Cooler Helmet?

[[email protected]]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2006 20:58:36 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Samatha wrote:
> >>
> >> If need
> >> be, I'll locate more foam and superglue some strips in to get some air
> >> flow.
> >
> >Best be careful! Things like superglue can attack the foam.
> >
> >It wouldn't be a problem, except it causes all the magic to leak out
> >the helmet. Then it becomes just a hat.
>
> Err, I think she can handle the chemistry. Something to do with it
> being part of the job description.
>
> (Actually, cyanoacrylates shouldn't attack the foam, but they might
> not fully cure, which could lead to a situation with its own set of
> nasty potential surprises.)

Nothing worth pulling one's hair out over.

dl

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 04:27:23 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Helmets don't work.
>>
>>> http://www.habcycles.com/bikecrash.html
>>>
>>> I beg to differ. They certainly can.
>>
>> Anecdotal. {pause}
>>
>> J/K!!!
>>
>> Sadly, some on here will say your helmet CAUSED or at least
>> exacerbated your injuries -- with a straight face (unlike yours
>> after that!) even...
>>
>> I have that exact Bell model lid; it's my favorite even though I
>> paid more for a fancy "Cratoni" (GRS) one recently...
>>
>> Bill "and no, JFT, I ain't braggin' " S.
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> Can you tell us of any country whose bicycle head injury
> trend rates changed to a significant degree during any
> period in which bicycle helmet use increased by 50%?
>
> That is, bicycle head injury rates trend gently downward
> over time, but I know of no country in which massive
> increases in helmet wearing have been accompanied by any
> change in the gentle downward trend.
>
> Here's a typical graph at half-year intervals showing
> bicycle head injuries and helmet use, with a third line
> showing non-bicycle head injuries:
>
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/b383cda8149ed78680256aaa00603759
>
> No one could guess from the gently delcining bicycle head
> injury rate that helmet use had risen from near 0% to almost
> 100% in New Zealand from March 1988 to March 1994.
>
> And even the gentle downward trend in head injuries for
> cyclists is not likely to be due to helmets, since it
> practically mirrors the gentle downward trend in head
> injuries for non-cyclists, who didn't start wearing helmets.
>
> More details on that example and others can be found here:
>
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets?OpenDocument
>
> That's why even dramatic examples aren't quite as convincing
> as you'd expect them to be. Anyone looking at Mark's
> pictures and description of his accident can certainly be
> excused for assuming that his helmet saved him and that
> helmets must therefore have a widespread and similar effect.
>
> But no such widespread effect seems to show up. Either
> there's something wrong with our assumptions about such
> individual accidents, or else there's something amazing
> missing from the nationwide bicycling accident statistics
> for country after country, year after year.
>
> When what we expect from individual cases fails to show up
> in the general population, the individual cases are usually
> found to be anecdotal, mis-interpreted, or somehow not
> nearly as applicable as we thought.
>
> A great deal of medicine, for example, depends on wide-scale
> testing of what seems to be perfectly reasonable and even
> works in small trials. The wide-scale testing has a nasty
> habit of showing that the theory and limited testing gave a
> false prediction.

Dear Carl,

Nope. (You DID ask a question way up there, IIRC.)

Bill S.

PS: Do you think Mark would not have been hurt worse -- much worse -- had
his head been bare?

 

[G.T.]

Mike Reed wrote:
> jtaylor wrote:
>
>
>>Helmets don't work.
>
>
> Darwin works. Happy riding.
>

So you believe in the miracle that helmets will save lives? Ironic.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

 

[G.T.]

