RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


I see lots of roadies riding without a helmet-whats up?(63 posts)

I see lots of roadies riding without a helmet-whats up?jimmyihatetoregister
Mar 3, 2003 10:41 AM
Around Boulder many very serious looking riders are not wearing helmets. The dudes with brand new bikes, team jerseys, etc. These guys wear a little knit cap or just hair. Being a baldy I have no hair to blow in the wind. Is this a trend?
too cool for 'em. nmNo_sprint
Mar 3, 2003 10:43 AM
too cool for 'em. nmSeth1
Mar 3, 2003 11:19 AM
I almost always ride with one because I've cracked a couple in crashes (and in an attack)--I hate to think about what would've happened had I not been wearing one.

What drives me nuts is when I see riders downtown riding in traffic with a helmet strapped to their bag. Do they think they'll be able to pull the helmet on as they're going down? I suspect that these guys are messengers who are required by their companies to wear helmets and don't want to or are riders who are copying messenger style.
Hat headbiknben
Mar 3, 2003 11:36 AM
I think those are people riding to work. They've already done their hair and don't want to get hat head. They wear the helmet on the way home.

I don't agree with it. It's just what I've heard/noticed.
Hat headSeth1
Mar 3, 2003 11:42 AM
I hadn't thought of that. Makes sense.
Organ donors not harvested yet. nmMB1
Mar 3, 2003 11:13 AM
obviously noone would be harvesting their brains nmcyclopathic
Mar 3, 2003 5:48 PM
that means they are a proDougSloan
Mar 3, 2003 11:31 AM
An amateur would not ride without one. Only pros do. They want everyone to know they are a pro. They know how to ride, and how to crash without hitting their heads. It's a very "European" thing to do.

Doug
Nope.MR_GRUMPY
Mar 3, 2003 11:32 AM
In the Chicago area, the only people I see without helmets are Sunday riders and a few "don't have a clue" riders.
Hard to believe I rode all those miles in the 80s...koala
Mar 3, 2003 11:59 AM
without one. the only reason I got one is in my home town they wouldnt let me run a time trial without one. The irony is I never had a bad crash back then. Last year I crashed and if I did not have the lid on I would have had a serious head injury. Wont ride a block without one now.
that was probably me you sawJS Haiku Shop
Mar 3, 2003 12:01 PM
or people trying to be like me.

I was initially wearing a shower cap liberated from the howard johnson's, but it blew off on a high-speed descent.

-J
I'm guilty.triple shot espresso
Mar 3, 2003 12:16 PM
I always wear a helmet on a group ride but I've switched to just wearing a knit hat for most of the colder rides. And when I ride at lunch I generally don't wear a helmet because I get helmet head easily and I don't always have time to shower. I really haven't considered the on the bike aesthetics. I know the risks and I've heard the stories and seen crashes, it's my decision, I'm not attempting to look cool or be a rebel.
I'm guilty. me toomoschika
Mar 3, 2003 1:27 PM
anything within 3-4 blocks from home and i usually won't wear one (i.e. coffee run, store, etc.). i know the risks. i've been a hit a few times but... no real excuse.

but i always wear one for more 'serious' rides, whether in a group(required) or alone.
re: I'm guilty.The Human G-Nome
Mar 3, 2003 1:51 PM
you're not attempting to look cool, but you're worried about helmet head? that doesn't seem to jive. either you care or you don't.

is it just a bizarre coincidence that almost EVERY helmetless, wool cap roadie out there is also styled out to the nines? they look all cool as f/k, but "there is a very good reason for the helmet thing, i can assure you."

personally, i think it's your choice whether you want to wear a helmet, but i think it's silly when people have lists and lists or reasons at the tip of their tongue.
re: I'm guilty.triple shot espresso
Mar 3, 2003 1:58 PM
I don't care about looking cool on the bike but I care about walking back into work looking like I just woke up because I have helmet head.

