has doubled since I bought it (£35 back up to £65) so I guess I'll just stick with it.
Guess next time I should check the actual measurements rather than the size, because after checking my Bell and Kask helmets, they're both mediums but the Bell is 55-62cm, whereas the Kask is 52-58, which is probably the reason.
Surprised my head is so big considering I'm so short (5'6)
It's strange because my Bell doesn't have those D-rings around the chin strap, which is what's preventing me from adjusting the Kask. Seems like a weird design, because otherwise the helmet would be a lot more universal since the suspension system is more adjustable than the straps.
>>936043
>cycling at up to 30mph down a hill isn't dangerous enough to warrant wearing a helmet
>>936453
>flimsy cycling helmets protect your head in a 30mph crash
>>936458
Better than nothing m8
>>936459
But the alternative isn't nothing. The alternative is a helmet rated for those impact. Go wear a motorcycle helmet, or fuck off.
Or at least, you know, produce evidence of this supposed great risk and not just conjecture and feels. There should be dead cyclists in droves at the bottom of every Danish and Dutch hill, right?
>>931310
I don't wear it while commuting just when hitting the road. I fell once while commuting, I was going slowly goofing around and hit my head and just got a bump, scrape my shoulder and elbow
>>936461
>Danish and Dutch hill
>>936459
It isn't. There is no reason to believe that a bicycle helmet will protect your head from an impact greater than 14 - 20 mph. That is all they are designed and rated for. Keep in mind that I don't mean you are moving 14-20 mph on your bike I mean that your head is moving that fast which can happen if an average height person falls from a standstill. Anything faster than that has the potential for delivering a fatal amount of force to your brain.
>>936497
How is it not better than nothing?
Just bought this in this colour because... it looked pretty. It was this or the Bell Stoker, price was pretty close with the Stoker MIPS being like 20€ less.
How much of a faggot I am? I wanted something with good coverage and this fits the bill, it looks pretty and the finish is really good, plus it has some pretty damn thick protection on the temples and back of the head which is exactly what I wanted, but the visor is really some cheap shit (doesn't even have some kind of adjustment knobs, it just slides back and forth) considered the money I dumped on this (100€) I feel like they could have spent some more on the visor, even though I think that in the event of a crash I'd rather have a visor not locked into position, but something that rips off more easily.
>>936510
>buying a murderhelmet
Did you know cars actively try and run you over when they see a cyclist wearing a helmet?
>>936511
I live in Rome, Italy. Cars will actively try to kill you regardless of attire. When I get into my car I feel the sudden urge to kill people.
Must be the air.
So that's really not a problem.
>>936513
>Rome, Italy
>having to put Italy in because Americans think you're talking about Rome, Odawidaho
>>936515
[spoiler]top kek that's exactly the reason[/spoiler]
>>936510
If you're not doing some enduro with that shit, you're a big-ass fred.
Nah, while I don't like the color, POC makes some pretty good shit. The sliding visor may be for resting goggles while not doing sooooper harrrrdcore shit.
As long as YOU like it, what-fucking-ever, who cares.
>>936519
I just got back on a bicycle and do light-ish trail stuff and some commuting from time to time, discovered there's a path right near where I live that leads up 20km outside of town up to a pretty big lake, want to do that shit this summer/as soon as I have a repair kit for flats so I don't find myself on my feet in the middle of nothing.
Since it's a one time purchase unless I bomb my head on a curb pretty hard, I wanted something that I'll just keep with me if I decide to go full trail faggot and cover myself in mud this next winter.
Didn't like "road" style helmets, most have zero cover for the rear of the head and sides, I wanted a helmet that wraps around my head and didn't just sit on top. If I have to look like a faggot at least I want to know my brain is somewhat protected :3
>>936498
Because in a direct impact higher than 20mph you will probably die even with a helmet on.
>>936453
If you are at the stage of your bicycling career where you can not lose control at such speeds and save yourself simply by putting a foot down, you are one of the few who should wear a bicycle helmet as a matter of course.
>>936498
There's no evidence to suggest that it is better than nothing in such impacts.
>>936664
Pedestrians regularly bump into each other and far greater speeds without doing any lasting - or even instantaneous - harm.
>>936836
>Pedestrians bump into each other at speeds approaching or exceeding 20mph
Is this how much of a retarded liar the average anti-helmet nutjob actually is, or is it just you?
>>936856
>he doesn't know the earth is orbiting the sun at 50,000 miles per hogshead
>he has no idea that the sun orbits the galactic core at over 379,000 football fields per kilogram
Why do helmet-loving MGTOW local bike shills hate science? I bet you own a surly.