Sorni wrote:
> Werehatrack wrote:
>
>>On 26 Apr 2006 13:06:23 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mike Reed wrote:
>>>
>>>>jtaylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Helmets don't work.
>>>>
>>>>Darwin works.
>>>
>>>
>>>Only if the subject departs this mortal coil prior to passing on it's
>>>genes. ;-)
>>>
>>>(Someone who believes "helmets don't work" is apt to think the same
>>>about condoms.)
>
>
>>I, for one, have a very hard time accepting that "helmets don't work"
>>because in my very direct personal experience, they definitely do work
>>well enough to be worth using. But as the "no one should wear a
>>helmet because I think they're worthless" proponents have clearly
>>decided that they're right and everyone else is nuts, I'm content to
>>let them go their own way; they, however, seem determined not to let
>>me go mine in peace.
>
>
> Bingo. (BTW, I won't "share" a mountain bike ride with a helmetless rider;
> don't care to see scrambled brains frying on rocks. Hasn't come up for any
> road rides yet -- every single person I know wears a lid.)
>

I guess we aren't going to do a road ride together. I haven't worn my
ineffective lid while riding my road bike yet.

Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

 

[Sorni]

G.T. wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> Werehatrack wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Apr 2006 13:06:23 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Mike Reed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jtaylor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Helmets don't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Darwin works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only if the subject departs this mortal coil prior to passing on
>>>> it's genes. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> (Someone who believes "helmets don't work" is apt to think the same
>>>> about condoms.)
>>
>>
>>> I, for one, have a very hard time accepting that "helmets don't
>>> work" because in my very direct personal experience, they
>>> definitely do work well enough to be worth using. But as the "no
>>> one should wear a helmet because I think they're worthless"
>>> proponents have clearly decided that they're right and everyone
>>> else is nuts, I'm content to let them go their own way; they,
>>> however, seem determined not to let me go mine in peace.
>>
>>
>> Bingo. (BTW, I won't "share" a mountain bike ride with a helmetless
>> rider; don't care to see scrambled brains frying on rocks. Hasn't
>> come up for any road rides yet -- every single person I know wears a
>> lid.)
>
> I guess we aren't going to do a road ride together. I haven't worn my
> ineffective lid while riding my road bike yet.

If you, I and the Freak ever do Palomar together, then we can test that.
(It's the DESCENT that's hairy in places; *I* sure will wear a helmet.)

 

[Sorni]

G.T. wrote:
> Mike Reed wrote:
>> jtaylor wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Helmets don't work.
>>
>>
>> Darwin works. Happy riding.

> So you believe in the miracle that helmets will save lives? Ironic.

Ironic? Don't you mean misguided, perhaps, or stupid or silly? (All IYO,
of course.)

But ironic?

Bill "rain on a wedding day?" S.

 

[[email protected]]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2006 20:58:36 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Samatha wrote:
> >>
> >> If need
> >> be, I'll locate more foam and superglue some strips in to get some air
> >> flow.
> >
> >Best be careful! Things like superglue can attack the foam.
> >
> >It wouldn't be a problem, except it causes all the magic to leak out
> >the helmet. Then it becomes just a hat.
>
> Err, I think she can handle the chemistry. Something to do with it
> being part of the job description.
>
> (Actually, cyanoacrylates shouldn't attack the foam, but they might
> not fully cure, which could lead to a situation with its own set of
> nasty potential surprises.)

Nothing worth pulling your hair out over.

dl

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:14:05 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>Dear Carl,
>
>Statistics schmatistics. If I bounce my helmeted head off a curb edge and
>walk away a little sore but otherwise intact, there's no entry on anyone's
>ledger besides my own.
>
>It's really not that complicated.
>
>Bill S.

Dear Bill,

Er . . .

"Most people are at least a little more likely to lose their
balance on a bike (whether through clumsiness, carelessness
or just plain bad luck with an obstacle or blowout) than
when perched upon two big slabs of feet meat."

"Percentages."

That was you earlier in this thread, wasn't it?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:14:05 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Dear Carl,
>>
>> Statistics schmatistics. If I bounce my helmeted head off a curb
>> edge and walk away a little sore but otherwise intact, there's no
>> entry on anyone's ledger besides my own.
>>
>> It's really not that complicated.
>>
>> Bill S.