The "lists" to me are actually a positive indication that somebody actually thought about it and made the conscious decision not to strap it on and wearing a helmet is actually the default.
re: I'm guilty.The Human G-Nome
Mar 3, 2003 2:03 PM
The "lists" to me are actually a positive indication that somebody actually thought about it and made the conscious decision not to strap it on.>>>

or said another way:

The "lists" to me are actually a positive indication that somebody actually thought about being safe and then made a conscience decision to say "f/k it! i look way cooler without this stupid helmet on."
Actuallytriple shot espresso
Mar 3, 2003 4:10 PM
I feel kind of naked with nothing on my head and I really don't care what I look like when I ride, if you ever saw me in my red shorts and orange jersey you might understand that, it really is a matter of helmet head. For me the cost of helmet head out weighs the risk of injury.
ActuallyThe Human G-Nome
Mar 3, 2003 4:22 PM
honestly, it might seem like i'm making a bigger deal out of this then i really am. i'll ride my bike 2 blocks to the grocery store sans helmet. i'm not a nazi about it. if helmethead is at the forefront of your agenda, so be it. for most people though, i find it hard to believe that they have a legitimate excuse not to wear a helmet, especially on group/club rides where other rider's error can cause catastrophe. but again, i'm not going to play cop and tell anyone what to do. you're allowed to look cool as f/k, and i'm allowed to think you're an idiot for doing so.

my motto: live and let live. or in this case, live and let bleed.
re: I see lots of roadies riding without a helmet-whats up?Woof the dog
Mar 3, 2003 12:59 PM
The reason some people ride without helmets is because they are not used to wearing a helmet. They always rode without one, so why change now? Its really not about looking cool or euro or pro and whatnot. Its about simplicity. All you need is a bike, shoes, shorts and a jersey. No need for all this bullshit like computers, heart rate monitors, sti shifters, stupid helmet straps. People are just that - people, they don't need stupid gadgets that make you look like something out of a sci-fi movie. and no, its still not about looks, its about thinking less. After all that is why all of us ride a bike - a different mental state, zen, no worries. You may disagree, but see if I care.

woof the dog.
re: I see lots of roadies riding without a helmet-whats up?The Human G-Nome
Mar 3, 2003 1:59 PM
All you need is a bike, shoes, shorts and a jersey. No need for all this bullshit like computers, heart rate monitors, sti shifters, stupid helmet straps. >>>>

ummmm... ya. if you're like 70 years old you can argue that you're a purist. otherwise, this is a joke. people use computers and heart rate monitors to gage they're training. to deny their effectiveness is ignorant. sti shifters? could this actually be a debate?

and then you contradict yourself in the same sentence. you say you don't want to "lool like something out of a sci-fi movie" but that "it's not about looks." which is it? either you care that you think you look like a bike geek or you don't. either way, you obviously care.

there, now you can go back to being too cool to care.

finally:

"They always rode without one, so why change now? "
or
"They always smoked cigarettes, so why change now?"

philosophically, there's no difference. to each his own.
Woof said:Ahimsa
Mar 3, 2003 5:03 PM
"...its still not about looks, its about thinking less."

Hmmm...In the context of not wearing a helmet, this pharse clicks on so many levels.

A.
Woof said:Woof the dog
Mar 3, 2003 11:33 PM
yep, for me cycling is to get away from all this bullshit I have to do, as a matter of fact, all I wanna do now is ride. THINKING LESS is the point. Whether you intend to interpret it differently is your choice.

That is my last contribution to this thread.

Woof the dog.
Same reason they wear black at night.cory
Mar 3, 2003 1:20 PM
That's all I can think of. Death before uncoolness, or something.
sometimes I wear helmet, sometimes I don't...Qubeley
Mar 3, 2003 2:03 PM
Sometimes I wear helmet, othertimes cap, or hairnet, or beanie cap, or visor, or bare head, whatever.
It's my bike, and my head, stop worrying about me and watch out for yourself. I really hate people say it's stupid this and that, yeah yeah, I am stupid and leave me alone.
There are risks, with or withour a helm, and riding defensively is better than any protective gear. Just be aware of thing happening around you. When it's your turn, it is your turn.
Some people just don't need them.czardonic
Mar 3, 2003 2:20 PM
If you can't figure out the benefit of wearing one, what would a helmet really be protecting?
thankyouThe Human G-Nome
Mar 3, 2003 2:22 PM
czar, that was just beautiful.
ATTN: ACTUAL INFO IN THIS POST!!OTG
Mar 3, 2003 3:22 PM
I know it makes you feel all warm inside to share your infinite wisdom with the Un-Helmeted Masses, but before your smugness gets the better of you, try reading The Bicycle Helmet FAQ: http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html#A1

