58 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

I would wager that any increase in injury despite helmet use is more than accounted for by increases in road traffic.

[MiladyM]

I support natural selection. If you don't want to wear a helmet and it causes your own death, it's your fault.

Force the kids to wear them until 18. After that, it's their own choice.

agreed

[Greatgenes]

The New England Journal of Medicine disagrees with you:

"Doctors in Seattle studied nearly 1,000 people injured while riding bicycles. They found that the most severe head injuries occurred in young people, and that wearing a helmet makes a huge difference. Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent and of brain injury by 88 percent.

if they were studing only people who have already suffered head injuries proir to being studied, how can they tell what effect the hemet had....not saying a helmet had no effect but you cant really tell unless they did tests with a helmet and another without. im sure if they were all *head* related injuries it helped greatly, but like i have said before im more personally concerned about my neck while wiping out


Note the weight specified: "less than half a pound". I seriously doubt that would be enough additional weight to make injuries elsewhere more likely. Since these guys are doctors, I think they have more weight in the argument than people arguing against helmets - which, according to Google, includes The Sun.

of course the light weight would not matter...but the obstructed vision and heat build up and any other uncomfortable things that may occour might.

So we should outlaw roller coasters, cars, lightening, and swimming? Those cause death all the time. Be reasonable and put a helmet on.

-when people die on roller coasters there are very serious lawsuits and shutdowns about to happen.
-you cant compare helmets to lighting...thats a natural disaster if you are hit. but sadly mother nature just has a stick a lil to far up her ass sometimes
- if you dont know how to swim, take lessons, or dont, if you drown due to natural causes...again mother nature can be a B****

but i never once said outlaw helmets, if you feel safer wearing a helmet of course you should wear one. however if you feel safer with your head free, by all means it shouldent be illegal, seatbelts should be mandatory tho, there is no reason anybody should feel unsafe while wearing one, they are easily mobile with the motion of your body and they dont only protect your big giant head, they protect every inch of you from flying through the windshield at 100mph

[pabs123]

of course the light weight would not matter...but the obstructed vision and heat build up and any other uncomfortable things that may occour might.

but how exactly can helmets cause obstruction of vision?

[Greatgenes]

oh well if you're just trying to die fast by all means wear no helmet, but your hopes of quick death are no reason for the law to be changed for everyone else

no i dont want to die slowly..or fast..i would just perfer it over a broken back or a broken neck and being a vegetable the rest of my life.

[pabs123]

no i dont want to die slowly..or fast..i would just perfer it over a broken back or a broken neck and being a vegetable the rest of my life.

you know that not wearing a helmet doesnt mean that you wont break your back right? and wearing a helmet won't cause back injury either...

[Greatgenes]

but how exactly can helmets cause obstruction of vision?

some styles of helmets will affect your peripheral vision or even if the chinstrap is to far forward. visors on helmets are also a huge pain in the ass cuz crap sticks to them just like your winshield, its annoying just like having a smudge on your sunglasses

thats not what drives me nuts tho, having a mushroom looking thing on my head while im trying to enjoy some breezy biking is enough to drive me crazy, and being female..i have long hair and my head gets so hot ..

I would wager that any increase in injury despite helmet use is more than accounted for by increases in road traffic.

i agree,


i would live completely eco friendly if i could, all this man made shit is wrecking the planet. i hate traffic and i would go everywhere on horseback and be soo happy if the world was still like that.

if i was allowed i would ride just like this... http://www.fatbmx.co...0/pinupjoke.jpg

Edited by Greatgenes, 18 July 2010 - 08:04 PM.

[pabs123]

i agree,


i would live completely eco friendly if i could, all this man made shit is wrecking the planet. i hate traffic and i would go everywhere on horseback and be soo happy if the world was still like that.

if i was allowed i would ride just like this... http://www.fatbmx.co...0/pinupjoke.jpg

might wanna label that NSFW ...and it looks extremely uncomfortable for her, but it's hot so she can suck it up

[Lychee]

The New England Journal of Medicine disagrees with you:

"Doctors in Seattle studied nearly 1,000 people injured while riding bicycles. They found that the most severe head injuries occurred in young people, and that wearing a helmet makes a huge difference. Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent and of brain injury by 88 percent.

if they were studing only people who have already suffered head injuries proir to being studied, how can they tell what effect the hemet had....not saying a helmet had no effect but you cant really tell unless they did tests with a helmet and another without. im sure if they were all *head* related injuries it helped greatly, but like i have said before im more personally concerned about my neck while wiping out

Well, I assume it went something like this:

Doctor one: Remarkable. Those who wore a helmet suffered less damage to the head that those without.
Doctor a: Great scot! It's almost as if the helmet protects the head. What about other types of injury?
Doctor one: ...My dear Watson, what do helmets have to do with other kinds of injuries?
Doctor a: Perhaps we should run tests to be sure, to check what effect the helmet has.
Doctor one: Other than examining the damage done to these poor people?
Doctor a: Yes! These people were injured prior to examination. How can we tell what effect the helmet had?
Doctor one: Well, we just went over that. Those who wore helmets: alive. Those who did not: dead.
Doctor a: We need to test them with helmets and without!
Doctor one: Watson, are you intentionally being obtuse? We have patients who wore helmets. We have those who did not. Those who did are overwhelmingly more likely to have a functioning brain. Those who did not are no longer in possesion of one.
Doctor a: So what your saying is a device, used historically to protect the head, does so?
Doctor one: Indeed.
Doctor a: Great scot!