The Diaz brothers are badass dudes who wear helmets
https://youtu.be/-wkA7YuM5Mk
https://youtu.be/zxrbhy2v3Us
>mountain biking on old ass bike with shit suspension
>it can't just roll over small roots like every non walmart MTB made in the last 15 years
>riding uphill
>hit root
>fly over the handlebars
>oh fuck
>there's a fucking METAL SIGNPOST STAKE sticking out of the ground next to the trail
>I'm headed right for it
>manage to twist and contort my body so I don't land directly on it
>it still rips through my windbreaker and t shirt and slightly nicks the right side of my belly, barely breaking the skin
>totally fine otherwise
Wasn't unti I got home when I realized I could have been impaled and died. Would have sued the city if I were more seriously injured desu, the stake was inexplicably right on the side of a city park bike trail.
>>936856
He meant people on hoverboards.
>>936856
It's just the 'metres per hours' SI autist troll again. Don't bother. Noone loves him, so he has to feed of the hate here.
>>931310
>Do you wear a bike helmet?
on my road bike yes, on my town bike no
>Is it a law where you live?
no, but pretty much everyone on a road bike wears one
>Have you ever actually fallen off of your bike and hit your head?
Fallen off my town bike many times (alcohol), but never hit my head or hurt myself in any way.
>I don't wear a helmet when I ride my bike. I'm confident that I'm not ever going to land head-first into asphalt.
I have a similar mentality but im going very fast on my road bike and people tend to misjudge the speed. I have had some close calls with nearly smashing into cars etc. If that kind of shit happens you really wont have much control over how you fall. Also my shoes are attached to the bike so controlling a fall will be quite difficult id expect. Im wearing a helmet just for the offchance I fall on my head and so should you.
Im also always wearing proper gloves because if I fall I naturally use my hands to catch myself. Just as important as a helmet desu, fucked up hands will hurt like a bitch in everyday life.
>>936986
>but im going very fast on my road bike
Bicycle helmets aren't designed or rated to protect you at the speeds you are going.
there is no good reason for not wearing a helmet
doesn't matter how fast you are going just wait until some car starts turning into you
>>936043
Well duh. No such evidence exists. The facts of the matter are that even without a helmet, cycling is safer per km traveled than driving. Therefore, helmets should be optional. They don't protect much against concussions either, which is a considerable subset of head injuries.
People who disagree with this assessment are severely misinformed at best, severely brain damaged at worst. Probably from not wearing a helmet. :^)
>>931310
Yes. Yes. No.
>>937010
Not to mention you could always eat shit after hitting a pothole or bump you don't notice until it's too late
>>937010
There are all the same reasons for not wearing a bike helmet as not wearing a walking helmet. Head injuries to pedestrians due to slipping, tripping or falling debris are as common per unit of distance traveled as cyclists.
Or motorist helmet. Traumatic head injuries from car accidents outnumber cycling injuries by a large margin. Even when adjusted for the number of travels they're neck and neck.
Helmet menufacturers tried to launch car helmets in the sixties, but they never caught on. Motor industry made sure of this, as well as ultimately being behind and/or supporting most of the bike helmet campaigning.
>>937010
>just wait until some car starts turning into you
A bicycle helmet won't protect you from a car.
>>937134
Once you realise most helmet wearers have a superstitial, emotional, almost spiritual relationship to the item in question it all becomes easier. The far-fetched reasoning, the obvious gaps of logic, the complete inablity to accept fact and scientific results all stem from a perception that your bringing doubt on the effectiveness of what, to them, is in all relevant aspects a magic sharm, is felt as an attack on their personal safety.
You're taking the magic protection away.
>>937138
*charm, for fucks sake
>>937138
can you not wear a helmet because your tinfoil hat gets in the way? You are actually delusional.
>>937158
>You are actually delusional.
Says the guy who chose to believe a centimetre of styrofoam will protect his head in a 60km/h collision.
>>937160
>implying the average cyclist reaches these speeds
>implying "centimetre of styrofoam" is an accurate description of a secure helmet
If I have to hit my head, I would much rather be wearing a helmet. It's better than nothing. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to look edgy.
>>937168
>implying the average cyclist reaches these speeds
The car who hits you will.
>>937173
all the more reason to wear a helmet.
>>937177
It will kill you with or without a helmet, so what is the point again?
>>931343
Source?
>>931418
Source?
>>937134
it's to protect your head from dragging on the pavement. and if my head goes under the tire I would rather have a helmet than nothing
>>937226
The point is that helmet law is dictated by collective idiocy rather than evidence. It gets REALLY ludicrous when you consider recumbents. The fuck is a helmet supposed to do when riding one of those? Look pretty?
>>937306
>it's to protect your head from dragging on the pavement
It might help with that but that isn't what they are made to do and they are not tested for that purpose.
>if my head goes under the tire I would rather have a helmet than nothing
Why? The helmet will not protect you from that. It is not designed for that or tested for that. The manufacturers would not even make that claim. If your head goes under a tire you had better hope that the planets are aligned or something because a bicycle helmet isn't going to save you.
