Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet 178 10.66%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped 94 5.63%
I've always worn a helmet 648 38.80%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do 408 24.43%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions 342 20.48%
Voters: 1670. You may not vote on this poll

User Tag List

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-21-13, 10:42 PM   #4876
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
With all these posts pro and con, the simple fact remains---------If knee pads, elbow pads, neck braces, and bubble wrap prevent even the slightest injury they are a good thing. It is really kind of dumb to argue against that fact.
No more or less true with the changes I've made. Seeing the point here yet?
Six jours is offline  
Old 03-21-13, 11:04 PM   #4877
cyclogeck
Member
 
cyclogeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by unterhausen View Post
We delete posts where it's obvious that a bitter off-topic argument would ensue. For whatever reason, discussions of health care are just like helmet discussions, they become anklebiting-fests very quickly. There is a P&R forum for discussions about the political ramifications of helmet wear. Take it there. Seems simple enough
again. . . A WASTE OF TIME. the censoring the helmet discussion because it might include the ramifications of politics or health care? and then you justify your tyranny by calling it "keeping the place clean." uh huh, clean just like sterile, void of life.
I'd rather ride all day into a head wind than agree for a second that the moderators do anything but stagnate and sterilize the flow of ideas around here. Sorry nannies but you're fired. I've got a flat fix anyway.
cyclogeck is offline  
Old 03-22-13, 08:45 AM   #4878
MMACH 5
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Bikes: Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
Posts: 3,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
No more or less true with the changes I've made. Seeing the point here yet?
The point you appear to be making is that if a person is not going to wear EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PROTECTIVE GEAR, then a helmet is pointless. Got it.
MMACH 5 is offline  
Old 03-22-13, 12:00 PM   #4879
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
The point you appear to be making is that if a person is not going to wear EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PROTECTIVE GEAR, then a helmet is pointless. Got it.
More like: most of the reasons people give, for all the good helmets might or might not do, also apply to other protective gear; all the reasons people don't want to wear a back protector, knee, hip, and elbow guards on a regular basis also applies to helmets.
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is online now  
Old 03-22-13, 12:51 PM   #4880
MMACH 5
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Bikes: Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
Posts: 3,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
More like: most of the reasons people give, for all the good helmets might or might not do, also apply to other protective gear; all the reasons people don't want to wear a back protector, knee, hip, and elbow guards on a regular basis also applies to helmets.
So, like I said, "if a person is not going to wear EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PROTECTIVE GEAR, then a helmet is pointless." Wear them all or make no claims of a helmet being worthwhile. Thank you for reiterating the point.
MMACH 5 is offline  
Old 03-22-13, 07:48 PM   #4881
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
The point you appear to be making is that if a person is not going to wear EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PROTECTIVE GEAR, then a helmet is pointless. Got it.
I reread the post a couple of times and, no, I don't appear to be making that point.
Six jours is offline  
Old 03-23-13, 09:33 AM   #4882
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
Thank you for reiterating the point.
No, there's differences between what I posted and what you posted.
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is online now  
Old 03-23-13, 12:16 PM   #4883
rekmeyata
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 7,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
This is fun, keep it going guys.
rekmeyata is offline  
Old 03-24-13, 12:57 AM   #4884
sudo bike
Bicikli Huszár
 