> Dear Bill,
>
> Er . . .
>
> "Most people are at least a little more likely to lose their
> balance on a bike (whether through clumsiness, carelessness
> or just plain bad luck with an obstacle or blowout) than
> when perched upon two big slabs of feet meat."
>
> "Percentages."
>
> That was you earlier in this thread, wasn't it?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

So what's your point, Carl? People who fall and hit their head but AREN'T
aren't hurt because they were wearing a helmet don't become statistical
figures. They get up and ride away.

/Percentages/, however, DO apply. Of course.

It's really not that complciated.

Bill S.

 

[[email protected]]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2006 08:27:11 -0700, "Samatha" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In South Texas, the sun is broiling my brain in the styrofoam and
> >plastic helmet I bought despite the air vents through it. Can anyone
> >recommend a different helmet that won't have me struggling with heat
> >exhaustion quite so quickly?
>
> Get one that's a larger size if possible, and put the least number of
> foam pad strips inside as possible, as thick as will comfortably fit,
> to hold it away from your head and provide some air flow space.

Considering that helmet fit is universally accepted to be the single
most important factor in choosing a helmet, I would say this sounds
like very bad advice!! Seems like this goes against all accepted
ideology. It will also allow the helmet move around more on the
wearer's head - a dangerous thing. Sounds like that this would be
going against all helmet manufacturer's suggestions for use as well as
common sense.

dkl

 

[Mike Reed]

G.T. wrote:
> Mike Reed wrote:
> > jtaylor wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Helmets don't work.
> >
> >
> > Darwin works. Happy riding.
> >
>
> So you believe in the miracle that helmets will save lives? Ironic.
>
> Greg

Miracle? Adding material to increase structural stability is
engineering, not theology. How does armor work? If we changed the term
"bicycle helmet" to "armor," then do you think they would work better?

I woke up in the hospital one day following my ride home from work, and
found my helmet to be cracked and compressed. I was in the hospital for
a pneumothorax caused by my broken rib. My helmet had completely
smashed through the rear side window of the car that drove in front of
me. I believe the helmet saved me from some serious head injuries. Even
with the helmet, I still had a mild concussion, but the helmet
prevented skull deformation that would have caused a more serious brain
injury. At least that's what my neurologist told me.

But WTF does he know, right? Stupid brain surgeon.

Let's say I go out to the local hike and bike trail and start cracking
random cyclists over the head with a 2x4. Would it be a miracle that
the helmetless riders would go to the hospital more than the helmeted?

Do you think helmets don't offer protection?

Do you think accidents don't happen where helmets prevent injury?

Are you sure you haven't already sustained such an injury that's
swaying your opinion here?

-Mike

 

[Mike Reed]

[email protected] wrote:
> Werehatrack wrote:
> > On 24 Apr 2006 08:27:11 -0700, "Samatha" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >In South Texas, the sun is broiling my brain in the styrofoam and
> > >plastic helmet I bought despite the air vents through it. Can anyone
> > >recommend a different helmet that won't have me struggling with heat
> > >exhaustion quite so quickly?
> >
> > Get one that's a larger size if possible, and put the least number of
> > foam pad strips inside as possible, as thick as will comfortably fit,
> > to hold it away from your head and provide some air flow space.
>
> Considering that helmet fit is universally accepted to be the single
> most important factor in choosing a helmet, I would say this sounds
> like very bad advice!! Seems like this goes against all accepted
> ideology. It will also allow the helmet move around more on the
> wearer's head - a dangerous thing. Sounds like that this would be
> going against all helmet manufacturer's suggestions for use as well as
> common sense.

Actually, many helmets come with different sized pads to be placed
inside to improve fit. So helmet manufacturers actually DO expect you
to buy a helmet that's too big, and pad it to fit. Otherwise, they'd
just offer thinly padded helmets in 500 different shapes and sizes.

I agree that if you pad it too much, the pads will fold in a crash and
allow the helmet to move too much, but I think that there's a
reasonable amount that can be done safely.

-Mike

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Bestest Handsander" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Helmets don't work.
>>
>> http://www.habcycles.com/bikecrash.html
>>
>> I beg to differ. They certainly can.
>
>Wow! Great to hear you're alright. So, did the truck owner yell at you for
>generally being a cyclist? Something along the lines of, "How dare you bend
>my mirror bracket by smashing your head into it?!"