>>937134
lel at people like you thinking being run over literally means getting run over.
>car hits you
>you go flying
>land and head bounces off the road
>'helmets are usless'
>>937326
No, I know what getting hit by a car means. There is no speed a car will be hitting you on a road at which a bicycle is meant to protect you. They are only tested for an impact of a human head moving at 14 - 20 miles per hour (how are my units now?). That can happen when an average person falls from a standstill. It will definitely be exceeded if a car causes you to "go flying" and hit your head against the ground.
Maybe you will be lucky though and the helmet you bought happens to greatly exceed the industry standard even though most manufacturers go with the bare minimum to save weight, make them look and feel cooler, and to make them more aero.
>>937306
You most definitely do not want a helmet in those cases. They are known to cause neck damage that way, by adding leverage to the rotational force on your neck. That's what all the MIPS hype is about - lessening that effect.
I'd rather have the skin scraped off (it can be grafted back) than my neck broken.
>>937325
>that isn't what they are made to do and they are not tested for that purpose.
actually they are, every single reputable helmet manufacturer tells you not to fuck with the outer shell because it's designed to slide and not catch when it drags against the ground. you've never actually bought a helmet, have you.
>>931310
No
No
No
Here is what I learned reaserching this a bit:
>Most cycling related deaths don't involve head injuries.
>Cyclists are not prone to head injuries to begin with, the numbers are much lower than for horseback riders and, ironically, cagers.
>There is no objective way of telling whether a helmet helped or not in an accident.
>The adoption rate of bicycle helmets is quite low when they are not mandatory.
>Head injuries are still quite common for helmet wearers.
>Most common head injuries for cyclists are medium in severity.
>Wearing a helmet doesn't prevent them. The numbers are the same.
>Some studies are either flawed or show that helmet wearers are more prone to severe head injuries.
>Helmets could be useful for slow riders, like children or the elderly.
I haven't found a study that proves the usefulness of helmets yet. If someone knows of such a study, please post it.
>>936984
>Noone loves him
When did Noone tell you that?
>>937450
It's not a person. It's a unit of failure in life. One Noone is equal to one walking abortion, and shortened N. It can also be expressed in relation to time, as in one Noone per millennium, meaning only one sperg of such epic proportions will be born in a thousand years. On average.
The unit is then shortened N/m.
>>937360
Do you really need a study? If you you get a stick in your spokes and fly over the handlebars forehead first into the ground would you rather your head crack open or not?
>>937492
And the chances of this happening is greater or lesser than slipping on a banana peel and cracking the back of the skull open on landing?
That's an honest question that I want you to think about. Because that's what this is - calculated, weighed risk versus inconvenience.
If you run the same risk of getting your skull cracked open by accident, wether you're walking, driving or cycling, why do you only wear a helmet when cycling?
Who planted that idea in your head, and why?
Of course we can safely assume you're safer from some specific accident when wearing a helmet, but that's true of every activity in life. Not just cycling.
And it's no guarantee that you're safer over all.
>>937360
Do you look up studies before wearing a seatbelt?
>>937360
>The adoption rate of bicycle helmets is quite low when they are not mandatory.
I very rarely see a cyclist without a helmet m8.
>inb4 they don't wear them in the Netherlands!
You don't have to touch a road in the Netherlands and everyone plods along at 5km/h.
>>937348
People have had their heads run over by death cages and their lives saved by helmets. Fuck off.
>>937356
You are wrong. They are not rated for anything but direct impact and do not have to meet any standard of protection apart from protecting you from a lethal force at 14 - 20 miles per hour. Anything else is just marketing and they have no evidence for it.
>>937517
No they haven't. If a person survived being run over by a car it had nothing to do with a piece of styrofoam they had on their head. People have survived in all sorts of situations where they should have probably died.
>>937509
Yes? And the evidence is conclusively in their favour. They're also a requirement for keeping control of the car during an emergency brake, and should be worn to protect third parties and not just you.
Have absolutely nothing in common with bike helmets.
Motorist helmets, on the other hand.
>>937493
>you run the same risk of getting your skull cracked open by accident, wether you're walking, driving or cycling, why do you only wear a helmet when cycling?
Cycling is an inherently riskier form of transportation per mile in the US than walking, cars, train, buses, or airplanes. Cyclists account for 2% of all transit related deaths, yet travel less than 1% of the total miles.
>>937509
No. I read of a few fatal crashes a week where the police determined the drivers was not wearing a seat belt. They won't save you from getting smashed by a semi, but they prevent you from being a 10 second blurb on the news.
>>937534
>Cyclists account for 2% of all transit related deaths, yet travel less than 1% of the total miles.
