I've never worn a bike helmet
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
I've always worn a helmet
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
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.
This is fun, keep it going guys.
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.
That's gonna leave a mark.
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.
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.
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.
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 09:36 AM.
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?
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.Care to comment on the fact that either example rider has an equal chance to have 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...
Last edited by mconlonx; 03-25-13 at 12:39 PM.
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.