Not really - it wasn't his truck (it belonged to the company he works
for). ;-) I did put a serious hurting on the truck though - totally
caved in the passenger's side door and put a nice dent in the rear
fender with my knee. My aerobars scraped up the door pretty well as
well... I'm sure it cost a lot more to fix the truck than my bike.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>That's why even dramatic examples aren't quite as convincing
>as you'd expect them to be. Anyone looking at Mark's
>pictures and description of his accident can certainly be
>excused for assuming that his helmet saved him and that
>helmets must therefore have a widespread and similar effect.

I'm certainly not suggesting that there's any "widespread and similar"
effect. I don't wear a helmet because I think there is a significant
chance I'll "need it" on any given ride, but just because it's an easy
and prudent way to protect my head more than it would be by just my
hair.

I certainly didn't MEAN to test the effectiveness of my helmet the way
I did (if I had it to do over, I'd just stop before hitting the truck
and ignore this thread).

But in my particular case, I think it's quite reasonable to say that
the helmet did help. The damage is actually worse than shown in the
photos, but it's really quite crushed over a large area across the
top. Keep in mind that the width of the mirror mount I hit is around
1/4", and that the impact would have been focused on whatever the
interface between a 1/4" steel bar and my pointy head is. I have to
believe that even my legendarily hard head isn't up to resisting that
kind of impact.

The lingering injuries to my neck would certainly have been worse had
the deceleration been that much more instantaneous if I didn't have
that inch of styrofoam between me and the Ford, though I don't have a
clue how to estimate how much worse.

In the end, I always viewed the helmet as a prophylactic measure, and
have saved at least some skin and hard knocks in other "events"
(mostly on MTBs). In this case, my "paranoia" paid off in a very real
way. YMMV.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Marz]

Mike Reed wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
> > Mike Reed wrote:
> > > jtaylor wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Helmets don't work.
> > >
> > >
> > > Darwin works. Happy riding.
> > >
> >
> > So you believe in the miracle that helmets will save lives? Ironic.
> >
> > Greg
>
> Miracle? Adding material to increase structural stability is
> engineering, not theology. How does armor work? If we changed the term
> "bicycle helmet" to "armor," then do you think they would work better?
>
> I woke up in the hospital one day following my ride home from work, and
> found my helmet to be cracked and compressed. I was in the hospital for
> a pneumothorax caused by my broken rib. My helmet had completely
> smashed through the rear side window of the car that drove in front of
> me. I believe the helmet saved me from some serious head injuries. Even
> with the helmet, I still had a mild concussion, but the helmet
> prevented skull deformation that would have caused a more serious brain
> injury. At least that's what my neurologist told me.
>
> But WTF does he know, right? Stupid brain surgeon.
>
> Let's say I go out to the local hike and bike trail and start cracking
> random cyclists over the head with a 2x4. Would it be a miracle that
> the helmetless riders would go to the hospital more than the helmeted?
>
> Do you think helmets don't offer protection?
>
> Do you think accidents don't happen where helmets prevent injury?
>
> Are you sure you haven't already sustained such an injury that's
> swaying your opinion here?
>
> -Mike

And yet another brain surgeon said...


"... helmets will mitigate the effects of falling off your bicycle and
striking your head... If a cyclist is accelerated by a car, then the
helmet will not work and will not prevent a severe or even fatal
injury"

Dr. Michael Schwartz, neurosurgeon and member of Canadian Standards
Association Committee establishing helmet standards (source,
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html )

The helmet didn't save you from brain damage your thick skull did. The
helmet did save you from cuts and bruises, which is why I wear one
offroad.

There are severe limitations to what a helmet can and can't do. If you
strike me with a 2*4 I would feel the full blunt impact with or without
a helmet. A helmet might save me from a nasty scratch to the head, but
it will also provide you with a bigger target.

A helmet can provide some protection in some instances, but not enough
to be made compulsive by law or insurance.

