Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution, and end-game for cyclists, is to ban cars for the safety of bike riders.

“You don’t NEED a helmet if there are no cars to hit you”.

The thing about cycling safety is that no one really knows anything. If you talk to people who spend a lot of time looking a bike safety they'll tell you that bike lanes probably increase safety somewhat, but that the actual evidence that they do is essentially non-existent. The same with bike helmets.

So here's a paradox for you: The US has higher rates of bicycle injuries and deaths than other countries like Holland where cycling is more widespread. But in the US, roughly 85% of bicycle accident requiring hospitalization do not involve a motor vehicle. Of the 85%, about half involve the cyclist riding into something -- a tree, a parked car, or another cyclist -- but the other half don't, and are cyclists who simply fall off of their bikes.

So even if you did ban cars it would only reduce the number of injuries by about 15%, and the US would still have much higher accident rates than Holland. So what is it about US cyclists that makes them so much more likely to ride into objects or fall off of their bikes than their Dutch counterparts?

It’s fun to invent facts and statistics.

Helmet advocates have been doing it for over 30 years. Hell, they get paid to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution, and end-game for cyclists, is to ban cars for the safety of bike riders.

“You don’t NEED a helmet if there are no cars to hit you”.

The thing about cycling safety is that no one really knows anything. If you talk to people who spend a lot of time looking a bike safety they'll tell you that bike lanes probably increase safety somewhat, but that the actual evidence that they do is essentially non-existent. The same with bike helmets.

So here's a paradox for you: The US has higher rates of bicycle injuries and deaths than other countries like Holland where cycling is more widespread. But in the US, roughly 85% of bicycle accident requiring hospitalization do not involve a motor vehicle. Of the 85%, about half involve the cyclist riding into something -- a tree, a parked car, or another cyclist -- but the other half don't, and are cyclists who simply fall off of their bikes.

So even if you did ban cars it would only reduce the number of injuries by about 15%, and the US would still have much higher accident rates than Holland. So what is it about US cyclists that makes them so much more likely to ride into objects or fall off of their bikes than their Dutch counterparts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

Key words: "among children and adolescents." Yes, helmets have been shown to be effective in mitigating low-speed falls from bicycles, as is typical of beginning cyclists.

I'll throw this back at you:

Feds will stop hyping effectiveness of bike helmets

Two federal government agencies will withdraw their longstanding claims that bicycle helmets prevent head injuries. The decision comes in response to a petition the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) filed under the federal Data Quality Act.

https://www.thecre.com/oira/?p=1843

If you read the story, you'll see, "Last February, I sent emails to both CDC and NHTSA, pointing out that the 85% estimate is incorrect and providing citations to newer research. A few weeks later, Laurie Beck, an epidemiologist from CDC promised to remove the error."

Nothing in that story contradicts and in actual fact that story supports the conclusion of all studies that have been conducted on this subject that have concluded that helmets reduce the head injuries and death. Your continued insistence to knowingly claim otherwise is sick, wrong and amoral. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I would say that "all" is overly broad. There's also a question of benefit vs. cost. What is clear is that the benefit of wearing a helmet is limited -- and there has been a long history of people in the public health and traffic safety business grossly over-stating that benefit.

Google "bullet stopped by bible." There are thousands of stories of people believing that their lives were saved when a bullet became embedded in a bible they were carrying. Should we encourage people to carry bibles as a public health measure? Strapping a bible to your head is probably marginally less effective than wearing a bike helmet.

If bike helmets were designed like motorcycle helmets they would probably provide measurable benefit. The government is already in the business of mandating standards for bike helmets, why don't they use the same standards as motorcycle helmets? Because no one would wear them, because they would be too uncomfortable.

You are the equivalent of an anti-vaccine nut job.

Except the difference is that vaccines are effective and bike helmets aren't.

It would be okay to be this stupid if you were not making knowingly false statements that have the outcome of hurting people. That makes you a sociopath and yeah, you are no better than the anti-vax nut jobs.