sudo bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Posts: 2,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
This is fun, keep it going guys.
It is! Will do!
sudo bike is offline  
Old 03-24-13, 09:00 AM   #4885
MMACH 5
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Bikes: Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
Posts: 3,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
I reread the post a couple of times and, no, I don't appear to be making that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
No, there's differences between what I posted and what you posted.
Then please explain how what I posted is different.
It would certainly appear that in order to counter a pro-helmet post, the argument was being turned back on that poster that his/her claims also applied to back pads, elbow pads, etc. Clearly, the implication was that if he/she is going to encourage the use of helmets, then certainly he/she encourages the use of these other pieces of safety equipment. Otherwise, his/her pro-helmet opinion is invalid and we can all dismiss it.
The bare-head brigade has vehemently dismissed arguments that mention seatbelts, because it is not a fair comparison. This is the same unfair comparison, only the door swings the other way.
MMACH 5 is offline  
Old 03-24-13, 11:53 AM   #4886
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
It would certainly appear that in order to counter a pro-helmet post, the argument was being turned back on that poster that his/her claims also applied to back pads, elbow pads, etc. Clearly, the implication was that if he/she is going to encourage the use of helmets, then certainly he/she encourages the use of these other pieces of safety equipment. Otherwise, his/her pro-helmet opinion is invalid and we can all dismiss it.
Ryda isn't participating in a thousand page thread about insulting helmetless cyclists because he thinks helmets offer slight protection. Ryda is participating in a thousand page thread about insulting helmetless cyclists because he thinks helmetless cyclists are suicidal idiots. So Ryda's post about helmets being worthwhile if they offer "even the slightest protection" is hypocritical, because Ryda isn't calling people names for not wearing elbow pads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
The bare-head brigade has vehemently dismissed arguments that mention seatbelts, because it is not a fair comparison. This is the same unfair comparison, only the door swings the other way.
The two issues are nothing alike, because the evidence for seatbelts is clear.
Six jours is offline  
Old 03-24-13, 12:57 PM   #4887
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
Then please explain how what I posted is different.
My way, riding with a helmet is not pointless even if you are not wearing all the other safety gear...
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is online now  
Old 03-24-13, 01:30 PM   #4888
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Who is the safer rider?

Rider A) Wears a helmet. New hybrid, new rider. Casual rider, rides on sunny days, commuted to the office once, does some short shopping trips on the bike.

Rider B) Does not wear a helmet, rides a 20 year old road bike, been riding for more than three decades, commutes, tours, rides in all weather and conditions.
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is online now  
Old 03-24-13, 09:08 PM   #4889
rekmeyata
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 7,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
Who is the safer rider?

Rider A) Wears a helmet. New hybrid, new rider. Casual rider, rides on sunny days, commuted to the office once, does some short shopping trips on the bike.

Rider B) Does not wear a helmet, rides a 20 year old road bike, been riding for more than three decades, commutes, tours, rides in all weather and conditions.
And your point is?

What if rider b has been lucky? What if rider a is unlucky? You cannot ascertain the future of rider a's safety record until you have 20 years of data as you have with rider b. Nor is there any recording of rider b's safety record which could be dismal or it could be steller. Your question is absurd at best.
rekmeyata is offline  
Old 03-25-13, 08:16 AM   #4890
rydabent
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
Posts: 5,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
mcconYour point if flawed. It is the same as saying you flip a coin 10 time and it came out heads every time. You then ask what are the odds on fliping the 11th time. They are still 50-50. So to answer your question, the odds of either of them having an accident is equal. Accidents can and do happen to anyone.

Several years ago an English rider was killed while riding in the TDF. Im sure he was a very experience rider.
rydabent is offline  
Old 03-25-13, 08:32 AM   #4891
chasm54
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Bikes:
Posts: 8,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
mcconYour point if flawed. It is the same as saying you flip a coin 10 time and it came out heads every time. You then ask what are the odds on fliping the 11th time. They are still 50-50. So to answer your question, the odds of either of them having an accident is equal. Accidents can and do happen to anyone.

Several years ago an English rider was killed while riding in the TDF. Im sure he was a very experience rider.
You really do talk some nonsense, don't you? There has only ever been one English rider die in the Tour de France, and it was 46 years ago. He was indeed a very experienced rider - an ex world road racing champion, in fact - but your argument is somewhat undermined by the fact that he died not in an accident, but of heart failure caused by dehydration, brandy and amphetamines near the summit of Mont Ventoux. It isn't easy to see how a helmet would have made any difference to the outcome.

And as it happens, the incidence of fatal crashes in professional races has risen slightly since helmets became compulsory. I wouldn't make anything of this - the numbers are too small to be statistically significant - but the fact that deaths were so rare before the introduction of helmets testifies to the fact that even at the highest, most competitive, and some ways most dangerous levels of the sport, serious head injuries are rare.

Now, to the silliness of your response to mconlox. Crashing on a bike is not arbitrary, like tossing a coin. Your chances of crashing are heavily influenced by your experience, skill, judgement etc. So the cyclist with a long history of riding safely, while not invulnerable, is indeed much less likely to crash than the new, young, foolish or drunken rider. For most of us, riding a bike is just not dangerous enough to require protective equipment.

Last edited by chasm54; 03-25-13 at 08:36 AM.
chasm54 is offline  
Old 03-25-13, 09:11 AM   #4892
rydabent
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
Posts: 5,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
chasm

It was Tom Simpson. And it was an accident. And yes it was from booze and drugs. It still was an accident since I dont think he intended to kill himself.