Laters,

Marz

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> The text description is dramatic, and we're all relieved
> that Mark wasn't hurt worse, and angry at the truck driver
> fr nearly killing him.

This is a bit off-topic, but it seems Mark would have no reason to be
angry at the truck driver. It wasn't the truck driver who nearly
killed Mark. It was Mark who nearly suicided.

Passing a line of stopped cars on the right at 20 mph sounds like
suicide to me. I would _never_ do that voluntarily. And if someone
somehow forced me to do it (perhaps at gunpoint) I'd insist on much
more protection than a flimsy bike helmet.

To bend this back to the thread topic, might this explains the passion
of some pro-helmet people, and the amazement of some helmet skeptics?
If a person rides in a risky or otherwise incompetent way - whether he
realizes it or not - that person may suffer so many crashes and close
calls that he thinks helmets are _obviously_ necessary. Meanwhile,
someone who rides with enough care and skill may go decades with no
accidents, and wonder how people can possibly consider cycling
dangerous enough for a funny-looking hat!

Recall Dervla Murphy's experience. "But in all that time it does not
include a single cycling injury, despite the tens of thousands of miles
she has pedalled ..." from
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1753521,00.html?gusrc=rss

- Frank Krygowski - who suffered only one 3 mph moving fall on-road
since 1972. (Scraped my knee.)

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Marz wrote:

<snipped>

> A helmet can provide some protection in some instances, but not enough
> to be made compulsive by law or insurance.
>
>

Agreed. A mandatory helmet law, at any level of government, is
unnecessary government interference of the worst sort. Where is the
compelling interest of the state?

And can you imagine being "pulled over" for violating such a law?

OTOH, I do think a health insurer might be within their rights.

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
>
>
> So what's your point, Carl? People who fall and hit their head but AREN'T
> aren't hurt because they were wearing a helmet don't become statistical
> figures. They get up and ride away.
>
> /Percentages/, however, DO apply. Of course.
>
> It's really not that complciated.
>
> Bill S.

Bill, this mistake is brought up in almost every discussion of this
type. It shows you don't understand the data that's out there.

Let's look at a place like Western Australia, which got a heavily
enforced (as in tickets and even jail time) mandatory helmet law for
all ages back in the early 1990s. This caused the percentage of
cyclists in helmets to jump dramatically within a few months.*

They've got records of the number of head injured cyclists going back a
long time. This gives good information on the number of cyclists who
fall and hit their head in, say, one year.

If the sudden increase in helmet percentages causes lots of people to
just "get up and ride away," those people _will_ show up in the data by
the corresponding _drop_ in the number of head injuries.

Briefly, that has never been the case.


*Now the details. Australia (and New Zealand, etc.) saw the amount of
cycling drop significantly when their respective laws were enacted. In
at least one area, this was confirmed by street counts using trained
observers, by automatic counting devices on certain bridges, and by
telephone interviews.

There was, actually, a drop in head injuries. But the drop in head
injuries was not as great as the drop in riding. IOW, the head
injuries per remaining rider actually rose.


Whether or not helmets protect significantly, serious head injuries to
cyclists are very, very rare. If helmets do help lower those head
injuries, they are doing it by an undetectable amount in the population
as a whole. So dented styrofoam may make for interesting stories, but
the stories apparently don't apply to the world at large.


BTW, I have no problem with promoting helmets for those crazy enough to
be jumping BMX bikes in half pipes, or downhilling off-road at 60+ mph,
or doing extreme mountain biking, or entering novice crit races.*
Personally, all those are beyond my comfort level, and I think it's
much smarter to just take a pass - especially because bike helmets
really aren't very protective.

But ordinary cycling? It's just not that dangerous.


(* I was going to include passing lines of cars on the right at 20 mph,
but it's smarter to tell people "Never do that," rather than "Wear a
helmet if you do that.")

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Mike Reed wrote:
> I still had a mild concussion, but the helmet
> prevented skull deformation that would have caused a more serious brain
> injury. At least that's what my neurologist told me.
>
> But WTF does he know, right? Stupid brain surgeon.