I can add little here, except to state my enduring contempt for people who try to tell others how to live their own lives.

-Owen
really?DougSloan
Mar 3, 2003 3:43 PM
I don't see much "actual info" there. Just looks like a number of unsupported opinions glorified in a web page, as opposed to this page. Same thing.

Nonetheless, there are two issues: 1. Are helmets effective; and 2. Should we meddle?

I have no doubt they are effective, if from nothing else my own experience of landing on my head twice.

Should we meddle? No. Everyone can do what they want. Don't forget, though, that event organizers can require anything they want as a condition of participation; don't like it? Dont' participate.

Doug
I know helmets work!Uncle Tim
Mar 3, 2003 4:00 PM
I've seen no less than 4 fast moving cyclists pop their heads hard on the pavement in accidents. In all cases, the riders were stunned but were able to shake it off and continue. All of the helmets were destroyed.

Without question, these injuries would have been very serious had they not been wearing helmets.

While two of these accidents were caused by rider error, two of these potential head injuries were caused when a wild animal darted out into a paceline. Their heads hit the pavement almost instantly, at 20 mph, and thanks to the helmets, they can still eat with forks and spoons.
I [don't] know helmets work!OTG
Mar 3, 2003 4:26 PM
You probably didn't read the whole page either. The people you saw probably were saved a few stitches or a headache. The likelyhood that the helmet saved their life is pretty slim (though obviously not impossible).

The point is that helmets are not a panacea, not that they're useless. Trying to convince people that they shouldn't ride without one may make it less likely that they will ride safely (which is what will really help).

-Owen
Bury your bare head in the sand, but not in the pavement.Uncle Tim
Mar 3, 2003 6:45 PM
I would strongly agree that helmets are not a "panacea". But where does that leave us?

I never claimed that the four very serious crashes I witnessed were cases in which lives were saved by the helmet. But I can tell you this: the helmets all took severe impacts and none of the riders had so much as a cut or a bruise. The helmets worked in all cases. Absolutely busted.

Without that crucial protection, all of these rides would have been disasters. Instead of enjoying a nice outing cycling in the boonies, we would have had serious physical injuries to deal with. Ambulances, stitches, blood, etc. Can you even put a price on that kind of stuff?

To argue against a helmet is just silly. To argue that people won't ride bikes if they are forced to wear helmets is even sillier. If people think that helmets give them the freedom to ride their bicycles in a reckless manner, then are getting into plumb goofy territory.

If you are going to have an accident that involves your head hitting something, it is obvious that you're much better off with a helmet on your head.

Go ahead and ride without your helmet. Give Darwin's theory of natural selection more evidence to support it.
Bury your bare head in the sand, but not in the pavement.OTG
Mar 3, 2003 7:16 PM
I'm not arguing against helmets. I'm arguing against the idea that anybody should be forced to wear one. I also happen to believe that going helmetless is not particularly unsafe, assuming decent cycling skills.

To argue against a helmet is just silly. To argue that people won't ride bikes if they are forced to wear helmets is even sillier.

http://www.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/surveys2.htm

http://whip.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/aap_bh.html

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/demarco.html

It increases the perception of risk. If you perceive something is dangerous, you're less likely to do it.

Perhaps this should be done with cars?

As for riding without one- I would, but my team mandates helmet use. Does riding rollers count?

-Owen
really?OTG
Mar 3, 2003 4:26 PM
>I don't see much "actual info" there. Just looks like a
> number of unsupported opinions glorified in a web >page,as opposed to this page. Same thing.