If you can't debate the message, attack the messenger.

You have proven to be intransigent when confronted with evidence of helmets working


https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets-a9629801958/

Consumer Reports? Really?

Are you suggesting they are in the pocket of big helmet? They don't use big words, so I figured you would be able to follow it.

LOL. This person is so stupid that I believe they have already suffered multiple head injuries from bicycle crashes. He’s like an advertisement for the importance of helmet wearing.

When you run out of arguments, attack the messenger.

When the message is the lie that helmets are not effective at reducing head injuries then I will both attack the message and the stupid messenger spreading anti-vax type misinformation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution, and end-game for cyclists, is to ban cars for the safety of bike riders.

“You don’t NEED a helmet if there are no cars to hit you”.

The thing about cycling safety is that no one really knows anything. If you talk to people who spend a lot of time looking a bike safety they'll tell you that bike lanes probably increase safety somewhat, but that the actual evidence that they do is essentially non-existent. The same with bike helmets.

So here's a paradox for you: The US has higher rates of bicycle injuries and deaths than other countries like Holland where cycling is more widespread. But in the US, roughly 85% of bicycle accident requiring hospitalization do not involve a motor vehicle. Of the 85%, about half involve the cyclist riding into something -- a tree, a parked car, or another cyclist -- but the other half don't, and are cyclists who simply fall off of their bikes.

So even if you did ban cars it would only reduce the number of injuries by about 15%, and the US would still have much higher accident rates than Holland. So what is it about US cyclists that makes them so much more likely to ride into objects or fall off of their bikes than their Dutch counterparts?

It’s fun to invent facts and statistics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

Key words: "among children and adolescents." Yes, helmets have been shown to be effective in mitigating low-speed falls from bicycles, as is typical of beginning cyclists.

I'll throw this back at you:

Feds will stop hyping effectiveness of bike helmets

Two federal government agencies will withdraw their longstanding claims that bicycle helmets prevent head injuries. The decision comes in response to a petition the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) filed under the federal Data Quality Act.

https://www.thecre.com/oira/?p=1843

If you read the story, you'll see, "Last February, I sent emails to both CDC and NHTSA, pointing out that the 85% estimate is incorrect and providing citations to newer research. A few weeks later, Laurie Beck, an epidemiologist from CDC promised to remove the error."

Nothing in that story contradicts and in actual fact that story supports the conclusion of all studies that have been conducted on this subject that have concluded that helmets reduce the head injuries and death. Your continued insistence to knowingly claim otherwise is sick, wrong and amoral. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I would say that "all" is overly broad. There's also a question of benefit vs. cost. What is clear is that the benefit of wearing a helmet is limited -- and there has been a long history of people in the public health and traffic safety business grossly over-stating that benefit.

Google "bullet stopped by bible." There are thousands of stories of people believing that their lives were saved when a bullet became embedded in a bible they were carrying. Should we encourage people to carry bibles as a public health measure? Strapping a bible to your head is probably marginally less effective than wearing a bike helmet.

If bike helmets were designed like motorcycle helmets they would probably provide measurable benefit. The government is already in the business of mandating standards for bike helmets, why don't they use the same standards as motorcycle helmets? Because no one would wear them, because they would be too uncomfortable.

You are the equivalent of an anti-vaccine nut job.

Except the difference is that vaccines are effective and bike helmets aren't.

It would be okay to be this stupid if you were not making knowingly false statements that have the outcome of hurting people. That makes you a sociopath and yeah, you are no better than the anti-vax nut jobs.

If you can't debate the message, attack the messenger.

You have proven to be intransigent when confronted with evidence of helmets working


https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets-a9629801958/

Consumer Reports? Really?

Are you suggesting they are in the pocket of big helmet? They don't use big words, so I figured you would be able to follow it.

LOL. This person is so stupid that I believe they have already suffered multiple head injuries from bicycle crashes. He’s like an advertisement for the importance of helmet wearing.