Out of how many were head injuries? We have similar statistics on this side of the pond. Cyclists get injured and killed a lot, but out of all permanently crippling or fatal injuries, only <9% is due to head and neck trauma - combined.
That works out so that even though serious injuries (but not death) to cyclists per year is higher than for motorists, motorists make up the vast majority of traffic related head injuries.
Meaning the key point of the phrase you quoted - _risk_of_getting_your_skull_cracked_open_ - stands unrefuted by your reply.
Perhaps this helmet craze is not only down to a total inability to understand the well studied and published scientific facts of the matter, but also complete and utter lack of reading comprehension in general.
>>937527
>>937534
>wear this thing and it could save your life but there's not much evidence supporting it, but doctors say you should wear it
>NO FUCK THAT I'M NOT WEARING IT!
What are your reasons exactly? Do you not like how it messes up your hair? Do you just want to be a hipster and go against what everyone else is doing? Do you even cycle?
What is your genuine reason for not wearing a helmet because there must be something that's caused this stance.
>>937548
>helmets should be worn by everyone at all times just in case no matter the actual risk or protective effect
Why don't you wear one while walking? You run the same risk of head trauma walking as you do cycling. Where's your walking helmet?
Now you've answered your own question.
>>937552
>strawman
You haven't answered my question at all mate, I'll ask again.
What is your genuine reason for not wearing a helmet?
>>937556
>>strawman
A strawman is misrepressenting the position of another. You fail rethoric 101. You could call it a red herring, but that would be a bit of a stretch.
If you can't find a reason you're not wearing a walking helmet you also fail self-behaviour analysis.
>>937552
>You run the same risk of head trauma walking as you do cycling
This is where your argument falls completely flat. Nobody is stupid enough to believe this. Why try so hard to get us to?
>>937534
>riskier than train, bus, aeroplane...
Yep, yep, yep, just as expected.
>riskier than car
Only because of the large number of car-bicycle crashes, almost always with the car at fault.
>riskier than walking
nope.jpg
Grab the dept of transport data and check if you don't believe me. Although that tends to be calculated for commute trips, which over-represent car miles and under-represent bicycle/pedestrian miles, making driving appear safer and cycling/walking more dangerous than it actually is.
>>937565
>nobody is stupid enough to believe solid statistical data
This is why the United States is a shithole that should be walled off so the rest of the world doesn't have to deal with its retardation anymore.
>>937565
>i don't need evidence or reports from the real world. my preconceptions say it can't be so, so it can't
>>937559
You said
>helmets should be worn by everyone at all times just in case no matter the actual risk or protective effect
Which I never said, or implied, I just wanted to know your reasons.
You're also again not answering my question.
What is your genuine reason for not wearing a helmet?
hadto puton,, my helmet, forthis thread.
,,Safee!
>>937572
Not that anon you're arguing with, but if the law wasn't so retarded in Aus... I wouldn't wear a helmet because I ride mostly on cycle paths and understand that the risk of injury when doing so is sufficiently low to not care about, even without a helmet. Also, if I got a recumbent in the future, I just wouldn't wear a helmet, period. For reasons that should be obvious.
>>937572
>Which I never said, or implied
Yes, you did indeed imply. Hence the Vlad arrow. The logical conclusion of your position, that anyone who does not wear a helmet during activities where no elevated risk of head injury has been established is required to justify himself, is exactly what was greentexted. That everyone should wear helmets all the time during all everyday activity. Not just cycling, which is an ordinary, every day activity.
There is no more a justification for wearing a helmet when biking to work or fetching groceries, than there is if you were to do the same on foot. Or by car.
Your question is also booby-trapped in a number of ways, making it completely ignore-worthy. For example:
>>what is genuine reason
>implying that not only does the non-use of helmet during ordinary, everyday activities have to be justified, such justification must also pass an arbitrary test of genuineness, leaving wiggle-room for moving the goal posts, making 'common sense' dismissals without factual argument or reasoning, making emotional appeals opening up a pretext for a never-ending sideshow debate, et cetera
>>something caused that stance
>implying the default stance is that held by you, that helmets are worn as a matter of course, painting non-wearers as suspect and deviant, signaling something presumably suspect must have "happened" ta make them "this way," et cetera
>>you're not answering my question
>bare faced moving the goal posts as per 'genuine' above, in that an answer has been provided by simile, but failed the arbitrary pretend test of genuineness by not having an obvious 'hook' to latch any of the previous counter-attacks to
I took your bait by wasting time writing this post. Sorry everyone.
>inb4 being defensive
>>inb4 being defensive of magic charmers being defensive
>>937578
Pedestrian injuries are higher than cyclist injuries because there are more pedestrians.
