That’s not science, that’s bad math and deplorable logic. Totally different.
I stand corrected. The quiz literally mentions helmets. It does not address the question of whether wearing a helmet makes you less likely to die from a brain injury.
I never said I thought bicycle riding was “a dangerous activity”. I didn’t agree that you were making a very strong point for your case though, and the way you presented the statistic in the post I responded to needed more context to have any relevance. For some reason you choose to now say that you were responding to post #2 as a reason for posting the overall rates for traumatic brain injury deaths per year. If you reread your actual post you say “Riding a bicycle is not a dangerous activity. Billions of people around the world ride bicycles without helmets every day. You are at far greater risk of death or serious injury while in a car than you are on a bicycle.” and then you show the overall death from head injuries statisics, which are irrelevant to the previous statement. The ones you are using now are relevant to your position, but some are also from interested parties (The League of American Bicyclists.)
The idea I have about wearing a helmet is more along the lines of if the helmet has a .0001% chance of reducing net overall injury I will wear it. For me the cost benefit analysis is a helmet has minimal cost (I can get one for $20 - and it has to pass the same safety rating as any other helmet, so there is little loss in safety by buying a cheaper helmet) and I do not suffer any ill effects from wearing one.
And getting back to the League of American Bicyclists, they heavily advocate for wearing a helmet, in fact if you go to their website under “things to wear” the first thing they list is helmet.
The cite you just gave me also advocates wearing a helmet if you look at their Introduction to Vehicular Riding Section
" About 85% of all bicycle crashes requiring medical treatment didn’t involve a moving car at all; the bicyclist simply slid, fell, or ran into something. That’s why helmets and gloves are important."
So, I can see wanting to encourage people to ride, but your anti-helmet stance is not well supported by any of the information you have presented.
Nor is it supported by the data I posted.
Now for Gracer’s experience in the Netherlands, s/he may be correct. But in the United States, not wearing a helmet greatly increases your odds of death and head injuries.
Really - why would you not wear a helmet in a country where over 99% of all ground transportation miles are performed by 3,000 pound vehicles driven by people who studied more for their geography final than their driving test? And, uh, we all know the stereotype about Americans and geography knowledge. 
I’m in Cleveland. The majority of the time when I see a bike (maybe 2/3 or 3/4), the rider is not wearing a helmet. This seems to be correlated with riding on the wrong side of the street: Those who ride on the right with the other vehicles have helmets more often than not.
And I’ve been in several accidents on my bike, and the helmet hasn’t yet made a difference, but I wear one anyway. I bike in normal clothes, for what it’s worth, and mostly as a pragmatic means of transportation.
The Wiki link appears to be about mass transit, not auto travel.
I have presented my thoughts and links to non-profit cites for those who prefer research to advertising-fueled propaganda. I stand with the rest of the world. Bye bye.
:rolleyes:
Your own citations say that bicycling is at least 3 times more dangerous than driving (at least as far as head injuries go), but, yeah - stand behind that “science” that says the opposite of what the numbers are telling you.
Actually, I just quoted the wrong line. Had you read the article (and not just to verify a single line) you would have seen:
So I stand behind the number.
Were you previously employed by a helmet manufacturer and it ended bitterly? I am starting to wonder.
I’m sorry I contributed to the hijack.
In the northern Chicago suburbs, I see helmet wearing at about 75%. Kids and adults about equal, although I don’t pay close attention.
Cute. Slightly slimy, but cute.
Actually, no. I am now comfortably retired but I spent over 45 years earning my living doing Statistical Risk Analysis.
I too had been buffaloed by the helmet propaganda and hadn’t ridden a bike for a very long time because I didn’t want to wear a helmet. Last year I learned that helmets were indeed controversial – the line that “the debate is over – wear a helmet” was not true. I read several thousand pages of documentation, decided which side made a better case, and I bought a bike but not a helmet.
I realize that the true believers aren’t going to change their minds. I only wanted to insure that those who like to think for themselves were aware that there actually is another side to the helmet argument.