Did you look all the way at the bottom? Contains a bunch of cites. Those can be considered to be actual information.

As opposed to the unsubstantiated, unverified, largely anecdotal "information" on this page.

>Nonetheless, there are two issues: 1. Are helmets >effective; and 2. Should we meddle?

1. No.
2. No.

>I have no doubt they are effective, if from nothing else >my own experience of landing on my head twice.

Did you read the page? The WHOLE page? Your helmet probably saved you a headache and maybe a few stitches. Nothing more. Is that worth it? Your call.
And once again, anecdotal evidence isn't really evidence.

>Should we meddle? No. Everyone can do what they want. >Don't forget, though, that event organizers can require >anything they want as a condition of participation; don't >like it? Dont' participate.

My guess is that organizers (in the US at least) require helmets out of a (justifiable) fear of being sued. As I plan on racing, I'll wear a helmet when required. When I'm not required, I won't. My beef is with everyone claiming that riding/crashing without a helmet will inevitably lead to brain death.

-Owen
Gee! that means everyone else is wrong.The Human G-Nome
Mar 3, 2003 3:46 PM
i mean, if Dr. George Shively from The Snell Memorial Foundation and a neurosurgeon from Canda say that helmets do not reduce the risk of injury it must be so.

would you like me to point you in the direction of some links that will tell you that cigarette smoking does not cause lung cancer? how about that SUVs aren't more likely to roll then cars with a lower center of gravity?

i love how when someone wants to point out someting absurdly obvious to someone who's too ignorant to take a simple point, it just MUST mean they're "smug". my point was prefaced by saying that a cyclist should have every right to choose whether or not they wear a helmet, but that i find it comical when people make really lame excuses for why they won't wear one. you seem to genuinely believe that a helmet will have no positive effect on a head to asphalt crash so'd i'd have to say that according to your reasoning/beliefs, you're right.... if i were you, i would'nt wear a helmet either. and as far as telling you how to live your life, i couldn't agree with you anymore. you should have every right in the world to smash your head into a curb, crack your skull open and bleed all over your new jersey. it's good to be an american.

"they'll have to grab my skull cap from my cold, dead hands!"
Beauty of a Chuck Heston reference there!!! (nm)serbski
Mar 3, 2003 4:17 PM
Gee! that means everyone else is wrong.OTG
Mar 3, 2003 4:39 PM
Can you back your opinions up with any real information? Or are you just using anecdotal evidence and conjecture to support an opinion?
As a side note, did you read beyond the first question? Do you have any idea how much protection a helmet would offer from a high-speed curb impact?

-Owen
Owen!!! Time to put up or shut up....Lone Gunman
Mar 3, 2003 6:05 PM
I'll get a baseball bat and I am allowed one swing at your pin head. You get the choice of wearing a helmet or not. What's it gonna be?
LOL !!! Sweet summary!!!.. (nm)wasabekid
Mar 3, 2003 6:23 PM
Owen!!! Time to put up or shut up....OTG
Mar 3, 2003 6:32 PM
Do I have the option of dodging? Or of being elsewhere while you have said baseball bat?

Obviously, I would take either of those options over a helmet. (Assuming that the options are mutually exclusive). If I have to take the hit, I'll wear a helmet. (This is what you wanted me to say, right?)

-Owen
Don't be a sap!!czardonic
Mar 3, 2003 6:35 PM
Not everyone who is hit in the head with a baseball bat is killed or seriously injured. I think we can conclude that the "danger" of such an occurence is way overblown.
Don't be a sap!!OTG
Mar 3, 2003 7:07 PM
Or we could pass laws requiring everybody to wear helmets when fighting with baseball bats...

-owen
if that's the best you can do . . . .RJF
Mar 3, 2003 3:52 PM
The logic in that link is pretty funny. Like someone else said, I'm sure you can find a FAQ to support any point. However, that hardly means that the real, actual science out there is wrong.
if that's the best you can do . . . .OTG
Mar 3, 2003 4:45 PM
Care to provide some links to that "real, actual science"?
I haven't seen any solid pro-helmet info (indeed, any) except for the Rivara-Thompson study, and that was hardly a bullet-proof study.