When you run out of arguments, attack the messenger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution, and end-game for cyclists, is to ban cars for the safety of bike riders.

“You don’t NEED a helmet if there are no cars to hit you”.

The thing about cycling safety is that no one really knows anything. If you talk to people who spend a lot of time looking a bike safety they'll tell you that bike lanes probably increase safety somewhat, but that the actual evidence that they do is essentially non-existent. The same with bike helmets.

So here's a paradox for you: The US has higher rates of bicycle injuries and deaths than other countries like Holland where cycling is more widespread. But in the US, roughly 85% of bicycle accident requiring hospitalization do not involve a motor vehicle. Of the 85%, about half involve the cyclist riding into something -- a tree, a parked car, or another cyclist -- but the other half don't, and are cyclists who simply fall off of their bikes.

So even if you did ban cars it would only reduce the number of injuries by about 15%, and the US would still have much higher accident rates than Holland. So what is it about US cyclists that makes them so much more likely to ride into objects or fall off of their bikes than their Dutch counterparts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution, and end-game for cyclists, is to ban cars for the safety of bike riders.

“You don’t NEED a helmet if there are no cars to hit you”.

The thing about cycling safety is that no one really knows anything. If you talk to people who spend a lot of time looking a bike safety they'll tell you that bike lanes probably increase safety somewhat, but that the actual evidence that they do is essentially non-existent. The same with bike helmets.

So here's a paradox for you: The US has higher rates of bicycle injuries and deaths than other countries like Holland where cycling is more widespread. But in the US, roughly 85% of bicycle accident requiring hospitalization do not involve a motor vehicle. Of the 85%, about half involve the cyclist riding into something -- a tree, a parked car, or another cyclist -- but the other half don't, and are cyclists who simply fall off of their bikes.

So even if you did ban cars it would only reduce the number of injuries by about 15%, and the US would still have much higher accident rates than Holland. So what is it about US cyclists that makes them so much more likely to ride into objects or fall off of their bikes than their Dutch counterparts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution, and end-game for cyclists, is to ban cars for the safety of bike riders.

“You don’t NEED a helmet if there are no cars to hit you”.

The thing about cycling safety is that no one really knows anything. If you talk to people who spend a lot of time looking a bike safety they'll tell you that bike lanes probably increase safety somewhat, but that the actual evidence that they do is essentially non-existent. The same with bike helmets.

So here's a paradox for you: The US has higher rates of bicycle injuries and deaths than other countries like Holland where cycling is more widespread. But in the US, roughly 85% of bicycle accident requiring hospitalization do not involve a motor vehicle. Of the 85%, about half involve the cyclist riding into something -- a tree, a parked car, or another cyclist -- but the other half don't, and are cyclists who simply fall off of their bikes.

So even if you did ban cars it would only reduce the number of injuries by about 15%, and the US would still have much higher accident rates than Holland. So what is it about US cyclists that makes them so much more likely to ride into objects or fall off of their bikes than their Dutch counterparts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

Key words: "among children and adolescents." Yes, helmets have been shown to be effective in mitigating low-speed falls from bicycles, as is typical of beginning cyclists.

I'll throw this back at you:

Feds will stop hyping effectiveness of bike helmets

Two federal government agencies will withdraw their longstanding claims that bicycle helmets prevent head injuries. The decision comes in response to a petition the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) filed under the federal Data Quality Act.

https://www.thecre.com/oira/?p=1843

If you read the story, you'll see, "Last February, I sent emails to both CDC and NHTSA, pointing out that the 85% estimate is incorrect and providing citations to newer research. A few weeks later, Laurie Beck, an epidemiologist from CDC promised to remove the error."

Nothing in that story contradicts and in actual fact that story supports the conclusion of all studies that have been conducted on this subject that have concluded that helmets reduce the head injuries and death. Your continued insistence to knowingly claim otherwise is sick, wrong and amoral. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I would say that "all" is overly broad. There's also a question of benefit vs. cost. What is clear is that the benefit of wearing a helmet is limited -- and there has been a long history of people in the public health and traffic safety business grossly over-stating that benefit.