[Raui]

*facepalm*

[Greatgenes]

Well, I assume it went something like this:

Doctor one: Remarkable. Those who wore a helmet suffered less damage to the head that those without.
Doctor a: Great scot! It's almost as if the helmet protects the head. What about other types of injury?
Doctor one: ...My dear Watson, what do helmets have to do with other kinds of injuries?
Doctor a: Perhaps we should run tests to be sure, to check what effect the helmet has.
Doctor one: Other than examining the damage done to these poor people?
Doctor a: Yes! These people were injured prior to examination. How can we tell what effect the helmet had?
Doctor one: Well, we just went over that. Those who wore helmets: alive. Those who did not: dead.
Doctor a: We need to test them with helmets and without!
Doctor one: Watson, are you intentionally being obtuse? We have patients who wore helmets. We have those who did not. Those who did are overwhelmingly more likely to have a functioning brain. Those who did not are no longer in possesion of one.
Doctor a: So what your saying is a device, used historically to protect the head, does so?
Doctor one: Indeed.
Doctor a: Great scot!

#1 you have to much time on your hands
#2 these doctors sound highly uneducated
#3 your reply states that they did not actually test anything...instead just looked at people who have been previosly injured, also the majority of these injuries that they *looked at* must have been very old unless they did this study over a time period of about 5-6 years asuming people are not dieing and suffering trauma to the head due to severe bike accidents . in fact i dont think i can even take this perticular study seriously since nothing was tested, therfore they cant determine what the injury would have been if the rider was not wearing a helmet while in the exact same crash scenario.

Edited by Greatgenes, 19 July 2010 - 08:31 AM.

[pabs123]

im just confused with one thing... so you're saying that wearing a helmet causes injuries to other parts of your body? how?

[Lychee]

#1 you have to much time on your hands
#2 these doctors sound highly uneducated
#3 your reply states that they did not actually test anything...instead just looked at people who have been previosly injured, also the majority of these injuries that they *looked at* must have been very old unless they did this study over a time period of about 5-6 years asuming people are not dieing and suffering trauma to the head due to severe bike accidents . in fact i dont think i can even take this perticular study seriously since nothing was tested, therfore they cant determine what the injury would have been if the rider was not wearing a helmet while in the exact same crash scenario.

I assure you, writing that comment took far less time than trying to figure out what you're saying in this one. Which really baffles me. Nice going with the "you have too much time" attack; shame I'm stuck in bed with nothing to do because I have the flu, so I actually do have too much time on my hands!

My reply, because I'm really not sure if you're serious and you thought that was factual, was one hundred per cent fictitious. In regards to the article itself, I don't know how you can conclude that "nothing was tested", because it was published in an academically approved journal. If they hadn't tested thoroughly (and really, I think 1,000 cases is pretty thorough), they would not have been able to publish the article.

Here is what Wikipedia says about the journal it was published in: "The New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. or NEJM) is an English-language peer-reviewed medical journal published by the Massachusetts Medical Society. It is the oldest continuously published medical journal in the world, and is the most widely read, cited, and influential general medical periodical in the world."

Peer-reviewed means other, highly intelligent doctors, looked at this and agreed with the authors. And this article was deemed reliable enough to be published in "the most widely read, cited, and influential general medical periodical in the world".

[Greatgenes]

I assure you, writing that comment took far less time than trying to figure out what you're saying in this one. Which really baffles me. Nice going with the "you have too much time" attack; shame I'm stuck in bed with nothing to do because I have the flu, so I actually do have too much time on my hands!

My reply, because I'm really not sure if you're serious and you thought that was factual, was one hundred per cent fictitious. In regards to the article itself, I don't know how you can conclude that "nothing was tested", because it was published in an academically approved journal. If they hadn't tested thoroughly (and really, I think 1,000 cases is pretty thorough), they would not have been able to publish the article.

Here is what Wikipedia says about the journal it was published in: "The New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. or NEJM) is an English-language peer-reviewed medical journal published by the Massachusetts Medical Society. It is the oldest continuously published medical journal in the world, and is the most widely read, cited, and influential general medical periodical in the world."