-Owen
This only proves that helmets aren't 100% perfect. . .czardonic
Mar 3, 2003 4:04 PM
. . .which nobody is asserting. Did anyone say that wearing a helmet will make you immortal, or impervious to serious injury? No.
This only proves that helmets aren't 100% perfect. . .OTG
Mar 3, 2003 5:05 PM
. .which nobody is asserting. Did anyone say that wearing a helmet will make you immortal, or impervious to serious injury? No.

Indeed, nobody said that they are 100% effective. They are in fact much, much, less than 100% effective. Wearing one is fine, but suggesting that a helmet will save your life in a high speed crash, or when hit by a car can encourage more dangerous behavior.
Hell, I wear a helmet most of the time. It just irritates me when people tell me that I must wear a helmet, or I deserve what I get. I feel the same way about smoking.

-Owen
What is irresponsible is what you are doing. . .czardonic
Mar 3, 2003 5:20 PM
. . .which is insinuating that helmets are of minimal use, and can thus be taken or left as riders prefer. This puts the lie to any notion that you are interested in maximizing rider safety by exposing myths.

You keep accusing other people of not having the facts to back up their disagreement with yours. Yet, pressed on the issue, your own "evidence" disovles into a puddle of "probablys", "likelys" and "mays". The only thing that your studies prove is that statistical meaning is in the eye of the beholder.

What kind of "dangerous behavior" do helmets encourage? What are your guidelines for "safe" cycling anyway? Riding around a padded room on a tricycle?

Funny, I feel the same way about helmetless riders as I feel about smokers too.
What is irresponsible is what you are doing. . .OTG
Mar 3, 2003 5:49 PM
>This puts the lie to any notion that you are interested in >maximizing rider safety by exposing myths.

How so? Wouldn't it be far more productive (read: save more lives) to have people realize that safe cycling comes from riding safely and carefully, not just from wearing a fragile bit of foam and plastic on their head?

>You keep accusing other people of not having the facts to back up their disagreement with yours. Yet, pressed on the issue, your own "evidence" disovles into a puddle of "probablys", "likelys" and "mays". The only thing that your studies prove is that statistical meaning is in the eye of the beholder.

Well, when you think about it, thats all any statistics are. Probabilities. There's no guarantee that a smoker will get cancer. It's more likely. There's no guarantee that driving drunk will get you killed. It's more likely.
And you'll note that nobody seems to have even that much evidence FOR helmets.

Do you know why it's not 100% ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN? Because nothing is. A helmet MAY prevent harm. If I said a helmet absolutely could not prevent injury or save lives, I would be lying. However, if I said that a helmet would provide a significant degree of protection I would also be lying.

>What kind of "dangerous behavior" do helmets encourage?

They may (note use of "may", meaning it's not 100% certain)
ride less cautiously. ex: running red lights, riding on sidewalks, not signalling turns, pick fights with heavily armed criminals, etc. Its called "risk compensation", and its fairly well documented.

http://www.ishn.com/CDA/Article_Information/BehavioralSafetyItem/0,3563,3436,00.html

>What are your guidelines for "safe" cycling anyway? Riding >around a padded room on a tricycle?

My guidelines would be similar to what gets talked about on this forum on a daily basis. i.e. stop at lights/stop signs, wear bright clothing, obey traffic laws, don't dive headfirst under the wheels of a bus.
That's what should be taught to new riders, not "don't ride without a helmet".

-Owen
What idiot thinks that helmets will make them invincible!?czardonic
Mar 3, 2003 6:14 PM
I submit that anyone with that attitude has a problem that no safety guideline will help.

New riders should be taught to stop at signals, wear bright clothing and obey the laws (hemlet laws too), and wear helmets. Give me a link to a person here who is advocating helmets to the exclusion of all other safety measures.

Perhaps you don't recognize any evidence for helmets because it is so easily explained away by the pseudo-science and hair-splitting technical nihilism that your own argument is based on.

