Helmets are scientifically proven to not provide any safety benefit in the event of a crash. Further, if you know how to ride a bicycle you aren't going to get in a crash unless you are riding very technical mountain bike trails. Helmets can also catch on objects and cause your neck to become injured. So why do you wear a helmet? It's pointless.
except that's not how physics works, you will not save your brain from rattling in your skull and bleeding till death.
And I'm not even against using a helmet, i wear one most of the time, but jeez both sides of the argument are equally moronic. No, helmets don't save lives at the degree most people think but also some of the arguments against using them are even more ridiculous, i mean your helmet can get caught on things? And you are never going to crash?, Ridiculous
also, the most complete metastudy i have found about helmet use http://www.cycle-helmets.com/Elvik2011_helmet_reanalysis.pdf
>Actually being so retarded they cannot understand how a helmet works
Helmets provide a crush zone that allows a large reduction in G-force applied to the skull and brain, as well as protect against objects lacerating the scalp. Yes the best solution is don't crash, but if your'e wearing a helmet you're more likely to walk away from minor-medium crashes with no serious injuries
No a helmet won't save you if you get hit by a car going 60mph
>Dark and foggy as fuck
>Probably shouldn't have gone on a ride
>Low hanging branch ahoy
>Glances off top of helmet at 30 km/h
>I'm fine, helmets alright, all is well
>Probably would have scalped me otherwise
>New helmet bought
>if your'e wearing a helmet you're more likely to walk away from minor-medium crashes with no serious injuries
Not necessarily. Sometimes a helmet mitigates, other times it aggravates an injury, or it may simply change the nature of the injury (e.g. head trauma is substituted for broken neck). Sum total, a helmet is of little help, statistically speaking, and since no one knows the nature of his next mishap, statistics is the only thing worth paying attention to; your anecdotal so are worthless. And since statistics also show that helmeted cyclists are more likely to eat shit in the first place, it starts to make rational sense to ride without, or at the very least, it's not horribly irrational to do so. Commuting by bike without a helmet is in fact one of the activities I do on a day to day basis during which I'm at the lowest risk of serious injury or death. To fret about it is madness.
If you're traveling fast enough to break your neck or receive severe trauma, a helmet probably isn't going to do much, but for falling off, a low-speed collision, incidents like >>905915 and other not-g-loaded-to-fuck accidents, it might make the difference between a hospital trip or standing up, dusting yourself off and being laughed at.
If you have the gift of clairvoyance and happen to know for a fact that your example describes your next mishap, then wear a helmet. But like I said, no one (else) knows the nature of his next mishap, so statistics is the only thing worth paying attention to. And statistically speaking, a helmet does not do much more good that it does harm, if any at all. The safety bonus isn't worth the irritation of wearing it and the hassle of dealing with it when I've reached my destination and I'm doing whatever I was biking to do.
Here's one: >>905844
Anyway, the null hypothesis here is, in fact, that bicycle helmets does not affect cyclist safety, as counter intuitive as that may seem. This means that the burden of proof is actually on those who claim that styrofoam hats makes for a safer bicycle ride across the board. There is currently little data to support that claim.
The burden of proof is on you because you're the shittard trying to force your fucking retarded opinions on everyone else. We (the people competent enough to wear helmets) don't give the slightest fuck if you choose to be retarded and get yourself killed, nor do we give the slightest fuck about proving anything to you. Get fucked, cager-tier fucktard.
Pretty much this, yeah. The tour didn't used to require helmets, then some fucktard like op got himself killed and now everyone has to wear them. There's no disadvantage to wearing one really, unless you get a cheap sack of shit.
If this is you "not giving a fuck", I'd hate to be near you when you get upset.
There are a few disadvantages. I simply value freedom from those disadvantages higher than I value any safety bonus. If your priorities are the reverse of mine, that's fine. Fact of the matter, though, is that even if helmets were proven to render me 100% impervious to head-, face- and neck-injuries, I would probably wear one about as often as I do now, which is to say very rarely. Commuting by bike without a helmet is extremely safe compared to just about everything else that I do in life. It is, quite simply, safe enough. And as long as enough will suffice, which it will by matter of definition, I see no reason to tolerate the irritations associated with bike helmets in order to turn "enough" into "more than enough". Enough's enough.
>The burden of proof is on you because you're the shittard trying to force your fucking retarded opinions on everyone else.
I read the Wikipedia article and I found that does not contain anything to that effect.
>There's no disadvantage to wearing one really
Perception of one's peers
How much is enough for you?
