Nope! Darwin looked after him instead and there's no avoiding that.

 

Probably: xx

 

There is no absolute in a helmet, just as there is no absolute without.

We wear them for head and eye protection, for noise reduction, and because they contain our audio/comms gear. And for some reason, the few times I've ridden without a helmet I didn't notice any extra enjoyment in having my head uncovered. I always figure 2 things: ride conservatively and smart to avoid accidents, and protective gear may help mitigate injuries if things go wrong. I don't worry about or judge people who do it differently than we do.

 

You can't make a post about helmets without someone getting on your case. Just too controversial of a subject.

Besides that without knowing the real numbers your Opthmoligists statement is meaningless. If he was called out once in the prior year and three times after the helmet law went into effect, that's a 300% increase, but the numbers are so small to be statistically insignificant

Also he is an eye surgeon, not a brain surgeon. well OK maybe heads are getting smashed enough for eyes to get damaged. But did you ask your gynecologist if she got called out more after the helmet law changed?

 

I suspect she has some kind of "protection". <grin>

VAF, I hear you. I don't think anyone really got on my case above. Well maybe but nothing scorching.

It was an off the cuff remark my ophthalmologist said that I thought was interesting. I did not mean this post to be an super in depth 30 year analysis by the FBI/CIA/Nat'l Transportation Board.

Surprisingly to me my friend, it is a bit interesting what people are saying and how many posts this simple off the cuff remark has provoked. I certainly did not mean to create such a stir.

It is like sticking a stick into a beehive. I will not do this again.

 

It is sad that when there is a helmet discussion it becomes for some people a who's is bigger argument. I can only speak for myself, but I think a large number of people responding to this thread are just discussing their own experiences with them, a family member, a wreck they saw, a wreck on the news in their city, etc.

A NFL example would be where a receiver get's the hell knocked out of him a concussion only comes up if it is a helmet to helmet or the players head slams into the ground.
Helmets on a motorcycle are the same discussion, we have all seen someone go too wide on a turn (like a on-ramp with a curve) and hit the sand and wipe out. If they don't hit there head on the concrete or a tree we aren't running over to them thinking it is a concussion situation. I have seen a rider hit a car that pulls out right in front of them flip over the car and not hit their head on anything. in that case it was some broken bones and a whiplash.

I saw a guy 4 years ago on a touring bike that wasn't paying attention and the vehicle in front of the truck he was behind slowed down to turn right on a street. He locked up the brakes and slid into the back of the truck and his head nailed the bumper and then his head nailed the pavement. The truck was a old truck with a bumper that looked like a steel beam from a building. Without that helmet in my opinion he is either dead or he has a severe concussion or a TBI.

 

I have hit my head on concrete [both] with and without a helmet.... While I was upset to scratch my expensive Shoei helmet let me tell you which one I prefer...

 

If that's your helmet how do you keep from tipping over?