Again, did anyone say that helmets made anyone invincible? No. So what is your beef?
What idiot thinks that helmets will make them invincible!?OTG
Mar 3, 2003 7:05 PM
Stop agreeing with me, dammit.
I do recognize evidence for helmets. I simply disagree that it's adequate to require everyone to wear one.
I think that new riders should be taught good riding habits, etc. but regarding helmets should be told "It MAY help, but probably won't. So don't do anything stupid."
I don't think anyone has advocated helmets only, but some people have advocated mandatory helmet laws, which I think is almost as bad.

My problem is with people who claim that everyone who rides without a helmet is a brainless moron who should be counting the days until he's drooling in a wheelchair. This is simply not true. (Please excuse the hyperbole.)

I especially take offense at people like deHonc (in another post in this thread) claiming that I am unable to make my own decisions, so the government should do it for me.

If you read my posts, I have never said that anyone shouldn't wear a helmet. I have said that helmets shouldn't be a condition for riding, and shouldn't be relied upon for safety.

-Owen
Stop disagreeing with yourself.czardonic
Mar 4, 2003 11:12 AM
Nobody is saying "If you wear a helmet, you can do stupid things."

Don't you see that your attitude provides a rationale for people to forgo a helmet and any other safety measure that is not 100% effective in preventing injury. Wearing bright clothes "may" help. Following the traffic laws "may" help. Then again, there are not guaruntees. Cyclists are routinely hit by careless motorists while they are riding safely and obeying the law. So even that is no guaruntee.

So, by your reckoning, no safety measure should be a condition for riding.
While you're at it, why don't you...wasabekid
Mar 3, 2003 4:06 PM
(Comparatively) address the illogic use of helmet by: race car drivers, jet pilots, construction workers and football players for that matter!

Cheers,

W.
re: While you're at it, why don't you...OTG
Mar 3, 2003 4:40 PM
>While you're at it, why don't you...
>(Comparatively) address the illogic use of helmet by: race >car drivers, jet pilots, construction workers and football >players for that matter!

Straw man. I didn't say anything about any of these.

-Owen
Rote learner ! Although you did not say ....wasabekid
Mar 3, 2003 6:20 PM
anything about these different activities ('am very much aware of it) my underlying reason is to point out the illogic of your argument.

To clarify:
--- ... by referring to the website you seem to imply that wearing a helmet is useless because the "purported" study shows no effectiveness on high speed crashes.

Well of course genius, NOTHING is. (Relatively) not a $10K race car helmet or a $40K pilot helmet.

--- ... by furhter indicating that because we (more often than not) wear helmet, we think of it as panacea....

Isn't that a little too presumptuous of you? To think that a bunch of grown ups with expensive toys and pretty cool looking jerseys can be that stooopid? (OK, maybe you got a little point there).
But kidding aside, I don't think anybody was trying to convince you that a helmet is 100% effective and that one should feel invincible. On the other hand, your reference study did not go as far as saying that helmets are totally ineffective and useless. To me this indicates the validity of its continued use with certain "limitations.

While I have no right to impose upon you to wear a helmet, you should however recognize my right to protest against uninsured/underinsured injured helmetless cyclists that shows up in the emergency rooms subsidized by my property taxes (and I strongly recommend that we not go into this subject). I hope you're not one of these guys.

W.
Rote learner ! Although you did not say ....OTG
Mar 3, 2003 7:08 PM
Well, the studies in question don't show much effectiveness for low speed crashes, either.
The study didn't show that they're useless, because they're not, quite. However, elsewhere on the page, it says that "Direct impacts over 20 km/h can be expected to be lethal." (I do note, that there is no direct source for that quote.)

I don't know anybody with bright shiny toys and jerseys that acts irrationally. Nobody. At all. Really. I mean it.

It also mentions that there is a relatively low fatality rate for cyclists,
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
despite only about 18% of cyclist wearing helmets.
http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
(it's about halfway down.)

