mconlonx

It's not so much the arguments -- they speak for themselves -- it's how to present them when, where, and to whom it matters.

The "why" aspect of shooting down helmet laws is well documented in this thread; the "how to" is severly lacking as to be laughable.

closetbiker

helmet laws are about politics, and politics has to do with pandering to public opinion.

If people think cycling is dangerous and helmets are the cure, there'll be helmet laws. Cyclists calling other cyclists morons and airheads for not wearing helmets displays this line of thought, even within the cycling community.

mconlonx

Translation: "I won't stoop so low as to pander to public opinion, I refuse to engage in politics, but I'll stamp my feet with impotent rage when MHLs pass."

You're still ranting, rather than providing instruction for direct action...

closetbiker

.... And you're just babbling on, making no difference at all...

Six jours

Disingenuous, in the context of safety equipment. Also kind of nitpicky, as though you're really just looking for something to disagree with.

But I'll indulge the point: training and preparedness are indeed absent from the great majority of cyclists I see. And "experience" appears to be essentially meaningless, judging by the completely clueless cyclists right here on this website, some of whom have been that way for decades. "LCIs", BTW, are some of the least competent cyclists I have ever come across. If that's your idea of a trained, prepared, and experienced cyclist, then you and I are are never going to see eye to eye on the subject.

rydabent

No doubt about it that helmet laws are promoted by pandering politicians. They want to prove they "care"!!! When in fact they know squat about the subject. It just sound good to them!!!

rekmeyata

Yet it was the pandering politicians who gave us the seat belt laws. They know squat about the subject, it just sounded good to them. Damn them politicians, now I HAVE to wear a seat belt.

mconlonx

Then in this thread we're probably at just about the same level. Except I actually provided some practical advice for fighting MHLs...

mconlonx

Disingenuous?!? Maybe like saying anyone wearing a helmet has no skills and little experience, that such a rider is relying solely on the magic protective qualities of their styrofoam hat? I don't have to look too far to find stuff to disagree with, let alone nitpick.

I'd say that training, preparedness, and experience as far as it concerns safety is as much lacking in those who don't wear helmets as those who do. OK, so even LCIs -- instructors trained in safety training -- don't meet your level of street riding competence. What are your qualifications for someone competent enough to safely ride a bike...?

njkayaker

Helmets don't preclude training.

And, at least from what you are saying, there isn't any place to get training. Thus, people's argument that "training is better" is very moot.

Rx Rider

. . .very moot? not very much more moot?

Six jours

You've gone from disingenuity to just plain making stuff up. I never said any of that.

Agreed.

I've written about how to improve cycling competence repeatedly in this thread.

Six jours

Do you and mconlox share the manual on "strawmen in debating" or did you come up with it independently?

"Training" can take place anywhere the cyclist has a bit of open pavement without motor traffic. Maybe you and mconlox can see who will be the first to scroll back a couple of pages to find one of the multiple posts I've made on the topic.

rydabent

Well gee------I guess the anti helmet cult isnt very convincing. This is the 4th thread and it is up to 106 pages and Im still wearing my helmet.

rekmeyata

Me too.

wphamilton

Idunno, for me two commutes last week and two trips to the LBS today without helmet, and the rest of the time with a helmet. Obviously I'm not convinced either way by this thread.

I do think it's important to ride without one, or with one, every once in awhile so we can make an informed rational decision instead of a dogmatic one.

skye

Relying on anecdotal evidence, such as you are suggesting, is a poor way to make health decisions. It is far better to draw your conclusions from reasoned analysis of the available research.

Rx Rider

-1

wphamilton

LOL, I was just following along with the two guys to whom I responded. Who, if you'll just read two posts back, declared the "anti-helmet cult" efforts a failure because they remained helmeted.

Where is your sense of irony? Destroyed by dogmatic certainty?

rekmeyata

Did you crash and hit your head the times you went with and without your helmet? Of course not, so how is riding a bike without a crash impacting the head going to resolve the debate?

wphamilton

Ah I see now - you are referring to my advise as anecdotal, not the fact of the helmet-less rides themselves. I will elaborate then.

In general, there are many more factors to consider in making an informed, rational decision than whether or not you hit your head on a particular ride. Let's not reprise them here since surely they've been mentioned in all of these pages. The point about having the ability to make a rational, informed decision comes from another direction entirely. In short, when we do something in a particular way, and do it often, it becomes habitual. A habit performed frequently and without exception, becomes so ingrained that not only do we perform that action without thought, but we will experience psychological discomfort if the habit is denied. That's just the way the human brain is wired. It's routine, a constant, and when it's missing something feels wrong.

I submit that actions performed in routine habit are the antithesis of thoughtful, rational decisions. I further submit that the conditioning implied by the routine habit active impedes the formulation of rational informed decisions. There is little or no probability of harm on a given single ride, even the most vehemently opposed to me will recognize that if he's being honest. Therefore, in order to be rational one must first mitigate the emotional and psychological barriers to logical thought, and second gather through observation and experience the data necessary for him to exercise his judgment. Riding without a helmet is a simple enough way to do this.

skye

I have managed to retain both irony and an untarnished sense of superiority.

I did, however, utterly misread your comment.

rekmeyata

Huh?

wphamilton

All is well with the world then

hotbike

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/...er-report.html

Sorry, I'm not allowed to copy the entire article, you have to click on the link and go to CBC News, and read it there.

Okay, one flaw I see is that the Ontario Coroner says ALL the deaths would have been preventable, if they had been wearing helmets, but the article also states that ".... 27 per cent — or 35 out of 129 — of the cyclists killed were wearing helmets..."
So some of them were wearing helmets, but that didn't save them?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/...er-report.html