ZmanKC

So by your logic, helmet wearers are limp-wristed, nancy-boys?

See how silly stereotypes fail?

JeffOYB

I see there's a poll at the top of this thread. Anyone know the demographics of the brackets? 50% wear, 15% don't, 20% sometimes.

Do you really think the 15% who don't are RACERS? (Wannabe or of any ilk.) I'd suspect that helmet-wearing in fast group rides, for instance, is over 99%. I suspect your chracterization is totally wrong. But I don't know who the "anti's" would be. I don't know any anti's and I know a wide range of riders. This thread might attract them, thus the 15%.

Whups, I'm messing up as well: the 15% are by no means "anti" helmet. Those who don't wear may well not care one way or the other, might even be in favor of helmets sometimes.

Anyone know how many real anti's there are? Heck, I don't even think that the militant no-helmet motorcycle riders are anti-helmet -- they're just not for them, I suspect. (Some might be against racing, but I suspect most aren't and would agreee that racers should wear helmets.) The counterpart of the anti-helmet person would be the "there oughta be a law." Now, this group could also be measured. I suspect it's much larger than the actual anti- group.

In short, I'd say the non-wear is likely a "suit yourself" type who isn't against helmets but who IS against helmet laws.

As I've posted, I'm a sometimes and my own non-helmet occasions have to do with heat, weight or casualness/apparel, speed, kind of bike. If I'm going to a nearby picnic on my 3speed on a blazing hot day I might wear a broad-brimmed hat instead. If I'm doing a Tweed Ride I'll skip the lid. I don't think all helmets look bad they're just not always right for the occasion. To me, helmets go with all racing and race-like group riding, esp w/ strangers.

Lastly, I think your other gross mischaracterization is that those who don't wear helmets aren't interested in safety. I'm very interested and am safe and skilled.

JeffOYB

Hey, has anyone done an analysis of helmet wearing and car driving? For lowspeed car crashes I'd think a light helmet would give protection. I don't know what a heavy helmet does for race car drivers -- probably quite a lot -- so let's go big and consider heavy helmets. I'd like to see an indication of the possible lives and injuries prevented if car drivers wore optimized helmets. But, heck, if even one child was saved, wouldn't a law requiring them be worth it?

I-Like-To-Bike

What makes you think Mr. Rydabent uses any form of logic before posting his screeds?

JeffOYB

Well, it does seem like the helmet-law folks might often have a skewed view of the folks out there who don't wear helmets or sometimes don't. I mean, they often feel free to yell at them, so something is going on. Adults don't usually feel free to "parent" other adults. (I'm still looking for good retorts to those who yell at me when I'm sans lid.)

Links appreciated for analysis of who doesn't wear and why. Unless it's all too obvious. I'm only peripherally interested and am outta the data loop.

Certainly, though, racers and those who ride like them (in fast groups, pacelines) wear helmets nearly always.

MMACH 5

If you are looking for people who support helmet laws, I think you've come to the wrong place. If someone in your town was so socially warped that they thought it was okay to lecture a stranger on the street, that certainly doesn't mean everyone who wears a helmet, or even promotes cyclists should wear helmets, thinks MHLs are the way to go.

rydabent

zman

No, if other cyclist like me wear helmets, I would call them logical realist. We do not assume we are so good that we will never be drawn into an emergency that sees us go down. We are taking simple modest steps to maybe limit injury. We are smart enought to value what is in our heads.

ZmanKC

What on earth does this have to do with what you said or my reply?

Six jours

It's Tuesday. You're late. And posting it twice doesn't get you off the hook.

rekmeyata

I think it gets him off the hook, because it's already been proven that it takes a lot more then 2 posts for the bare headed hairy chested unhelmeted Neanderthals to make us hopeful that some day they'll sort of get it.

elcruxio

You do realize that after ridiculing yourself like this all your earlier posts are going to lose all value?
Being impolite and calling people names is not going to forward the discussion.

rydabent

zmanI guess I will just leave that for you to ponder. Be safer, wear a helmet!!

rekmeyata

really? Sort of like others do but they use passive aggressiveness, I'm just more in your face about it.

elcruxio

Interesting difference.
Basically while being passive agressive one can retain some semblance to being civilized. That's how many intelligent individuals vent their frustration (anecdotal).
Calling names and being in general, an idiot, makes you look like a dork. And people are going to remember that and further on are not going to give credit to anything you might have to say.
For example rydabent has the opposing stance from mine and that's fair. But because of his bad behavior earlier on I don't even read his posts anymore.
Then in the case of mconlonx I also have differing views with his opinions, but I read his messages with great care, because he is well mannered and also makes great arguments.

that's all folks

rekmeyata

I'm a dork on a boat floating like a duck waiting to become pork for a Cuda.

th th th th th that's all folks!

sudo bike

Well, that's sort of what I said. I've been very careful to always say "may" worsen rotational injury because I just don't think there is enough evidence to support that claim yet, which is why I think it is tangent to the discussion. As I said, overall, I don't think many people are really claiming that helmets will worsen injury overall, there's just disagreement over how effective they are. The only reason it is brought up is as a counter to the claim that they "may" mitigate brain damage. There seems to be wide consensus they mitigate some injury... just how serious is a point of contention.