The site also claims that insurance companies are more likely to offer discounts to cyclists than higher rates, though I cannot verify that one. If they don't have health insurance, that's an entirely different matter. At the risk of going into that subject, I suggest that you protest against uninsured people of any stripe. End discrimination!

So stop agreeing with me. Makes it harder to argue.

-Owen
Hmmm.... "A rote learner and a verbal acrobat"...wasabekid
Mar 3, 2003 8:42 PM
On the contrary, you are the one who agrees with what most of the people here are saying, but you just refuse to recognize it to provide support to your contention that helmet use should not be legislated into law.

---"Direct impacts over 20 km/h can be expected to be lethal." (note: the operative word "can be")
Is this suppose to support your argument not to wear a helmet?

--- ...You keep reiterating that good riding skills would keep a rider out of harm's way...
Again, is this suppose to support your argument that because you have good riding skills you should not wear a helmet? What about those (sometimes very) skilled riders that thru no fault of their own gets cut-off, squeezed, bumped or run off the road by inattentive drivers. Or the countless "no-fault" accidents in group rides/racing by very skilled riders?

What you keep refusing to recognize is the fact that helmet(although not perfect) is an "additional safety device" to complement (but not replace) a good riding skill.

This may not apply to you: (Not just UNinsured but also UNDERinsured)
I tend to agree with deHonc, that until people stop digging into (my)our pockets, some people would have to be told not to expose themselves into additional dangers without adequate precautionary safety measures that are easily/readily available. These include and "WILL NOT" be limited to Bike Helmet, Seat Belts, Graduated Drivers License issued to young drivers, additional insurance coverage (@point of use) to extreme sport enthusiasts' etc...

Fight for what you truly believe is right but do not neglect the fact others are also willing to fight for theirs.

W.
Hmmm.... "A rote learner and a verbal acrobat"...OTG
Mar 4, 2003 5:48 AM
Not really. I agree that helmets can help. I disagree about how much they can help. And they don't help much at all.

---"Direct impacts over 20 km/h can be expected to be lethal." (note: the operative word "can be")
Is this suppose to support your argument not to wear a helmet?

Well if you read that bit in context, yes it is. Seeing as 20 km/h = 12.5 mph, I don't see how wearing a helmet is going to do much good.

You keep reiterating that good riding skills would keep a rider out of harm's way...
Again, is this suppose to support your argument that because you have good riding skills you should not wear a helmet?

This is supposed to support the argument that wearing a helmet is a very, very small part of safety.

Accidents by skilled riders? Well, maybe it'll help, maybe it won't. It is highly unlikely that it'll be the deciding factor between life and death.

I hardly refuse to recognize that it is an "additional safety device". I refuse to recognize that it is an effective safety device. If you want to read the testing standards, you can decide for yourself. Personally, I don't think that dropping an 11 lb. weight 6 feet is an particularly relevant measurement. I'm 6 feet tall, and if I fall over and hit my head, I might get a headache. I'm not going to die (barring unseen dropoffs).

Regarding your stance on insurance, all I can say is that I wouldn't want to live in a place where I'm not allowed to make my own mistakes. (Yes, I realize that the US has some laws like this. It still beats elsewhere).

-Owen
Be irresponsible but don't make me pay for it.RJF
Mar 3, 2003 3:48 PM
I personally do not care if someone wants to ride without a helmet and kill themselves. I mean, people know the risks of smoking and still do it. It's a form of Darwinism. Fine with me in principle.

But the problem is that your needless head injuries costs the rest of us BILLIONS each year in increased insurance premiums, etc. I don't understand why that's OK, but it's not OK for people to tell y'all to put a damn helmet on!
I hope you're an Americantriple shot espresso
Mar 3, 2003 4:06 PM
because that is such an American attitude. Not only are you going to tell people that theortically it's none of your business but then you tell us how much money we are costing you. If you have a problem with insurance premiums take it up with your insurance carrier not me. I promise you the cost of head injuries related to cycling is .00001% of the cost of cigarettes or second hand smoke related illnesses but you probably don't lecture the smokers that you pass as you walk into work about your insurance costs.
Be irresponsible but don't make me pay for it.OTG
Mar 3, 2003 5:04 PM
>But the problem is that your needless head injuries costs >the rest of us BILLIONS each year in increased insurance >premiums, etc. I don't understand why that's OK, but it's >not OK for people to tell y'all to put a damn helmet on!