Peer-reviewed means other, highly intelligent doctors, looked at this and agreed with the authors. And this article was deemed reliable enough to be published in "the most widely read, cited, and influential general medical periodical in the world".

im not really concerned about this article, i made this thread so i could hear other peoples opinions, not so people could argue about what others are posting. if you feel very strongly about wearing a helemt and it makes you feel safe then good for you with your choice. some of the things i have posted even if they are not 100% accurate is how i feel about wearing a helmet and is why i choose why not to wear one. this is a topic that people have certain feelings about and most of the time there minds will not change beacuse of something somebody else said. me for example i just wanna let the wind blow through my hair while i ride my bike, it feels great and free, aside from the personel reasons i have stated above why i dont wear my helmet.

sorry if my last post didint make perfect sense sometimes things make sense in my head and then sound weird when i write them down lol

[Lychee]

me for example i just wanna let the wind blow through my hair while i ride my bike, it feels great and free, aside from the personel reasons i have stated above why i dont wear my helmet.

That's understandable - I love that feeling when I'm on the swings. This is all academic for me personally, since I don't ride a bike, but I guess I've been seeing first hand what could happen without one a lot lately and so I'm taking the matter a bit more seriously than necessary.

sorry if my last post didint make perfect sense sometimes things make sense in my head and then sound weird when i write them down lol

Don't worry. It happens to all of us!

[pabs123]

That's understandable - I love that feeling when I'm on the swings. This is all academic for me personally, since I don't ride a bike, but I guess I've been seeing first hand what could happen without one a lot lately and so I'm taking the matter a bit more seriously than necessary.

but just because YOU want to feel the wind in your hair doesnt mean we should change a law that saves lives

[Lychee]

but just because YOU want to feel the wind in your hair doesnt mean we should change a law that saves lives

Uh. No. I never said we should. I said I understood enjoying the feeling of wind in hair.

[WakaWaka]

but just because YOU want to feel the wind in your hair doesnt mean we should change a law that saves lives

Clearly.
Otherwise an eye for an eye will still be legal.

Uh. No. I never said we should. I said I understood enjoying the feeling of wind in hair.

If people wants to enjoy the feeling of wind in their hair they can go in front of a fan going full blast.
That's not even a valid excuse for not wearing a helmet.

Edited by kanuto, 19 July 2010 - 12:32 PM.

[pabs123]

i understand that you're uncomfortable with a helmet but every reason you've given to change this law is either personal preference or ridiculous studies...i see noe legitimate argument yet to change the law...

[Lychee]

If people wants to enjoy the feeling of wind in their hair they can go in front of a fan going full blast.
That's not even a valid excuse for not wearing a helmet.

Yes. I said I understood the preference, not that I would do it myself. I actually argued in favour of cycling helmets - which you would know if you'd read my previous posts.

[Greatgenes]

Yes. I said I understood the preference, not that I would do it myself. I actually argued in favour of cycling helmets - which you would know if you'd read my previous posts.

yes i think he means me. you did argue in favour of wearing them.

and i dunno..i think it could be argued in a serious matter, ive read up alot on it since i made this post, so many more are in favor of wearing them, but when i read all the negative things (if they were true or not) it really gets me thinking about it for long periods of time. oviously they protect your head, i am just saying they dont protect anything else and it could be possable for a rider to be more severly hurt due to wearing one, like my reason of my head gets fricken hot in them. it also really bothers me that the percentage of overall active bike riding has gone down since this law was enforced. i liked it much better when more people were out there living healthy lifestyles, such as biking to work instead of driving. i never wanted to change the law or even debate about it in rl. was just curios if there was any other opinions out there that were different.

If people wants to enjoy the feeling of wind in their hair they can go in front of a fan going full blast.
That's not even a valid excuse for not wearing a helmet.

F that, if i wanna ride my bike or my horse or stick my head out of a car window, hell yeah im gunna do it. the law can eat my shorts!!

altho i never did use that as an edscuse i just said it feels good.

I assure you, writing that comment took far less time than trying to figure out what you're saying in this one. Which really baffles me. Nice going with the "you have too much time" attack; shame I'm stuck in bed with nothing to do because I have the flu, so I actually do have too much time on my hands!

\

im not here to attack anybody over the internet...and i just got over the flu last week and its was very very gaaaay

Edited by Greatgenes, 19 July 2010 - 01:24 PM.

[pabs123]

F that, if i wanna ride my bike or my horse or stick my head out of a car window, hell yeah im gunna do it. the law can eat my shorts!!

good luck staying out of jail with that attitude

[WakaWaka]

good luck staying out of jail with that attitude

Actually at this point in time he/she is practically trolling.

[wtfints]

i think it should be a personal choice whether to wear it.

[Jake]

I got stopped once by a cop on a horse when I was 7, otherwise no complaints. I wear my hat backwards when I bike. Fck helmets