Oh. Ok, nevermind, makes sense now.Quote:
When I am mowing, and trimming the lawn, I wear safety glasses and hearing protection.
You should really get some riding armor. Safety first, you know.Quote:
When i work on aerial equipment, i wear my safety harness and hard hat. When i ride my bike, i wear a helmet, and a reflective vest. Its safety first for me, whatever I am doing
Yes they do. They also may protect from minor injuries sustained while walking, mowing your lawn, etc. I don't care if you choose to wear one for that, it just seems oddly misplaced.Quote:
You can argue all you want, and tell me all you wish that cycle helmets don't work, but I know for a fact that in my younger days, I have sustained several injuries that would have been avoided had I been smart enough to wear a helmet. Hell, I've been riding the trail and smacked my head on a branch, gashing it open. Fatal injuries are not the only injuries I am concerned about. Helmets can and do prevent many injuries. You guys seem stuck on the fact that a helmet won't save your life in a vehicle collision, or a serious accident. That isn't the only thing I am worried about.
I also don't get how accident prone people seem to be. Y'all must fall an awful lot. I don't seem to have that problem, so I'm not concerned about an off-chance of minor injury. I'll take the convenience and deal with any cuts or bumps I get in the meantime. If you don't, that's OK, it just seems like a really silly thing to get all hung up over when someone else thinks is overkill, just like I'm sure you think body armor probably is. Unless, of course, you fall a lot for some reason, like riding in icy weather, pushing your limits a lot, etc. But hey, your choice, bud. I just don't think I need a helmet for riding a bike anymore than I need one for walking.
No, i get it man. I really do. Its your choice to not wear one, and that's kosher with me. I mostly got into this argument after I was blasted for choosing to wear one. Wearing a helmet when riding makes sense to me. It may not to you, and that is cool too. I haven't blasted anyone for choosing not to wear one, nor called anybody stupid for not doing so. Yet I have been called that essentially for my choice to wear one. But I am learning that here on BikeForums, some of the crowd is rather snooty, and awfully full of themselves. The "holier than thou" attitude is certainly very pervasive here.
Cool. Never got to post on the 100th page of a thread before!
I dunno why folks on either side of the debate like to go for the horror story approach so often.
Responding with ye olde dare scenario is a pretty worn out ploy also.
Helmet use for various activities is generally decided according to likelihood of head impact. Short track speedskating - helmets, long track speedskating - no helmets, leisurely paced bridal trail horseback riding - no helmets, many other horseback riding pursuits - helmets.
I wear helmets for some bike riding types, conditions or events. Most JRA type bike riding I'll go without. Head impact likelihood seems about on par with that of jogging, to me, and I've never seen any helmeted joggers, not even trailrunners - people who run over rocks and roots at high speed.
All kinds of appropriate responses in this case:
- Suggest at public hearing and in editorials that the law be expanded to include motor vehicle operators and passengers, since they are, by far, the leading group of head injury recipients, and thus a drag on the public coffers.
- Suggest that the proposed law be amended to include 4 hrs of mandatory bike safety instruction in schools and driving classes, which is shown to have a greater effect regarding bike rider safety than mere use of a helmet.
- Ask the councilman point blank why he is proposing this law in stark contrast to published studies regarding overall cycling safety, and who/what prompted him to introduce such legislation.
- Ask the councilman in a public meeting why he wants to decrease cycling in the City, since that's what MHL's have been proven to do, with resultant decrease in cyclist safety and increase in constituent mortality rates.
But while these suggestions would be more than appropriate and very effective in killing this proposed law, I'm sure the screeching bare-head brigade will offer up at least a bushel's worth of impotent outrage and useless posturing -- supported by scientific studies -- instead of effective politicking.
lester and six
This is the internet. People use short hand-----BTW more young people these days will understand the word clik than clique anyway. But thanks anyway for being a grammer and spelling hall moniter.
Ryda's just pretending that "he meant to do that". I was kind of hoping that ianstew would defend it as "patriotically refusing to write in French", but his little "grammar police" pic (in response to a spelling correction) was almost as much fun.
Not as much fun as Ryda positing that "grammer" is shorthand, though.
On the whole, I find it absolutely delightful that the folks nattering away about how stupid it is to ride a bike without a helmet are also the people who struggle pitifully to even put together third grade level sentences.
Road.cc reports that:
Originally Posted by road.cc