'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 )

Who's dumber'er..(13 posts)

Who's dumber'er..OwenMeany
Jan 19, 2004 5:48 AM
1.The rider without a helment?

2.The rider with a helment but not clasped?

3.The rider with a helmet clasped to their handelbar?

This is one of the questions I ponder whist I I see all 3 often on my rides. My vote is number 3. Number 2 is pretty dumb but not that common and usally the rider is obvioulsy a fredly type that I can only look and laugh....
re: Who's dumber'er..RadicalRonPruitt
Jan 19, 2004 6:00 AM
Why do you worry about them? If they don't wish to wear a helmet, then that is their right. There is no helmet laws that I know of for cyclist, unless you are doing a sanctioned event. If a cyclist wants to choose not to wear a helmet, then they must face the consequences of doing so, not you. So why are you wasting our time on this old debate? Are you just trolling hoping someone will take your bait? Well, this fish just left with your bait leaving you a hook in the water just dangling.
It's slow on here so I will bitebimini
Jan 19, 2004 6:14 AM
Number 2 is dumber'er.

To number 1 without the helmet, style and a sense of freedom is more important to this person than personal safety. I rode that way until the mid 90's, even after getting a concussion and a couple of dozen stitches in the top of my head. (I always wear one now)

Number 3 with the helmet on the bars may be taking a break and letting his/her head and hair dry off. Or, leave it off on the "safe" areas and put it back on when the danger increases.

Number 2 with the thing unsnapped is just stupid. A geeky helmet on the head that serves no purpose since it will fly off during and accident.
Number 3fracisco
Jan 19, 2004 7:22 AM
I see Number 3 a lot, too. I often see it on the South Bay bike path where I think it's more dangerous: people locked in their aero bars doing their own time trial and getting upset that people are noodling along, rollerbladers all over the path, joggers, small children riding along with their parents and apt to make random turns at any moment, not to mention sandy corners and cracks. It may be okay riding up Mandeville Canyon (or any of its similar long up climbs) to take it off (I've never done so), but deal already.
re: Who's dumber'er..Woof the dog
Jan 19, 2004 8:11 AM
I hate Owen

re: Who's dumber'er..RadicalRonPruitt
Jan 19, 2004 1:52 PM
Me too! What a dork!
3, no question. he/she is thumbing their nose at fate (nm)terry b
Jan 19, 2004 8:14 AM
Dearest Owen....Dwayne Barry
Jan 19, 2004 9:07 AM
since you raised the FRED issue in relation to your question (option #2 to be precise) I feel somewhat free to comment on it as it relates to this topic.

While I agree with your assessment that #2 is indeed the most FREDLY (of any conceivable choice), your choices of #1 and #3 must also be assessed in light of being less FREDLY than wearing a helmet.

#3 while quite stylish in relation to going/coming from a race, when wearing a helmet is wise and often required, would score you very high on poseur points if indeed you were doing this not in relationship to a race (or perhaps climbing and descending in the mountains while training).

#1 and 3 must be understood in light of the quite unlikely events of first crashing, second hitting your head, and third having the impact be one that a helmet could prevent injury versus the constant increase in your FRED factor (or decrease in your Euro-cool factor if you prefer to look at it that way) that wearing a helmet invokes whilst on the road.

So number # 2 is the definitive answer to your question as you're getting none of the protective benefit of the helmet in the event of a shunt and all (even more!) of it's Fredliness factor.
Hell mintbsdc
Jan 19, 2004 11:18 AM
It's dumberer to spell helmet "helment" twice.
I have to disagree...KRider
Jan 19, 2004 11:42 AM
True, riding without a helmet on is dangerous, however, as one poster said, why are you worrying about what other people are doing?

Also, I sometimes unclasp my helmet when climbing. I don't do it to be "cool" or anything (you are still wearing the helmet) I do it to cool off. Maybe its just the placebo effect, but I feel cooler if I unclasp it. However, on flats and descents I have that sucker firmly strapped to my noggin.

When mtbing, I always ride with a helmet UNLESS I am lugging a Fullface helmet with me, in which case, I carry it strapped to my back until I get to the trailhead. I don't do that to look hip either, its just freakin' hot as hell and I feel like crap when I get to the trail (I live in Phoenix, AZ btw).

That's just my opinion. But if you are talking about the people I think that you are talking about (true FREDS), then I think all three are dumb. #2 is pretty bad if they ride like that all the time.

I have to disagree too...Scollopini
Jan 19, 2004 3:57 PM
Many of you ask why does anyone care what others do in relation to wearing (or not) a helmet - saying, "Its up to them - why should I be concerned" or similar sentiments.

I don't know about this logic - lets take this logic to extremes to make a point - should we have the same attitude to others if they were, for example, beating their kids excessively? Or subecting their partners to domestic abuse? Just when do you care about the well being of anonymous individuals? Don't you think that government is obliged to introduce laws for the betterment of all in society? I propose that by making helmet wearing compulsory falls into this latter category. It is a symptom of a sick, self obsessive society when we don't have regard for the well being of "strangers" - and I just don't buy some argument that legislating for compulsory helmet wearing is an erosion of personal rights - we have laws for a reason - one cannot just do whatever one pleases in life - and not wearing a helmet on a bicycle is plainly irresponsible in any situation, IMO.
I understand your argumentKRider
Jan 19, 2004 8:22 PM
But I think that most people are afraid that when/if such laws are enacted, when will they stop? Its the fear of how much control the government has over our personal lives.

I don't think that the government should be regulating our actions like that. I mean come on, shouldn't one know better? Cycling in itself is dangerous so should they enact a law against that too?

And you are right, one cannot do anything that endangers themselves or others. But where do you draw that line? You could argue that drinking alcohol period is a form of suicide...but I'm sure a lot of people on this board would disagree. Those are the extremes though. I understand your argument and I'm not advocating "Screw everyone else". I see kids without helmets and I ask myself "Don't they know better?".

I say let people make that choice. If they choose to not wear the helmet, then that is there choice to make and they have accepted the consequences.

I for one wear a helmet now, I've had two concussions, that's enough for me.

I think that a big part of seeing kids not wearing the helmets clasped is because they see the BMX'ers and Skaters on TV wearing the helmet with the strap undone. But they are pros and they are accepting the consequences of crashing.

My $0.02

I agree...Dwayne Barry
Jan 20, 2004 5:04 AM
we should ban smoking tomorrow, and fat people should be put on regimented diet and exercise programs with severe fines for non-compliance. Jail time for the worst of 'em. No one needs to ride a bike on roads either, it's plainly dangerous. I think we ban bikes too, and force everyone to get their mandated exercise via power-walking (can't allow running with it's high associated musculo-skeletal injury rate).