Google "bullet stopped by bible." There are thousands of stories of people believing that their lives were saved when a bullet became embedded in a bible they were carrying. Should we encourage people to carry bibles as a public health measure? Strapping a bible to your head is probably marginally less effective than wearing a bike helmet.

If bike helmets were designed like motorcycle helmets they would probably provide measurable benefit. The government is already in the business of mandating standards for bike helmets, why don't they use the same standards as motorcycle helmets? Because no one would wear them, because they would be too uncomfortable.

You are the equivalent of an anti-vaccine nut job.

Except the difference is that vaccines are effective and bike helmets aren't.

It would be okay to be this stupid if you were not making knowingly false statements that have the outcome of hurting people. That makes you a sociopath and yeah, you are no better than the anti-vax nut jobs.

If you can't debate the message, attack the messenger.

You have proven to be intransigent when confronted with evidence of helmets working


https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets-a9629801958/

Consumer Reports? Really?

Are you suggesting they are in the pocket of big helmet? They don't use big words, so I figured you would be able to follow it.

LOL. This person is so stupid that I believe they have already suffered multiple head injuries from bicycle crashes. He’s like an advertisement for the importance of helmet wearing.

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution, and end-game for cyclists, is to ban cars for the safety of bike riders.

“You don’t NEED a helmet if there are no cars to hit you”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

Key words: "among children and adolescents." Yes, helmets have been shown to be effective in mitigating low-speed falls from bicycles, as is typical of beginning cyclists.

I'll throw this back at you:

Feds will stop hyping effectiveness of bike helmets

Two federal government agencies will withdraw their longstanding claims that bicycle helmets prevent head injuries. The decision comes in response to a petition the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) filed under the federal Data Quality Act.

https://www.thecre.com/oira/?p=1843

If you read the story, you'll see, "Last February, I sent emails to both CDC and NHTSA, pointing out that the 85% estimate is incorrect and providing citations to newer research. A few weeks later, Laurie Beck, an epidemiologist from CDC promised to remove the error."

Nothing in that story contradicts and in actual fact that story supports the conclusion of all studies that have been conducted on this subject that have concluded that helmets reduce the head injuries and death. Your continued insistence to knowingly claim otherwise is sick, wrong and amoral. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I would say that "all" is overly broad. There's also a question of benefit vs. cost. What is clear is that the benefit of wearing a helmet is limited -- and there has been a long history of people in the public health and traffic safety business grossly over-stating that benefit.

Google "bullet stopped by bible." There are thousands of stories of people believing that their lives were saved when a bullet became embedded in a bible they were carrying. Should we encourage people to carry bibles as a public health measure? Strapping a bible to your head is probably marginally less effective than wearing a bike helmet.

If bike helmets were designed like motorcycle helmets they would probably provide measurable benefit. The government is already in the business of mandating standards for bike helmets, why don't they use the same standards as motorcycle helmets? Because no one would wear them, because they would be too uncomfortable.

You are the equivalent of an anti-vaccine nut job.

Except the difference is that vaccines are effective and bike helmets aren't.

It would be okay to be this stupid if you were not making knowingly false statements that have the outcome of hurting people. That makes you a sociopath and yeah, you are no better than the anti-vax nut jobs.

If you can't debate the message, attack the messenger.

You have proven to be intransigent when confronted with evidence of helmets working


https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets-a9629801958/

Consumer Reports? Really?

Are you suggesting they are in the pocket of big helmet? They don't use big words, so I figured you would be able to follow it.

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution, and end-game for cyclists, is to ban cars for the safety of bike riders.

“You don’t NEED a helmet if there are no cars to hit you”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

Key words: "among children and adolescents." Yes, helmets have been shown to be effective in mitigating low-speed falls from bicycles, as is typical of beginning cyclists.

