I-Like-To-Bike

I don't think your position is disingenuous or dishonest. I also do not think it is representative or typical of hysterical helmet proselytizers at A&S or elsewhere. I believe the ghoulish prototype posted by CarinousMalmari is more in line with the mindset of the smug emotional ranters; licking their chops at the thought of alleged Darwin Candidates contributing their organs, salivating at the thought of alleged OrganDonor Candidates being singled out to pay for medical bills incurred in a cycling accident.

MMACH 5

It is more atypical than I realized.

MMACH 5

They also repealed the ordinance that made it illegal to ride with no hands. I had forgotten about that one being on the books. I've been an occasional skofflaw for all these years.

rydabent

wphamilton

How are you going to guarantee that the rider you are talking about will NEVER hit his head on the ground?

rekmeyata

Your first paragraph is completely wrong, all the accident prevention classes in the world won't prevent all accidents, you live in la la land if you believe that.

Second paragraph doesn't make any sense either because it doesn't follow what I was originally was conveying.

Third paragraph same as the first, you're wrong.

Forth paragraph more nonsense.

Fifth paragraph is simply your refusal to see facts because they don't agree with your religion. Dutch? the Dutch are even closely related to American roads and behavior of drivers and cyclists. And it's the same organization father...the US government...that statistically proved that wearing seatbelts saved lives or reduced injury in car accidents and thus were required by law, so you accept the car statistics but not the bicycle one...I see, pick and chose the one you like is your moto.

Thanks for playing, now move along.

rekmeyata

Sure it's yikes, but the law requires car riders to wear seatbelts, and 20 states out of 50 states require all to wear motorcycle helmets, only 2 states have no law to wear a helmet, the rest require helmets for ages 17 to 20 depending on the state. And it's the same thing with motorcycle helmets as with bicycle helmets, motorcycle statistics prove they save lives and reduce the risk of injury. Thus if it is proven statistically that seatbelts save lives and reduce injury and they're required by law then so should motorcycle riders and cyclists be required to wear helmets.

FBinNY 

Score one for the forces of freedom.

Interesting that all the lofty arguments never carried any weight, but the practical reality of wanting a workable bike share program made the difference.

I guess this is one more reason to be a bike share fan.

rydabent

Would I be wrong saying that I suspect the general public would be more in favor of MHLs than cyclist. While they know nothing about cycling, they are swayed by nanny state agitators. These days so many people it seems want a nanny state and are for more gov control.

FBinNY 

Yes, and those nanny state agitators get their info about the danger of riding w/o a helmet from folks like you.

The same way you'll guaranty that the person dissuaded from bicycling by all the fear mongering about head injuries won't die of a heart attack, or that a helmeted rider won't die anyway if/when he suffers that head strike you're so sure is coming.

wphamilton

Why would I want or need to do that?

Are you going the guarantee that the car passenger will never hit his head in the car?

rydabent

FB

Can you guranatee all riders that ride with out a helmet their head will never hit the ground?

Since I ride somewhere between 2 and 3 thousand miles a year, I apparently dont feel that cycling is unsafe.

rekmeyata

Exactly, I drive about 14,000 miles a year in my car and wear my seatbelt yet I don't consider driving to be unsafe, just as I ride about 4,000 miles a year on my bicycle and wear my helmet but I too don't consider cycling to be unsafe. Yet even though I'm a good driver and a good rider safety wise (performance wise is a different story, LOL) and yet I cannot ever guarantee myself, or my passengers who I insist they wear their belts, that I will never ever have an accident thus I wear my seatbelt when driving and my helmet when cycling. If it was just me and only me on the roads while driving or riding then I would probably never wear a seatbelt or a helmet!

prathmann

Finally a statement by you with which I agree. This was brought home to me on a recent bike tour while waiting for a friend to do some shopping at a Target store. I was sitting at a bench outside and a woman came out of the store who wanted to take a cigarette break. She asked me if it was ok if she shared the bench while smoking and we got to talking about a few things - bike touring, political trends, and Colorado's marijuana legalization. She then mentioned that she wished the government would outlaw cigarette smoking since that would finally give her the motivation to quit. Struck me as very odd that someone would want something banned even though they currently do that thing voluntarily, but she seemed quite sincere in her belief that a government ban would get her to quit even though she had made several attempts in the past and always started smoking again.

FBinNY 

And she said this after discussing marijuana, whose ban had been so effective for decades.

rekmeyata

The crazy thing is, as much as it sounded like I was contrary to this, I also agree! Here's the rub. I believe that seatbelts, helmets of any kind, should not be required by law, it should be optional. However, because seatbelts are required by law and motorcycle helmets are required in a lot of states, then you cannot exclude one safety law and include another, thus all have to be included or none at all, you can't have one and not the other, I'm for none at all but that's just me.