Checkmate, anti-helmet scum B )
>>937577
Oh, and this data probably isn't relevant to you like it is to me cause straya, but check the table in the bottom left corner of page 9 of http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf
>>937580
Did head trauma make you like this or were you born this way.
>>937577
You do realise we're two different people, right?
>>937586
that's just what you want me to think
>>937583
>mom, he's contradicting me! make him stop.
>>937588
it's ok, mate. you can have the win. if it really makes you feel better about yourself.
>>937590
>asked for hard facts
>pdfs and tables were prestented
>>ohshitwhatnow.jpg
>exits gracefully, signaling maintained moral high ground and hopes no-one noticed
Yeah, well... Have a youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY
Honest to fucking god indoor helmet. You child should wear a helmet at all times, during all activities or non-activities. Gotta be safe!
http://www.thudguard.com/
>>937593
I came to the conclusion that I was wrong a while ago. It doesn't matter. You're right, it really doesn't make a discernible difference. Still going to wear a helmet, simply because I feel safer and more confident cycling while wearing one.
>>937581
>not knowing what Road Traffic Fatality Exposure Rate means
>>937597
If kids needed helmets, we would have evovled with them.
>>937540
According to your numbers there is a low risk of head injury. Head injuries are more disabling than injuries to the limbs. We have some damn good prosthetic limbs now, and research is being done to treat spinal injuries. Nothing in modern medicine or in current research has a way to treat being a potato after a head injury.
$50 for a helmet is good insurance for the 9% of injuries that injure the most important and vulnerable part of your body. They won't protect you in all cases as do seat-belts. I would rather have a concussion over being a potato.
I see no need for helmet laws for bikes and motorcycles. There are thousands of people in need of organs, and helmet-less riders make good donors.
>>937597
How is the kid gonna learn bumping his head hurts, and he shouldn't be doing it?
>>937580
What bike do you have and how often and where do you cycle?
>>937706
Road alu, mountain Inbred, monstercross Inbred, tourer/winter commuter Kaffenback. Mountainbiking is done helmeted because actual risk of low speed head bump. Daily 2x10 km commute spring, summer and fall. Four season commute four out of the last five years. Probably averaging 3-4 days a week during winter.
Commute is 1/3 suburb, 1/3 bike path, 1/3 city traffic. Road is country roads, mountainbike/monster in Hellas Stockholm SE - videos of the terrain on the tube, though none by me.
All this is relevant to statistical fact how? (Rethorical question. I hope you find some excuse in here.)
>>937644
>I would rather have a concussion over being a potato.
Except helmets only protect you against the concussion. The mode of protection is by the foam collapsing and absorbing some of the force, slowing your head down over a (very short) period of time instead of instant stop.
At low speed/force it doesn't collapse at all, and offers no more than skin protection. At high speed/force it splits and isn't allowed to compress, or collapses rather than "slowly" compressing, also not offering protection.
The sweetspot inbetween is where helmets offer protection. A helmet manufacturer can to some extent choose where this sweetspot will be on the force spectrum _in_theory_, but mandatory bike helmet testing and certification mean they can't in practice. They're required by law and governance to put this sweetspot in the moderate-force-region of falling over from standing height, or getting reared by a car traveling at 20km/h. This making sure they can't offer much protection in the potato-inducing accidents.
Contrast this to motorcycle helmets that say the 'flying fuck with concussions - we want to prevent potato as much as possible.' Put one on and go bang your head hard. You'll end up with a concussion, because the foam is not designed to start compressing until you realy get to skull-cracking or brain-liquifying levels of force.
>$50 for a helmet is good insurance for the 9%
9% is combined neck and head trauma. There is no evidence sound that helmets actually offer any protection for these 9% - some studies finding no statistically significant effect at all, some studies finding a rise in neck injuries with helmets making up for the reduction in light to moderate head trauma.
This is the conclusion of the EU investigation ment to provide member countries with a factual basis for making decisions about bike helmet laws. You don't have to take my words for it.
>>937644
All this is still an enormous amount of fuss about what is an incredibly rare type of injury. You run the same risk of head trauma as a pedestrian - why don't you apply your argument to pedestrian traffic and start wearing a pedestrian helmet?
You're rationalising your helmet use. Dude. Can you not see how fucked up that is?
If it was realy about reducing head trauma in traffic, why is not motorists, making up the vast majority of traffic head trauma cases, being targeted by these campaigns?
>>937710
Just seems like anti helmet people do an unhealthy amount of research into helmet statistics and makes me wonder if they even cycle desu
>>937712
>Contrast this to motorcycle helmets that say the 'flying fuck with concussions - we want to prevent potato as much as possible.' Put one on and go bang your head hard. You'll end up with a concussion, because the foam is not designed to start compressing until you realy get to skull-cracking or brain-liquifying levels of force.