I'll throw this back at you:

Feds will stop hyping effectiveness of bike helmets

Two federal government agencies will withdraw their longstanding claims that bicycle helmets prevent head injuries. The decision comes in response to a petition the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) filed under the federal Data Quality Act.

https://www.thecre.com/oira/?p=1843

If you read the story, you'll see, "Last February, I sent emails to both CDC and NHTSA, pointing out that the 85% estimate is incorrect and providing citations to newer research. A few weeks later, Laurie Beck, an epidemiologist from CDC promised to remove the error."

Nothing in that story contradicts and in actual fact that story supports the conclusion of all studies that have been conducted on this subject that have concluded that helmets reduce the head injuries and death. Your continued insistence to knowingly claim otherwise is sick, wrong and amoral. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I would say that "all" is overly broad. There's also a question of benefit vs. cost. What is clear is that the benefit of wearing a helmet is limited -- and there has been a long history of people in the public health and traffic safety business grossly over-stating that benefit.

Google "bullet stopped by bible." There are thousands of stories of people believing that their lives were saved when a bullet became embedded in a bible they were carrying. Should we encourage people to carry bibles as a public health measure? Strapping a bible to your head is probably marginally less effective than wearing a bike helmet.

If bike helmets were designed like motorcycle helmets they would probably provide measurable benefit. The government is already in the business of mandating standards for bike helmets, why don't they use the same standards as motorcycle helmets? Because no one would wear them, because they would be too uncomfortable.

You are the equivalent of an anti-vaccine nut job.

Except the difference is that vaccines are effective and bike helmets aren't.

It would be okay to be this stupid if you were not making knowingly false statements that have the outcome of hurting people. That makes you a sociopath and yeah, you are no better than the anti-vax nut jobs.

If you can't debate the message, attack the messenger.

You have proven to be intransigent when confronted with evidence of helmets working


https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets-a9629801958/

Consumer Reports? Really?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

Key words: "among children and adolescents." Yes, helmets have been shown to be effective in mitigating low-speed falls from bicycles, as is typical of beginning cyclists.

I'll throw this back at you:

Feds will stop hyping effectiveness of bike helmets

Two federal government agencies will withdraw their longstanding claims that bicycle helmets prevent head injuries. The decision comes in response to a petition the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) filed under the federal Data Quality Act.

https://www.thecre.com/oira/?p=1843

If you read the story, you'll see, "Last February, I sent emails to both CDC and NHTSA, pointing out that the 85% estimate is incorrect and providing citations to newer research. A few weeks later, Laurie Beck, an epidemiologist from CDC promised to remove the error."

Nothing in that story contradicts and in actual fact that story supports the conclusion of all studies that have been conducted on this subject that have concluded that helmets reduce the head injuries and death. Your continued insistence to knowingly claim otherwise is sick, wrong and amoral. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I would say that "all" is overly broad. There's also a question of benefit vs. cost. What is clear is that the benefit of wearing a helmet is limited -- and there has been a long history of people in the public health and traffic safety business grossly over-stating that benefit.

Google "bullet stopped by bible." There are thousands of stories of people believing that their lives were saved when a bullet became embedded in a bible they were carrying. Should we encourage people to carry bibles as a public health measure? Strapping a bible to your head is probably marginally less effective than wearing a bike helmet.

If bike helmets were designed like motorcycle helmets they would probably provide measurable benefit. The government is already in the business of mandating standards for bike helmets, why don't they use the same standards as motorcycle helmets? Because no one would wear them, because they would be too uncomfortable.

You are the equivalent of an anti-vaccine nut job.

Except the difference is that vaccines are effective and bike helmets aren't.

It would be okay to be this stupid if you were not making knowingly false statements that have the outcome of hurting people. That makes you a sociopath and yeah, you are no better than the anti-vax nut jobs.

If you can't debate the message, attack the messenger.

You have proven to be intransigent when confronted with evidence of helmets working


https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets-a9629801958/

Consumer Reports? Really?