RazrSkutr

I
Do you think our moderator "Unterhausen" realizes this? Is he being intentionally or unintentionally biased when he retitles the thread in a way that removes the intolerant, ignorant and sexist overtones? Did he call for a poll to retitle the thread from the committed contributors, or did he have some sneaky side-channel conversations in which he admitted that the goal of forcing helmets on the rest of us was undermined by the crass nature of the previous three threads?

closetbiker

fair enough, but you do realize this line of thought puts you in line with this guy, don't you?

Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information and as such, I tend to not give it much weight

closetbiker

I have no idea, but I do know that if the <words we shalt not type> stopped harrassing others, there probably wouldn't be a lot of the problems a thread like this tries to help with

closetbiker

bye bye for good maybe?

mljoshua

Helmets will help if you hit the pavement - except the 'shaken baby' syndrome. if you brain shakes around inside your head, the helmet won't help - but the fact is that most head injuries are because of the impact with the road surface. I have always worn one and just as the previous post states - no one will change my mind for me. but it is a personal decision.

I-Like-To-Bike

Oy Vay.

idc

I "always" wear a helmet: exceptions being a) when I forget to take it and am riding to the train station for work (3 miles) and can't be bothered to go back to get it, and b) when I'm in a generally non-traffic, high-visibility, flat situation e.g. a tennis court, park, basement parking garage, etc.

I've twice been grateful to have my helmet. Once in a fall this year over a wet painted strip, and once many years ago when attacked by magpies. Both resulted in helmet damage but no head damage. I've gone over the handlebars twice on my MTB too, but the helmet wasn't involved in either case.

I don't support mandatory helmet laws.

chasm54

As closetbiker has pointed out, post #29 by SlimRider is offensive and exactly the sort of infantile attack that has made it difficult to conduct this discussion in the past. If unterhausen's statement at the start of the thread is to be taken seriously, action needs to be taken to remove that post and warn SlimRider of the consequences of further infractions.

EDIT: thanks to the mods for acting in accordance with this suggestion...

With regard to the issue, it's understandable that people place a lot of faith in helmets. First of all, many people nowadays are brought up to believe that cycling is dangerous. It is not. The point of mikeybikes post, which gave rise to SlimRider's ignorant and offensive response, is that cycling is no more dangerous than many other activities, including crossing the street, for which nobody believes helmets to be necessary.

Second, some people have fallen off their bikes and banged their heads. It is natural for them to believe that they might have been severely injured had they not been wearing a helmet, and I'd say it is virtually certain that in some cases helmets have prevented some pain and injury. However, the protective effect must be quite small because the introduction of helmets has not (contrary to the nonsense posted by SlimRider in post #23) made a significant difference to the number of injuries. Let's say that again. The widespread introduction of helmets appears to have made little or no difference to the rate at which cyclists get hurt. So, either when helmetless cyclists fall off they usually don't do themselves much harm, or helmeted cyclists tend to have more accidents, or helmets are the cause of some injuries as well as the source of some protection. Whichever, it seems pretty clear that wearing a helmet makes a trivial difference to your already very small chance of being seriously hurt while on your bike.

chasm54

You clearly missed his point. He can speak for himself, but I think you'll find that he was using sarcasm to make a serious point, namely that people who insist that cycling is dangerous enough to require protective clothing are frequently ignorant, as you seem to be, of the fact that it is no more dangerous than a host of other everyday activities for which insistence on a helmet would be absurd.

People here who oppose mandatory helmet laws get pretty tired of being told they are stupid by those who have never bothered to consider the evidence, and who frequently seem incapable of understanding that evidence when it is presented. If you want to discuss the issue, discuss it. If you want to be the subject of a shoal of complaints to the mods, carry on making unfunny "jokes" about the mental incapacity of other posters.

shawmutt

I have my internet arguing helmet on right now! Uh oh...wife is up, gotta switch to my chore helmet...

I'm a man of many helmets...

rando

yes, precisely! I am still surprised that when helmet believers are challenged in their (unfounded) beliefs that a helmet will save their lives and they MUST wear one, they get angry. and that's where the insults start flying. there must be some kind of psychological name for this phenomenon... I mean they really react as if someone attacked their religion or insulted a family member.

chasm54

People's attachment to their beliefs is very strong, and their inability to process information that conflicts with those beliefs is well-documented. You might be interested to read Margaret Heffernan's Wilful Blindness - why we ignore the obvious at our peril. It is full of examples of people reacting to information not by changing their views, but by reinterpreting the data to make it appear consistent with those views, no matter how convoluted that reinterpretation has to be.