Riding a motorcycle is not a form of exercise. Helmets and neck braces worn for downhill riding are more effective, but those guys take a car ride up to the top of the mountain. There is a trade off between safety and performance. Current road bike helmets are in the sweet spot. Given the number of recent records set in major UCI events helmets don't adversely affect performance.
>>937713
>If it was realy about reducing head trauma in traffic, why is not motorists, making up the vast majority of traffic head trauma cases, being targeted by these campaigns?
Automotive safety has made great strides in the last 20 years in reducing the severity of all injuries for vehicle occupants.
>>937712
>thinking any solid helmet protects against concussion
top kek m8, if it provided significant protection for that it would look more like one of those new fangled extremely expensive head airbags
>>937725
>displaying intelligent risk assessment means you don't cycle
If you think cycling is so dangerous, why do you do it?
>>937713
>>937728
If it was really about reducing head trauma in traffic, the focus would be on providing separate bicycle lanes and MUPs so bicycles and cars have minimal interaction. Helmets wouldn't factor into it. But that course of action requires actual thought and effort, so of course the govt won't do it.
>>937729
>If it was really about reducing head trauma in traffic, the focus would be on providing separate bicycle lanes and MUPs so bicycles and cars have minimal interaction.
What if I don't want to ride on a segregated path that has no challenging sections or goes anywhere interesting?
>But that course of action requires actual thought and effort, so of course the govt won't do it.
And money.
>>937731
If you want a challenging place to ride then urban environments are not what you're looking for. And if you find yourself needing to mix with car traffic on a busy arterial road (as opposed to a quiet suburban street) in order to get somewhere then the bike path/lane network obviously isn't widespread enough.
>>937729
Why do you constantly strawman and attack things people haven't even said?
What's it like being a special snowflake anyway? Cycling clubs require you to wear a helmet, so do cycling events. Do you wear a helmet to participate or do you go around attacking people saying they shouldn't wear a helmet because there's no evidence to support it protecting you?
I personally don't care whether people wear a helmet or not, but I really cannot understand the thinking behind the anti helmet people and why they act so anal and try and get in debates all the time.
>>937729
A helmet isn't solid. It's soft and plastic within a certain interval of applied force. That's the whole point of a helmet. If it was solid it wouldn't afford any protection what so ever at any level of external force.
As a swede I have to say Hövding helmets are kind of awesome but still present a high tech solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Still, if I were to wear a helmet for everyday transport cycling it would likely be a Hövding. Cost be damned. They're cool.
>>937480
>Abusing SI unit symbols
Please re-read the SI Brochure
>>937509
Yes. It turns out that the use of advocacy thereof of seabelts has no known detrimental effect on the modal share of cycling.
>>937548
>but doctors say you should wear it
Do they?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle-helmets-are-useless-says-brain-surgeon.html
>>937556
>What is your genuine reason for not wearing a helmet?
Nonsense question. You may as well ask why he doesn't wear a chastity belt, bulletproof vest or buttplug.
>>937565
The null hypothesis is that the risk of both activities is the same. If you're going to claim that one is more dangerous than the other you need to provide some evidence to that effect.
>>937580
BTFO
I applaud you for your impeccably precise deconstruction of the helmet superstitionists' nonsense.
>>937712
>Except helmets only protect you against the concussion
Modern bicycle helmets actually do a pretty poor job in this regard. The standards they are designed to conform to were primarily conceived to protect against skull fractures. The attached image is what an effective anti-concussion helmet would look like, according to 'helmet experts' consulted by helmets.org.
http://helmets.org/concussionhelmet.htm
NB: helmets.org is a great site for evaluating the relative effectiveness of different bicycle helmets on the market, but their advocacy of helmet use goes far beyond what is supported by the evidence. They self-describe as an alarmist site.
>>937728
>Helmets and neck braces worn for downhill riding are more effective
Is there any independent evidence which supports the effectiveness of Leatt-style neck braces? I have looked for it but not found any.
>Given the number of recent records set in major UCI events helmets don't adversely affect performance.
Given the increased number of fatalities in pro road cycling since helmets were made mandatory, we can say that they don't significantly benefit safety either.
>>937830
>Do they?
They do, I know that one neurosurgeon always gets thrown around but that doesn't mean they all think helmets are useless, here's a brain injury expert saying you should wear a helmet.
http://www.uhs.nhs.uk/AboutTheTrust/Newsandpublications/Latestnews/2012/Braininjuryexpertcallsforcyclehelmetstobemadecompulsory.aspx
>I applaud you for your impeccably precise deconstruction of the helmet superstitionists' nonsense.
I wear a helmet cause I crashed a couple of times and my head skidded and bounced on the road. I'm sure it would suck if I didn't have a helmet. I don't even expect it to save me in some awful high speed crash.
I also wear a Bern Allston which looks fine, and not like a lycra mushroom head.