>I read the Wikipedia article
How the fuck is Wikipedia relevant? The only thing that matters here is that some of us wear helmets because we value our safety and we don't give a fuck if idiots like you choose not to.
>How much is enough for you?
How much what?
Helmets can be cheap as fuck, and if you're so poor you can't afford one, I guarantee someone would be willing to give you a free one
Lock it up with your bike
Lock it up with your bike
Helmets are light as fuck
You're a faggot if you care
Not if it's well ventilated
>Perception of one's peers
It makes them think the wearer is competent enough to value his/her safety/life, that's an advantage not a disadvantage
>I said I don't give a fuck if you don't wear a helmet, I didn't say I don't give a fuck if you shit up /n/.
I can hardly be expected to respect everything you don't say that you don't give a fuck about, especially since I have no reason to respect anything you explicitly say you do give a fuck about.
>Wow, so insightful!
Did you intend to counter my argument by pointing to the obviousness of its conclusion?
That list of disadvantages is not mine so I won't defend it. As for my list of disadvantages, it could be summed up as follows: I find them irritating to wear when I'm on the bike and to deal with when I'm not (I don't know where you live where locking it up with the bike is an option). I could elaborate on why I find helmets irritating to wear, but it is as irrelevant as any justification of subjective perception. If you feel that a styrofoam mesh strapped to your head via a polyester noose brings the danger of riding a bicycle down from an unacceptable level to a tolerable one, and you perceive no disadvantages to this practice, then I understand completely why you would opt for wearing one; it is a matter of feeling comfortable. I have an irrational fear of spiders and occasionally inconvenience myself, and even subject myself to actual danger, in my efforts to avoid them. What I never do, however, is lash out at people for not sharing my phobia.
>How the fuck is Wikipedia relevant?
You asserted a definition of 'burden of proof' which is not consistent with the world's most popular reference source. I was offering you a chance to explain the discrepancy.
>The only thing that matters here is that some of us wear helmets because we value our safety
That's strange, earlier you said that people 'shitting up /n/' with a reasoned discussion on the value or otherwise of cycle helmets was a big concern for you.
>idiots like you
That doesn't carry much weight coming from someone who can't conduct an argument in a logical fashion.
>Helmets can be cheap
>Sweat is not a problem if it's well-ventilated
If you had some tact, you would have admitted that at least one of those disadvantages must apply.
>No one's appearance ever has any bearing on their lives
Autistic as fuck tbqh. You know this isn't true.
>It makes them think the wearer is competent enough to value his/her safety/life
When I see someone wearing a helmet while doing utility cycling, it leads me to form the opinion that they are incapable of a basic risk assessment, are a low skilled cyclist and are prone to irrationally risk-averse behaviour. I'm not the only one - that's a disadvantage.
>Did you intend to counter my argument by pointing to the obviousness of its conclusion?
No, I intended to draw attention to the point that you stated an objective fact that nearly everyone knows to be true, and that you did not accomplish anything in doing so. You neither defined 'enough' nor provided justification for why you are correct as to what is enough in the situation in question.
>an objective fact that nearly everyone knows to be true
Which fact are you referring to? You know, in any discourse it is quite common to lay down a foundation of facts assumed to be familiar to the listener, reminding the listener of what he or she already knows, to provide context for any given argument.
Being a matter of subjectivity, acceptance of personal risk needs not be defined beyond each individual's personal risk-benefit assessment. As such "safe enough" in this context is simply defined as "as safe as cycling without a helmet" and, having alluded to my also partaking in activities carrying greater risks than cycling without a helmet, the lower limit is clearly somewhere below that level. Exactly where the lower limit exist is immaterial as long as I've shown that lidless cycling is on the acceptable side of that limit, merely by stating that it in fact is. Now, I suppose I could provide an objective limit if you could tell me what is the accepted unit of measure for safety, but even such a number would, for each individual, rely on subjective preferences.
By observing that mentally sound people universally do not wear a helmet unless they have identified an activity with a perceived high level of risk, we can deduce that zero additional head protection is considered sufficient additional head protection for typical day-to-day tasks.
Following from this, the onus is on those who claim it is reckless to undertake any form of cycling without the protection of a bicycle helmet to establish 1) that the risks inherent in any form of bicycle riding are significant enough to cause a reasonable person to desire additional head protection, 2) that a bicycle helmet conforming to current standards ameliorates the risk of injury to an extent which outweighs the costs of acquiring, owning and wearing said helmet.
>Helmets cannot protect against injury, even at low speed
Straight from the horse's mouth!