I think you missed the real moral of the story.



I think it would be very off-base to assume the same, except for, as you note, the skate-style ones. What most people use have much lighter plastic shells and an ass-ton of vents. I think even that pro-helmet site a lot of people refer to on here notes that these might contribute to injury. I definitely think the thicker-shelled and lightly-vented skate helmets really mitigate what problems may exist.

But of course, most people don't wear those because they are more uncomfortable. Which just goes to show that sacrificing some safety for comfort is actually pretty normal.

Agreed 100%... as I said, it isn't just the nature of the beast that helmets don't work, it's that current popular designs are just crappy. Combine that with the thinking "a helmet is a helmet", and there you have it.

The only point to argue after helmet effectiveness is whether they are "needed", which is another wildly subjective sticking point.

sudo bike

Yes. Because it was wrong, and I didn't see you acknowledge that, but try to argue it wasn't.

OK, there's two problems with this... notice that Figure 1 has three back and forth points... Figure 2 has only two. This is important. In figure one, the first person presented a claim, and when a counter point was given, he redefined in order to present an unassailable argument; he dodged criticism instead of addressing it. In figure 2, you haven't gone far enough... there needs to be a third response. Now, if that response was "But there's no real reason not to have a dog", that would be shifting by A... but by definition you'd need to have at least 3 points for a redefinition to even be possible. All B has done is present a counter point that may not be factually correct... that isn't shifting. That's just not having your facts straight.

The second problem is, what we're talking about isn't a debatable point. Are you arguing someone feeling more hot or uncomfortable is debatable? Are you arguing that it being a pain in the butt is debatable? Neither of those two points are debatable because they are personal, subjective reasons that differ from person to person, which is why it's silly to suggest there is no reason not to wear a helmet... those reasons may not apply to you, but they can still apply to others. Again, all one can argue is that those reasons aren't "good enough", which is also a really subjective thing.

The reason I replied to it is because what you used to point that out didn't actually back you up. Which is why, I think 3 people, immediately noticed and mentioned it. That's the danger of throwing a bunch of **** against the wall to see what sticks... any points that actually make it out end up covered in ****.

But this is way off-topic...

proileri

There was moral in the story? I guess he was breaking two laws - light vehicle DUI and riding without a helmet, both are against the law around here, but of course not too strictly enforced. But hey, at least he wasn't driving a car. I think the real moral of the story was - invest 20 bucks in a cheapo helmet, save $30-40 or whatever it is that the public hospital charges for a bunch of stitches on your brow, plus save yourself a concussion. I didn't realize to ask if riding helmetless saved him from rotational injury, though

I think it's been well shown that helmets reduce both general head injuries and brain injuries, roughly at the same rate. Latest is the 2013 New South Wales one. If there is a chance a helmet may worsen rotational injuries, it's buried deep under the positive effects. That's why I'm not sure why people keep bringing such things up.

elcruxio

A small anecdotal example.
A friend of mine was riding a bicycle while drunk. He fell and lost all of his front teeth.
Is the moral of the story that you should wear a fullface helmet to prevent these kinds of injuries or perhaps...
To not ride drunk and reduce probability of crashes?

The problem I see with your point proileri is, that wearing a helmet could have saved a few stiches yes, but the whole accident could have been prevented had the cyclist not ridden drunk.
And this is where the goodie bit lies. Adding to general cycling safety is what is going to reduce deaths and head injuries far more effectively than just helmet use.
What we need for that is driver awareness and positive attitude towards cyclists (middle europe)
Proper cycling infrastructure (middle europe)
Toting helmet use is taking focus out of the real issue which is general safety. Helmet is not safety, it's injury reduction.

Proileri, you and I both live in Finland so you might have noticed that whenever there is a news story about a cyclist getting run over, the media never fails to mention if the cyclist was not wearing a helmet. Sometimes the story is actually depicted as such, that the cyclist was somehow at fault _because_ he or she was not wearing a helmet. This gives the impression that it is the cyclists responsibility to maintain his own safety by wearing a helmet and other road users needn't bother.
I'm exaggerating a bit of course to bring out a point and things are much better than they were a few years ago, but the reality of the situation is, that every road user is responsible not only for their own but other road users safety as well. A helmet is not going to change that and bringing a helmet to the discussion as a responsibility feature will take away from a cyclists safety rights.

I wear a skate style helmet when riding the road bike or the mtb in the summer. (bringing up the helmet use to prove, that I am in fact not against helmet use or users, but I try to heavily advocate other more important safety features and I feel that a helmet use campaign or MHL or even mentioning that "cycling may be dangerous, wear a helmet" is going to take away from cycling safety in general. Check out Australia)
I never wear a helmet when riding my "drunk bike" (which I very rarely ride drunk these days but the name sticks nontheless) which has one gear and a coaster brake, no front brake and has a max speed of 10km/h.