Funny thing is though, I had my probably most serious accident with a vehicle last week (the faggot turned left without checking his mirrors making me t-bone him.
And at the fucking day I for some reason forgot to wear my helmet, and I've been wearing it daily for 2 years now. Luckily, I didn't even hit my head although I went flying over the car and got bruises and hits all over my body.
>>937877
>which looks fine
I know no one here gives a shit, but my helmet saved my life at around 2 pm EST yesterday.
If you live in southern New Jersey you may have heard about this. Be safe out there guys
>>937833
>doctor says it so it must be true
Being a neurosurgeon hopefully means you're better than most at mucking about with peoples wetware. It doesn't mean you have any expertise outside that field, and you're more than likely completely unqualified to analyse the effectiveness of helmets on preventing the injuries you are tasked to treat. And even less weighing the over-all cost/benefit of bike helmet laws or campaigns.
It's a textbook case of appeal to authority.
There are people who study this for a living, and they overwhelmingly reach the opposite conclusion.
>who is anna niska
>>937830
>Please re-read the SI Brochure
For this, you are awarded 3N/m. Have a nice day.
Country roads with minimal traffic
>>937887
>No space between the number and the unit symbol
Please re-read the SI Brochure.
>>939240
The guy in webm related would probably be a potato if he was not wearing a helmet. A similar type of fall can happen to you if an idiot in a car decides hes got enough room to overtake when he does not. Any quick unexpected flooring can easily result in your head smacking on the ground like that.
Better safe than sorry m8s.
>Do you wear a bike helmet?
Yes. MTB helmet with visor on a road bike. Fuck rule 35.
>Is it a law where you live?
No
>Have you ever actually fallen off of your bike and hit your head?
Yes. Cracked helmet, snapped arm. Head perfectly okay.
And it was totally my own fault, wasn't hit or anything.
>>937830
>Given the increased number of fatalities in pro road cycling since helmets were made mandatory, we can say that they don't significantly benefit safety either.
Oh, you mean since more riders started entering, speeds got faster and *fucking vehicles* now drive 2 feet away from riders and more often than not knock them off...
Other factors dude.
>>931310
I had a similar helmet to pic related. Thankfully was wearing it on my way to work in January, as I swerved around a hobo pushing a giant cart right above a patch of ice.
>landed on right hip
>head reverberated and slammed down on the pavement
>helmet cracked
Glad it wasn't my skull.
I've been hit by a car four times now. It kinda sucks. Wear a fucking helmet.
Yes
Yes
Yes
>>937830
get a life man (not saying it to prove you wrong or negate anything youve said)
No
Yes
No, I don't think I've ever fallen from a bike at all
>>937884
cool!
>>931310
yes
no
yes
IMHO it's probably not offering *that* much protection, but I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Never wore a helmet because lol dutch
Even though i live in a small town where the cycling infrastructure isn't as good as in bigger citys cars still give you plenty of room while passing and i generally don't feel the need to wear one
I have fallen off my bike on several occasions but never hit my head
I still cringe whenever i see kids showing off mad skillz on their BMXs without wearing helmets
>>931843
BMX helmets don't even look that bad either. I used to wear them when I cycled to high school because I hated the way normal bike helmets looked.
Some years ago a pensioner was getting on his bike after crossing a road, somehow he fell, he was almost stationary when he fell i.e. didn't even have speed yet, but he fell backwards and hit his head. Died.
So yeah I wear a helmet.
![high-visibility-safety-vest-[3]-4194-p.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/IvYPbFw.jpg "high-visibility-safety-vest-[3]-4194-p.jpg")
>>931310
No
No, but it's a law to always wear pic related or have a red and white blinkies on
No
>>947974
I hate those things. They don't breathe and make me sweat.
>>947976
My workplace provided me with a nicer one with their logo on the back, witch breathe a little better than plain ones.
The worst thing I noticed that some dogs starter associating those wests with cyclists, and they attack everyone wearing them excepting them to flee. On reflex I stomped some sort of mixed german Sheppard mutt who jumped me from side when I was walking to the store for some water. I still remember his expressions in slo mo going from ''lets play'' to ''oh fuuu''
1. Are there any brands that are better than others. Are cheap ones the same as the expensive ones?
2. Are inline skates helmets usable for bycicles? The guy in the store told me not really, but they look the same to me.
>>948843
1. The best helmet is the one you wear. Second best is the one that perfectly fits your head.
Inexpensive helmets are sometimes a bit less visually appealing, might have less venting, etc but are built to exactly the same safety spec.
So, find one you like that fits your head. If it turns out to be inexpensive, so much the better.
2. Not really. Arguably better than nothing.
>>948843
1: Price doesn't really affect how much protection they offer, it just affects how comfortable, lightweight, and well-ventilated they are. And the most expensive one may not even be the most comfortable one for you. Try some on.