Care to back that one up for us? I don't know that I pay higher insurance rates as a helmetless cyclist. I imagine that cyclists, being regular exercisers, actually lower average premiums by being in better general health.

Indeed, cars are even more dangerous than riding. Why don't you quit driving and save us billions in insurance premiums?

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html#A14
"The gain of 'life years' through improved fitness among regular cyclists, and thus their increased longevity exceeds the loss of 'life years' in cycle fatalities (British Medical Association, 1992). An analysis based on the life expectancy of each cyclist killed in road accidents using actuarial data, and the increased longevity of those engaging in exercise regimes several times a week compared with those leading relatively sedentary lives, has shown that, even in the current cycle hostile environment, the benefits in terms of life years gained, outweigh life years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of around 20 to 1." {3},{7}

-Owen
Sometimes people need to be tolddeHonc
Mar 3, 2003 4:14 PM
Hello everyone,

Very interesting reading these various points of view regarding the wearing of helmets - here in Australia, the government has legislated that helmets are compulsory - so the cops give you a ticket if you aren't wearing one. This caused all sorts of debate when it was first introduced - but not much now. Although a side issue, I really think your government needs to take some tough decisions on a range of topics and dispense with this "free world - I'll do as I choose" mentality ie - helmet laws, gun laws etc.

I often marvel at this type of view, " I can do what I please - its a free country etc etc mentality". The fact is that individuals can't just do anything they want - thats why we have laws. An individual who suffers head injury caused in road accidents does in fact impact on others - their family and the public to some extent. It should be obvious that a helmet will provide a better outcome in the event of an accident than not wearing one - I mean, do you actually think you might be injured more so in an accident by wearing a helmet?

So spare me the "its my decision" bullshit - get real and understand that you are not an autonomous being - your actions impact on other people and the world around you. Parden the expression but its a No Brainer - always wear a helmet.

Regards,

Dan
Ok, helmet nazis!triple shot espresso
Mar 3, 2003 4:24 PM
I'm convinced. It is my decision and my decision is normally to wear a helmet cause it's the right thing to do just like eating right, drinking alcohol in moderation, controlling my stress level and flossing. But I don't always eat right, and I do drink to much sometimes, sometimes I turn into the Hulk cause I'm to stressed and believe me not all of you floss so until it's a law, it's my decision and even then it's my decision on whether or not I want to follow the law, because I must admit, sometimes I speed.
typical, only the fringe has freedoms.Emu_Lane
Mar 3, 2003 5:38 PM
The other pro-helmet posters and I have the same right to say we think doing training rides without helmets is moronic as you have to not wear helmets. It's funny how often the person claiming the right to their view is so intolerant of someone else giving their opinion. I doubt anyone is going to force a helmet onto your head, that would violate your rights. But saying that we don't agree, no matter how, does not. Look at the girl's b-ball player in New York. If she has the right to turn from the flag, others have the same right to boo the crap out of her and bring their own flags to the games. The media is quick to label them as intolerant even though they are voicing their opinions and have the same right to do so.
Which fringe are you?triple shot espresso
Mar 4, 2003 7:24 AM
First off, riding without a helmet isn't the smartest thing that I do in a day and you'll never catch me in a group ride without one. The point you brought up is interesting and maybe significantly deeper than should be allowed on this board. Put simply, how often does the larger group claim freedom of expression when they are toeing the line between voicing their opinion and what could be considered rude and obusive behavior? To often in my opinion. Pro-lifers get in the face of women going through an already difficult time, your b-ball scenario, I haven't heard of this story but it sounds like she was making a personal quiet protest. I respect your basic right of freedom of expression so you should respect my right to tell you to go to hell, I'll do what I want, that's all my post was saying. And I really don't want you to go to hell, it's just an expression.