FWIW, we had a poster in r.b.misc a couple years ago, who described
something similar. The ER physician asked him if he had been wearing a
helmet. The poster told the physician "Yes." And the doctor said
"It's a good thing. It saved your life."

But, as the poster said, he had NOT been wearing a helmet. He was
annoyed at being asked, and he lied in order to avoid the lecture.


In any case, next time you talk to an ER doctor, or a neurosurgeon, or
a brain injury rehabilitaton counselor, etc, ask them what percentage
of their head injured clients are injured while bicycling.

I've done this many times. The answer has _always_ been "negligible."


For example, one woman who was in our bike club worked full time in
brain injury rehabilitation. In seven years of full-time work, she'd
dealt with only one cyclist, and he was a racer - meaning he probably
had a helmet on during his crash. She said the majority of her clients
were motorists, followed by people who fell while on their own two
feet. And if you check national data, you'll find the same
distribution. Fewer than 1% of head injury fatalities are cyclists.

Who should wear helmets?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>>
>>
>> So what's your point, Carl? People who fall and hit their head but
>> AREN'T aren't hurt because they were wearing a helmet don't become
>> statistical figures. They get up and ride away.
>>
>> /Percentages/, however, DO apply. Of course.
>>
>> It's really not that complciated.
>>
>> Bill S.
>
> Bill, this mistake is brought up in almost every discussion of this
> type. It shows you don't understand the data that's out there.
>
> Let's look at a place like Western Australia, which got a heavily
> enforced (as in tickets and even jail time) mandatory helmet law for
> all ages back in the early 1990s. This caused the percentage of
> cyclists in helmets to jump dramatically within a few months.*
>
> They've got records of the number of head injured cyclists going back
> a long time. This gives good information on the number of cyclists
> who fall and hit their head in, say, one year.
>
> If the sudden increase in helmet percentages causes lots of people to
> just "get up and ride away," those people _will_ show up in the data
> by the corresponding _drop_ in the number of head injuries.
>
> Briefly, that has never been the case.
>
>
> *Now the details. Australia (and New Zealand, etc.) saw the amount of
> cycling drop significantly when their respective laws were enacted.
> In at least one area, this was confirmed by street counts using
> trained observers, by automatic counting devices on certain bridges,
> and by telephone interviews.
>
> There was, actually, a drop in head injuries. But the drop in head
> injuries was not as great as the drop in riding. IOW, the head
> injuries per remaining rider actually rose.
>
>
> Whether or not helmets protect significantly, serious head injuries to
> cyclists are very, very rare. If helmets do help lower those head
> injuries, they are doing it by an undetectable amount in the
> population as a whole. So dented styrofoam may make for interesting
> stories, but the stories apparently don't apply to the world at large.
>
>
> BTW, I have no problem with promoting helmets for those crazy enough
> to be jumping BMX bikes in half pipes, or downhilling off-road at 60+
> mph, or doing extreme mountain biking, or entering novice crit races.*
> Personally, all those are beyond my comfort level, and I think it's
> much smarter to just take a pass - especially because bike helmets
> really aren't very protective.
>
> But ordinary cycling? It's just not that dangerous.
>
>
> (* I was going to include passing lines of cars on the right at 20
> mph, but it's smarter to tell people "Never do that," rather than
> "Wear a helmet if you do that.")
>
> - Frank Krygowski

"Blame the victim", Frank? I'll let Mark reply for himself. (Most cyclists
pass long lines of motorists on every single ride.)

Despite your (repeated) long-winded diatribes, you miss MY point. When
someone falls and is NOT hurt because they're wearing a helmet, no one hears
about it. (Certainly no "data houses" or other table-type lists.) So
rather than worry about statistics, I rely on common-sense percentages (or
"probabilities" if you prefer).

I don't wear a helmet in the shower or around the house or walking down the
street. Or while encased in a car.

I do wear one when riding my mountain bike over rough terrain, and my road
bike at relatively high speed (often in fairly heavy traffic). You can do
whatever you want.

It's really not that complicated.

BS