The only thing that affects how much protection offered is how much coverage they offer. For example, mtb helmets sometimes cover a little bit more of your head than a road helmet.
2: Designed for different type of impacts. You should definitely use a helmet designed specifically for cycling.
>>931317
You are a literal fucking downtube.
>>933625
Youre probably more likely to die from a bee sting
>>949359
Hey everyone, look at this literal fucking DOWNTUBE!
>>931310
Once as a kid i was fucking about on my bike and somehow managed to put the front wheel perpendicular to direction of travel. I flew right over the handle bars, did a half somersault and landed on my back. I'm pretty sure i would have cracked my head open if i hadn't been wearing a helmet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKKBImY54LQ
Considering the slightest bump onto rocks can split your head open when simply standing and falling, yes I wear a helmet 100% of the time
>>949885
This. Anyone that doesn't is a downtube.
concussed myself multiple times during my youth, skiing (with helmet, the drop was immense), skateboarding, cycling, rollerblading (no helmets, cement)
I'm 32 now and I can literally feel how much slower I am compared to when i was 18. Shit's scary.
In my state, if you're over 21 it's up to you if you wish to use a helmet on a bike or motorcycle.
That said, yes. I wear one. Why? Because if you do anything long enough, eventually an accident will happen.
Even if a head injury is unlikely, a brain injury is one of the worst fucking things that could happen to you. Best to do what you can within reason to make that less likely.
>>948843
Helmets must meet specific safety requirements in order to be sold. An expensive helmet is not any better then a cheap one as long as it fits correctly.
Something to be aware of. Bicycling helmets are only designed for a single impact, the foam sacrifices itself to better protect you.
Check out more here: http://www.helmets.org/
>>948843
Better helmets are some combination of fit, vents, aero, and weight.
Never wore one. If you get sideswiped by a cager it's more likely you'll have a rotational neck injury or abdominal/spine injury, which a helmet does shit all for. There's also evidence cagers drive more carefully around you if you aren't wearing a helmet, and probably if you are dressed like a normal human and not wearing hobo-wear like a drunk or lycra like a faggot.
>>932832
This.
>>931408
Went body-over-handlebars once. Only injury, and I landed on cement by the way, was a scraped knee. Shoe also took some damage.
>>936459
You could make the same argument in favor of chainmail. Get one of those hood and neck style mails. Better that nothing :^)
>>936986
>Im also always wearing proper gloves because if I fall I naturally use my hands to catch myself.
Unless you're using inline skating style wrist guards, all gloves protect from is skin scraping, not broken fingers or a fucking broken wrist, which I'd be far more concerned for than some minor surface damage. Scrape your skin up, you dump rubbing alcohol on it and give it a week. Good luck doing that for a shattered wrist.
>>937010
>riding like a fuck, not minding the death cagers
>suddenly side of car has a high velocity impact with body
>ribcage implodes, spine breaks, organs rupture, hips break, femur shatters
>at least I had my helmet on
I'd rather anticipate the cars. If helmets did shit all, why aren't car drivers wearing them? How many people die in car crashes? After all anon, wearing a helmet can't hurt.
>>937493
Phone zombies should wear helmets. They're always tripping over or walking into stuff. After all, a fall from pedestrian height and walking speed can kill you if your head lands on concrete. Pedestrians should be mandated to wear helmets.
I would be dead if it wasn't for helmets. That being said, I don't wear one as much as I should (dirt jumping, xc mountain biking, bmx).
>>937534
You know what's more effective in preventing cyclist deaths than helmets? Separated lanes. Cycling is NOT inherently risky, it's only risky when you have a bunch of fucks on cellphones piloting a giant hunk of metal at 80 mph without paying attention. Separated lanes also help prevent debris on the roadway, which is second after cages for causing a cyclist wreck. Bikes don't just fall over for no reason.
Helmets are just a way of acting like they're doing something about cyclist deaths while not needing to get off their ass and do anything substantial. It's a bandaid on the problem. The problem is lack of separated lanes. The problem is fuckers piloting cars while not paying attention and for the love of god can't be pissed to look before they turn, or even use a damned turn signal. If anyone actually wanted to save cyclist lives, we would be pushing separated lanes, not mandating to cover .5% of someone's body with padded plastic and act like that solves anything. Cars should be removed from cities, and in suburbs and rural areas recreation lanes should be installed. There, all the lives are saved, no fucking placebo helmets needed.
>>937581
Pedestrian injuries are also due to car driving fuckers and lack of non-car oriented infrastructure. There is no reason we can't install pedestrian bridges/tunnels over major roadways to literally save people's lives.
>>937725
So you're saying people against helmets have done an inordinate amount of research into it, far more than anyone else in the thread? Yes, thanks for proving my point.