I think my favourite of her stories relates to a millenarian cult who had decided the world was going to end on a given day. They sold all their stuff and gathered together on the day to await the end of the world. When the world didn't end, they did not decide they had been mistaken, they decided that God had been so impressed by their display of faith that he had changed his mind!

rando

Interesting! I will look for that book, thanks!

mikeybikes

I'm so disappointed that SlimRider's posts are gone. At least they have been quoted by others for prosperity.

buzzman

Ummm, actually I think this guy:

Has much more in common with this guy:

Maybe you don't see the similarities. But this is what I meant when I said:

I still hold to my personal experience over anything posted by anyone who engages in the most pathetic form of internet dialogue- one that allows for such uncivil discourse due to the anonymity afforded by telecommunications.

I'm not quite sure what the "agenda" is in these "Helmet Threads". Is it our collective intention to provide information that might be useful to someone trying to make an informed decision? Or is it just to shove a particular point of view down someone's throat?

I-Like-To-Bike

That IS, without a doubt the purpose, point and/or agenda of the True Believers and Helmet Proselytizers. They provide a similar negative bicycling advocacy message as the Vehicular Cycling Evangelizers.

Unfortunately the moderators choose to inflict their negative (for bicycling advocacy) alleged "safety" waves, no matter how ignorant or belligerent, on the A&S list rather than Foo or Trollheim where it rightly belongs.

closetbiker

I would say the agenda is to provide information to make an informed decision, in order to avoid another person shoving their particular point of view down your own throat.

I can see however, that if one is only interested in his own experiences and not interested in learning about helmets beyond their own ideas, coming here can be a waste of time

RazrSkutr

Ah, the injured innocence of a man who has the choice to wear or not wear a helmet and yet cannot resist sneering and snarking at the rest of us who disagree with him in his forays into what he already knows is an unpleasant, emotionally-charged topic:

Rollseyes indeed. And you're still here. Still taking the piss and apparently unable to learn much -- that's your perogative, and indeed you may not even be able to do anything about it -- but, again, what's it to you? You have the choice to wear a helmet or not. It's obvious that no amount of logic, evidence and reason will affect your Faith. It's also obvious that no one else cares whether you do or not. So, why in $BADPLACE do you care about the topic?


Well, according to the moderator it is apparently to provide a propaganda opportunity for helmet compulsionists. A tactic that has apparently backfired and will continue to do so as those of you arguing that there is any clear evidence that helmets are useful in preventing serious brain and head injuries are by-and-large unable to make the point.

John C. Ratliff

I voted that "I didn't wear a helmet, but I do now." The reason: I've been biking long enough that helmets were not available when I first started biking (1950s).

John

sudo bike

Yeah, and if I was going to be shot I would probably want a bullet-proof vest too, but that doesn't mean I'll walk around with one on the off-chance I get shot. See how this logic doesn't follow?

(Also, none of this means diddly about the ability of a helmet to save lives or prevent serious injuries. No one here is claiming helmets don't mitigate minor injuries and potentially save you from some painful injuries/gashes; only that they don't save lives and prevent serious, debilitating injuries, especially to the extent which is widely believed).

chipcom 

How old are you again?

rydabent

I see that this new thread has been pounced on by the usual hand full of anti helment trolls. They seem totally unable to let people decide if they want to wear a helmet or not. They need to give it a rest.

chasm54

Just to point out the extemely obvious, I have yet to see anyone posting here suggest that people should not be allowed to wear helmets if they want to. Making a free and properly informed choice is what this is about for those of us who are sceptical about helmets. The arguments for compulsion tend to come from the other side. But please, don't let the facts get in the way of your propaganda...

rando

once again, he misses the point completely.

closetbiker

Here's another issue the helmet-optional crowd have to contend with; being called anti-helmet, when we're anything but.

Just because a helmet doesn't rank as high in priority to one as another, doesn't make that person as being against helmets. Far from it. In fact, many simply want people to know what helmets are good for, and what they aren't good for.

A similar silly analogy would be someone who prefers respect of choice calling someone who believes a helmet should be worn as being anti-bicycle (because of the inherent implication that cycling leads to injury more often than not cycling)

It seems holding a position that is different from another leads <a name that shall not be typed> to allege another is something he/she most certainly isn't.