I wish no ill will to those who choose to wear a plastic hat. I just want people to realize that the pressure to wear them comes from people and organizations with a profit and/or power seeking agenda. Those who study the situation with a purely objective viewpoint tend to say helmets are hooey.
Slightly off topic but still relevant is the situation with motorcycle helmets. Many states have passed and then repealed mandatory helmet laws. The laws were repealed because there is no scientific or statistical evidence that they are beneficial. The insurance companies don’t even take a stand on motorcycle helmets because their data shows them to be a toss up. So, if a 3+ pound motorcycle helmet doesn’t effectively prevent injuries or deaths, what chance do think your little 6 ounce bicycle helmet has? (BTW, motorcycles are dangerous to those who ride them.)
Dammit. I’m getting sucked in again. It is such a shame that helmet proponents have denied so many people the sheer pleasure as well as the health benefits of riding bikes for so long. And, yes, I freely and without shame admit that the reason I didn’t want to wear a helmet was sheer vanity. They look goofy and mess up my hair. I would rather not ride a bike than wear a helmet – and it seems a lot of other people feel the same way. We shouldn’t (don’t) have to make this decision.
What’s so onerous about wearing a helmet? There’s a huge cycling culture here, everyone wears helmets, it’s no big deal.
Awesome. Show me how I’m wrong and that your citation proves that, per mile driven, bikes are as safe as autos as you claimed. Especially in relation to head injuries (since that was the citation you provided.)
Please note these statistics I provided came from both government sources and bicycling proponents, not “for profit” companies. I say this because you already made the decision that my citations are bogus because of the profit motive, though, oddly enough, none of them was generated by a for-profit organization. So don’t go there. Just use your math skillz.
In the Minneapolis, on the recreational trails it’s about half and half. Serious spandex type riders on streets most of them do. Kids riding around the neighborhood, about half in the outer ring suburbs tapering to almost zero in the inner cities. I don’t wear a helmet personally.
Another slime attack. If you can’t attack the facts, attack the person. But hmmm … this post now seems to be missing.
I don’t want to play with you guys anymore.
Because I edited the line and asked you to show me the math.
Please, show us the statistics. Your claim is extraordinary, so your data must be too. The data you did provide, as you know, didn’t back up your claim.
I will note that you
a. Have not answered the question with cites
b. Dismissed all other citations as being flawed because of the “profit motive”
c. Provided citations that did not back up your claims
So… again, please show us the data that proves your claim that bicycle riding is as safe as a car.
You can claim “tired internet warrior” all you want, but it still won’t convince anybody that you’re correct.
Kids, teenagers, and tradesmen riding bikes never wore them. It’s just the middle-income adults who bike for exercise, wearing head-to-toe cycling gear, who I see wearing them.
You did not read what I linked to. I know you did not read it. I spent 100 hours over the course of three weeks reading it before I made my decision.
Here is just one example chosen quickly and at random:
Assessment of current bicycle helmets for the potential to cause rotational injury
I read that. You did not. See all those blue links as you scroll down? I read them and you did not. I also read thousands of pages that those links lead to and you did not. And that is just one page at the link I provided; there are many more.
Sorry, but science is hard. Don’t take my word for it – read it yourself. That’s why I put up the link.
“Overall, it was concluded that for the majority of cases considered, the helmet can provide life saving protection during typical linear impacts and, in addition, the typical level of rotational acceleration observed using a helmeted headform would generally be no more injurious than expected for a bare human head.”
Sorry Turble, try again. I think maybe 1 more attempt to find a site the properly backs up your position would be OK, but if you can’t do it in the next try it seems as if it would be a litte impolite to keep going on about this.
IMO, comparing miles driven between cars & bikes is cheating. The cars win … Hours of use is the way to go. Why do you think airlines use miles? Seat miles to boot.
Why do we have so much tech in cars that cost so many $$$$$?
Why not train & test better drivers? Because we as drivers do not want to wear safety gear. We are large in number & are a large voting block.
Bicyclist have no clout. You can pass all the laws you want against what they want.
There are lies
Damn lies
And statistics.