FBinNY 

Never is a long time, but since you're so convinced that those head strikes are likely, can you guaranty that the helmet will prevent serious injury?

Nobody can guaranty anything, we play the odds. Helmets move the line, and shift the odds, but don't make it a sure bet. The reality is that many cyclists die and suffer TBIs despite wearing helmets. In any case, for a "coldly logical person" you have a serious flaw in your logic. It's not incumbent on me to offer any guaranties, since I'm not advocating anything. You're the one taking the advocate position " wear a helmet" so any burden is on you.

BUT

Instead of shouting back and forth in a black and white world of helmet or no helmet, we should focus on an honest discussion of just how far they move the line.

I continue to be amazed that after so many posts the helmet forum is still locked into the basic argument of whether cyclists should wear helmets or not, and rarely makes an effort to discuss any of the more nuanced helmet questions. Or do helmet advocates think that all helmets are equal in the protection they afford, and that it really is as simple as wear a helmet and live, don't and die.

Brennan

That's fantastic. Great news.

350htrr

Ha, Ha, marijuana laws being effective... About the only thing it is effective at, is filling up the jails... I would bet I could buy some in any mega city, small city, town, or a town with only 1 stop sign, anywhere in N America... Spewing beer out my nose and Laughing and rolling on the ground...


EDIT; OOoops, It seems my irony detector failed me... Oh well, I did get a good laugh...

rydabent

Doped up pot head driving cars on the streets is just another reason to wear a helmet. On the news from Colo, police have already written approx 300 tickets for driving under the influence of pot.

rekmeyata

Actually a doped up pot head driving a car is safer than a beered up drunk driving a car! You see a drunk driver weaves all over the road and hits whatever and thinks they're not impaired so they take risks and drive faster; a stoned driver doesn't weave all over the road they just can't seem to figure out their speed so they keep changing it and drive a lot slower and they don't take risks. So if I had to accept a choice of a drunk or a stoned driver driving towards me I'd take the stoned driver in a flash.

350htrr

The only reason to wear a helmet is to reduce/mitigate some injury to the head if said head somehow hits the pavement, it doesn't matter really, how it happens, but said head does hit the pavement a certain % of the time out of the general bicycling population, so if you think the risk is high enough that your head hits the pavement then wear one, if you don't think the risk is high enough than don't... But if you really think it can't/won't happen to me then you have just eliminating the last resort said head has in protection, as minimal as that maybe, it's better than nothing... JMO

JoeyBike

Helmets, I don't care. Seat belt laws are going to get me picking up my sword.

Without seat belts, the operator of a vehicle can be removed from behind the wheel very easily just by swerving around an obstacle or other vehicle. Now there is a 2000 lb vehicle LOOSE on the road heading for me with the operator in the passenger seat, rear seat, or out the window. Seriously. Seat belts are not just for protecting the occupants from flying around inside the car during an accident, seat belts help PREVENT horrible accidents by keeping the operator on the driver's seat.

I was driving a full sized 1966 van back in the 70s before seat belt laws. My van didn't even have seat belts. An oncoming vehicle crossed the double yellow (operator asleep at the wheel) and I had JUST enough time to take drastic evasive actions. The violent "S" turn I made tossed me into the back of the van where I rolled around until the van - standard transmission - lugged to a stop and the engine killed...without killing anybody standing around by some miracle.

Say what you want about helmets and wear your freaking seat belt.

Brennan

A lil off topic, but yup.

KIRO tests pot-smoking drivers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6gLrnJxS8c

CarinusMalmari

Like many bicycle helmet advocates, you seem to lack the ability to absorb information that's more complex than a soundbite or a one liner. Even in part you quote I'm saying this:

Now I agree that you can't guarantee that you prevent all accidents from happening, but you can decimate those statistics

So I'm not wrong, it's just that you can't read very well.

You were saying that a cycling helmet is on the do-list. Well, it isn't in many, if not most, societies that do a much better job at providing bicycle safety than America. Most notably Dutch and Danish society. It's only logical to follow the advise of the people who perform best.

I've got two countries that prove on a daily basis that bicycle helmets are of little importance to bicycle safety. And a dozen or so that suggest the same. It's not my opinion, it's a fact.

Oh irony:

rydabent

The bottom line here is that you can go thru life cycling thinking that nothing will ever happen to you, or you can be proactive and take some safety precautions like wearing a helmet. Any injury prevented is a good thing.