MMACH 5

sudo bike,
"Dogs are dangerous" is a just as subjective and personal as "my head is hot." They are personal opinions or feelings. I stated that by your standards, if you disagree with either of those statements, you have shifted the goalpost. And that is precisely why I didn't add in a third response. I did explain that. My point was that neither was factual in content so they are both debatable and thus neither is the same as your "No true Scotsman" comparison.

And as for three people noticing my post, they noticed me flinging a large number of the inane arguments I see on this thread at the wall. And then they chimed in to defend those inane arguments. Good luck finding an argument in this thread that isn't inane, on either side. The whole thread centers around people arguing their personal opinions and rarely stays on topic. "Way off-topic" is the way this thread rolls.

proileri

Actually, I've always thought it was more nanny-kind of attitude by the media, "we told you to wear a helmet, look what happens" kind of deal. I've been more bothered about the trend to write accident articles in the form "cyclist hit a car", which might feel like putting the blame on the lighter vehicle. Same thing happens with motorcycle accident news.

I think Finland at the moment is experiencing a shift between two bike cultures: the traditional "everyman's vehicle" view, where a bicycle is widely seen as an affordable form of transportation, and more big city "eco-friendly yuppie" culture where geared-up cyclists ride expensive bikes and form their own "elite group" who choose not to drive cars. It's interesting to compare the accident articles from small town/rural newspapers where the average cyclist is someone's grandma, and the larger city newspapers where cyclists are sometimes seen as a more arrogant group of road users.

sudo bike

Erm...

I guess I'll be sure to wear a helmet when I'm riding drunk, since stats bear out that's one of the few times I'm likely to crash. Well, that and if you happen to be a young child. As a sober adult, meh.


Protecting from brain damage is contentious, with some studies showing they may worsen rotational injury. The only reason it is trotted out is as a counter to the equally dubious claims of protection from brain damage; it is an example of conflicting evidence, and adds to the lack of consensus.

sudo bike

Good God, man.

No... disagreeing with a statement is not shifting the goalposts. These are not my standards... this is simply what the fallacy consists of. Go check yourself. This is so infuriatingly simple, I'm not sure if you're trolling, can't admit a simple mistake that could've been sorted out 2 page ago with a simple "my bad", or seriously don't get it.. I'll try and emphasize it once more: the whole point of the fallacy is the person who set the goals then moves them when someone answers. A response isn't really capable of shifting goalposts because they didn't set the goalposts in the first place! It would be like Charlie Brown pulling the football out from under himself. It's just nonsense.

Imagine person A setting up goalposts, person B kicking a ball at it, then person A moving the posts so they can't make it in. What you are describing is. not. that. It can't be. What you are describing is the kicker missing the goal all on his own. There can't have been any shifting because the fallacy requires the person who set the goal to move the posts, avoiding critique. A person answering the argument isn't capable of moving the goalposts. It's either just a factually incorrect response or, at most, a red herring (bringing up a subject not related or asked in order to score points). Capiche?

(This is the first damn line of the No True Scotsman Wikipedia page (please go read it):
No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.)

I don't think they were defending the inane arguments, or at least I wasn't. Criticizing your response as being simply wrong isn't defending the arguments you quoted.

MMACH 5

You must be right. "My head is hot" is the exact same thing as "The murderer is a Scotsman."

You've obviously misunderstood what you quoted from my post.

1. Person A makes a statement. "No reason to not own a dog." "No reason to not wear a helmet." or "No Scotsman would murder."
2. Person B makes a counter argument. "Dogs are dangerous" "My head is hot." or "The murderer is a Scotsman."
3. Person A disagrees with that statement thus rejecting it (stating it as invalid). And in one of the examples, moving the goalpost.

By your standard all three of the statements in step 2 have the same factual basis and are indisputable. Thus, disagreeing with them (which would happen in step 3) would be shifting the goalpost. And that is where we disagree.
I get that the person moving the goalposts is the person making the initial argument.

(edit: removed "good" from step 1)

proileri

Usually you're less likely to break bones while falling under influence, as you are more relaxed and your reflexes are too slow to reach out to put your hands and wrists in danger. Apparently this is not too protective in case of head injuries, though.. although I don't have much statistics here

I understand the point of possible more serious rotational injuries, but it seems to be a moot point when discussing helmets and prevention of serious damage. I don't think there's much doubt that helmets prevent brain damage - we've had multiple studies, both with motorcyclists and with bicyclists, that have shown that when a crash is serious enough to require a visit to the ER, those patients wearing a helmet have had less serious injuries both to the head in general, and to the brain specifically. I haven't found a single study that would show that there's equal or larger number of serious brain trauma with the group using helmets. Hence I would classify it as an uneducated excuse for not wearing a helmet.