Why I don't wear a helmet when biking

You mad, bro?

drain bamaged wrote:

On time I got clipped on the back wheel by a newbie. I hit my head on asphault. I thought I was going to die or be paralyzed it hit so hard.

Helmet was shattered in and I got a mild concussion with road rash and broken collarbone.

So here is an n=1 who is for helmets.

make that n=2

I never rode with a helmet as a kid but if you ride enough miles, chances are you are going to go down.

I ride to work daily. One day, i rode to a meeting on my bike in my work clothes. I was starting up after a stoplight and somehow went down on my head and ended up in the ER. I had a concussion and don't remember much from those hours but my helmet saved me. A witness said i went down so fast that the ER docs thought i had passed out and wanted to test me for all sorts of stuff.

i went back to the scene the following week and saw that the asphalt at the intersection had warped so that there was a lump that i didn't see causing the front tire to slip out when i stood up to pedal away.

what was so ironic is that on my long rides in the hills, i'm nervous on long descents where speeds can get up to 40mph. yet my worst crash i was going < 3mph.

exthrower wrote:

I grew up during a time when we all rode bikes everyday and no one wore a helmet. Never knew or heard of anyone who had a head injury...It's the 'pussification" of America.

Lol, do you honestly believe that no one had a head injury because you, personally, never heard of it?

BTW, I don't think helmets should be mandatory, but I don't think people who wear them are "pussified".

D-Nice wrote:

exthrower wrote:

I grew up during a time when we all rode bikes everyday and no one wore a helmet. Never knew or heard of anyone who had a head injury...It's the 'pussification" of America.

Lol, do you honestly believe that no one had a head injury because you, personally, never heard of it?

BTW, I don't think helmets should be mandatory, but I don't think people who wear them are "pussified".

Damned straight.

I also happen to know for a fact that there are no Asians in real life - only in the movies. I grew up in a town which was 80% white and 20% black. NO Asians!

Runner on a bike wrote:

Not sure I agree, but it's a well written argument:

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/transportation/2015/jun/26/why-im-done-wearing-helmet

I actually work in public health. This person may as well, but I'd question that fact. If they do, they don't understand public health, statistics, or how helmets work very well. They also either didn't read or don't understand the study that they referenced.

First, the claim is that helmets don't prevent 85% of serious injuries. Sure, that's true, but they do prevent injuries. It's difficult to measure exactly how many injuries might be prevented, but there is no doubt that helmets protect against head injuries. Every study conducted has shown this.

Second, the claim is that helmets increase neck injuries. None of the studies really say that. There is some indication that helmet wearers may be more likely to suffer a neck injury than a head injury. Even if you took that as being true, it isn't that helmets cause neck injury, it's that they turn what would have been a head injury into a neck injury. This is a good thing. There are far fewer overall injuries among helmet wearers compared to non-helmet wearers.

Third is the claim that helmets aren't supposed to explode. This simply isn't true. It is true that for many impacts, the foam is designed to compress and absorb the impact. However, for larger impacts that the foam can't absorb, the helmet will blow apart. The energy that could have smushed your noggin instead is used to blow the helmet apart. This is part of the design.

I have no idea who the other is, but she isn't very good at her job.

Same Gen as ex-man wrote:

D-Nice wrote:

Lol, do you honestly believe that no one had a head injury because you, personally, never heard of it?

BTW, I don't think helmets should be mandatory, but I don't think people who wear them are "pussified".

Damned straight.

I also happen to know for a fact that there are no Asians in real life - only in the movies. I grew up in a town which was 80% white and 20% black. NO Asians!

ROFL

Since the heart is a more vital organ than the brain, should we require bicyclists to wear flak jackets?

I just ride without a saddle. Seat post only.

Much better control and never crashed.

Don't wear a helmet either.

Sally V wrote:

Since the heart is a more vital organ than the brain, should we require bicyclists to wear flak jackets?

1) Your claim is FALSE

2) Even pretending that your claim is true, how critical an organ is is only one factor. Without factoring in frequency of serious injury to target organ with and without proposed protection the fact that a particular organ is essential is essentially meaningless.

Try thinking - it doesn't hurt.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Sally V wrote:

Since the heart is a more vital organ than the brain, should we require bicyclists to wear flak jackets?

1) Your claim is FALSE

2) Even pretending that your claim is true, how critical an organ is is only one factor. Without factoring in frequency of serious injury to target organ with and without proposed protection the fact that a particular organ is essential is essentially meaningless.

Try thinking - it doesn't hurt.

You fools.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Sally V wrote:

Since the heart is a more vital organ than the brain, should we require bicyclists to wear flak jackets?

1) Your claim is FALSE

2) Even pretending that your claim is true, how critical an organ is is only one factor. Without factoring in frequency of serious injury to target organ with and without proposed protection the fact that a particular organ is essential is essentially meaningless.

Try thinking - it doesn't hurt.

1. You're wrong and Sally is right.

2. You may be right, but I can't be sure. It's not just a function of injury frequency, but also the importance of the organ. Since the heart is more critical to life than the brain, a smaller frequency of injury would equate with brain injuries. It's what is known as an inverse relation.

Dr. Know wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

1) Your claim is FALSE

2) Even pretending that your claim is true, how critical an organ is is only one factor. Without factoring in frequency of serious injury to target organ with and without proposed protection the fact that a particular organ is essential is essentially meaningless.

Try thinking - it doesn't hurt.

1. You're wrong and Sally is right.

2. You may be right, but I can't be sure. It's not just a function of injury frequency, but also the importance of the organ. Since the heart is more critical to life than the brain, a smaller frequency of injury would equate with brain injuries. It's what is known as an inverse relation.

1. Nope:

brain dead => dead

heart dead => replace heart

2. Nope. Wrong again.

There is no may be about it. Frequency information simply IS essential in determining the relevance of protective equipment.

Sorry, but the count is 0 and 2.

You are entitled to your opinion even though you are wrong.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

1. Nope:

brain dead => dead

heart dead => replace heart

An arbitrary prejudice of medicine.

Soon they will be transplanting human brains onto other bodies and all the homunculi who think they live in their brains will be proven wrong.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

1. Nope:

brain dead => dead

heart dead => replace heart

An arbitrary prejudice of medicine.

Soon they will be transplanting human brains onto other bodies and all the homunculi who think they live in their brains will be proven wrong.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/neurosurgeon-first-head-transplant-america-sergio-canavero

Why don't you take your arbitrary prejudice and shove it up your homunculi, or whatever.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

An arbitrary prejudice of medicine.

Soon they will be transplanting human brains onto other bodies and all the homunculi who think they live in their brains will be proven wrong.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/neurosurgeon-first-head-transplant-america-sergio-canavero

Why don't you take your arbitrary prejudice and shove it up your homunculi, or whatever.

Thanks! Couldn't have said it better myself.

You couldn't say it better than lame, because you're lame.

Bad Wigins wrote:

You couldn't say it better than lame, because you're lame.

Say you didn't just say that.

Kind of a fan of yours but that was just...well...lame!

Smell the coffee wrote:

Running in traffic is far more dangerous than casual biking without a helmet.

I don't do either. Too dangerous.