Care to comment on the fact that either example rider has an equal chance to have an accident?
rydabent is offline  
Old 03-25-13, 09:32 AM   #4893
chasm54
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Bikes:
Posts: 8,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
chasm

It was Tom Simpson. And it was an accident. And yes it was from booze and drugs. It still was an accident since I dont think he intended to kill himself.
You redefine the term disingenuous, don't you? He may have "accidentally" killed himself, but he died of heart failure. This is a helmet thread. The fact that he wasn't wearing a helmet, and was an experienced rider, had absolutely no bearing on his death and zero relevance to the subject of this thread.

Quote:
Care to comment on the fact that either example rider has an equal chance to have an accident?
Reread my previous reply. The last paragraph deals with this point. To suggest that good riders have the same chance of an accident as bad ones is plain stupid.
chasm54 is offline  
Old 03-25-13, 11:09 AM   #4894
ZmanKC
Senior Member
 
ZmanKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Overland Park, KS
Bikes: 1999 Giant TCR 2T 2009 Giant Cypress DX 2015 Giant Anyroad 1
Posts: 775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasm54 View Post
You redefine the term disingenuous, don't you? He may have "accidentally" killed himself, but he died of heart failure. This is a helmet thread. The fact that he wasn't wearing a helmet, and was an experienced rider, had absolutely no bearing on his death and zero relevance to the subject of this thread.



Reread my previous reply. The last paragraph deals with this point. To suggest that good riders have the same chance of an accident as bad ones is plain stupid.
Infuriatingly maddening, isn't he?

Maybe he's thinking of Wouter Weylandt, the Belgian cyclist who was killed in the 2011 Giro d'Italia.
ZmanKC is offline  
Old 03-25-13, 11:23 AM   #4895
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZmanKC View Post
Infuriatingly maddening, isn't he?

Maybe he's thinking...
Doubt it.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-25-13, 11:24 AM   #4896
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
And your point is?

What if rider b has been lucky? What if rider a is unlucky? You cannot ascertain the future of rider a's safety record until you have 20 years of data as you have with rider b. Nor is there any recording of rider b's safety record which could be dismal or it could be steller. Your question is absurd at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
mcconYour point if flawed. It is the same as saying you flip a coin 10 time and it came out heads every time. You then ask what are the odds on fliping the 11th time. They are still 50-50. So to answer your question, the odds of either of them having an accident is equal. Accidents can and do happen to anyone.
I'm not talking about comparable safety records in the next [x] timeframe; I'm not talking about the odds of getting into an accident.

The answer is Rider B). Riding experience trumps a helmet where safety is concerned. Helmet might help in certain situations, but not getting into those situations is more important...
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.

Last edited by mconlonx; 03-25-13 at 11:39 AM.
mconlonx is online now  
Old 03-25-13, 11:39 AM   #4897
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Which will keep a new rider safer on the road?

A) Paying $75 for a mid-range helmet.
B) Paying $75 to attend an LAB Traffic Skills 101 class.
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is online now  
Old 03-25-13, 11:40 AM   #4898
rekmeyata
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 7,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
Which will keep you safer on the road?

A) Paying $75 for a mid-range helmet.
B) Paying $75 to attend an LAB Traffic Skills 101 class.
Paying $150 and cover both sides of the equation.
rekmeyata is offline  
Old 03-25-13, 11:42 AM   #4899
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
Paying $150 and cover both sides of the equation.
*ding, ding, ding*

Winnah!
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is online now  
Old 03-25-13, 11:46 AM   #4900
rekmeyata
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 7,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
I'm not talking about comparable safety records in the next [x] timeframe; I'm not talking about the odds of getting into an accident.

The answer is Rider B). Riding experience trumps a helmet where safety is concerned. Helmet might help in certain situations, but not getting into those situations is more important...
But your example is flawed as Rydabent pointed out. Your logic is assuming that rider b has never had an accident and thus with his experience and safety record he would be safer then rider a...duh! But that still doesn't mean that tomorrow rider b goes out and has a not at fault accident that gave him severe brain damage or death due to failure to strap on a helmet. Not all accidents are the riders fault, and that's another flaw in your logic, your assuming he's never going to crash because he's never going to be at fault, you left out the other guy entirely.
rekmeyata is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:11 AM.