Newt Reno

But the real question is whether I should use WD40 to lubricate my helmet, or use a helmet specific brand?

I wear a helmet for snowboarding and inline skating but not for cross country skiing.........used to be a volly firefighter/EMT and seen a few caved in skulls; some of them might have been preventable if she had worn her shoulder belt before rolling, if he hadn't been thrown through the back window when he went into the river, etc. I never thought too much of the people that I was cleaning up, except silently giving them respect and wondering who was waiting for them.

Wearing my helmet might look a little goofy, but I wear it because of the possibility of moments that are out of my control.

elcruxio

Yeaaahh... I actually would not wear a helmet in a park...

Or did you mean with a bicycle? Because the risk for head injury is about the same... But I guess you are one of the few people who wear a helmet while you are in the park regardless whether you have a bike with you or not. Now that is commitment.

You just pulled that strawman thing out of your backside didn't you? I have not noticed such strawmen in this thread. I'll adress it nonetheless.
If it does not prevent death there is no reason for helmet fanatics to require it for everybody. Or at least not any more than requiring knee pads for everyone. If it does there would be reason for it to be worn, IF cycling was inherently dangerous. It isn't though. And even though helmets do help with minor injuries they don't seem to be very effective against high velocity impacts and offer no protection against rotational injuries (which cause the most serious brain injuries).

And umm... The sick need is more on the side of the people who yell at you on the street that you should put a helmet on. Or the people who blame a cyclist in an accident if he/she didn't have a helmet on.

SmallFront

That not many Dutch people wear helmets does not equal zero helmet wearers. And you'll find that a lot of people in Denmark wear helmets, and that the majority of kids wear one.
But you're missing the point: My point is that the helmet wearers in the US seem to be mostly the high-risk cyclists, whereas in the Netherlands and, where there is a lot more helmet wearers: Denmark, the type of rider wearing a helmet is not solely people engaging in high-risk cycling (mountain biking etc.).


You seem to have the misperception that everyone in Denmark (and the Netherlands) only drive uprights and solely a few, easy strolling kilometers on an empty bicycle lane.


That will obviously vary according to state and country. Nothing like sweeping generalisations and strawmanning to make a dumb point. If you look at that video of the motorcyclist hitting the two cyclists, where the aft cyclist gets hit the most and slams his head wearing a helmet down on the asphalt, there is NOT any "catastrophic mass trauma", unless you count road rash and a few bruises as such. Yet, if he hadn't worn a helmet he would either have had a serious head injury if not died from it.

I am personally not worried about going through a windscreen. I am worried about hitting my head on some of the metal, or even worse: On some of the trusses surrounding the windshield and at the aft end of the bonnet.

As for riding in a city with many, many people riding bicycles, there is a lot of hard stuff you can hit your head on, besides the asphalt. Metal signs, trash cans, bicycle holders, and other cyclists.

Again with the strawman. I am not saying that the motorcycle accident is how every damn accident happens. I am saying that in that instance, he would have seriously been hurt without a helmet, and that with a car, you will propably not fly over it, but rather hit the back of the head on the car, unless you know some trick to turn around midair and use your arms as bumpers. The point I was making was that the notion that a helmet is useless when getting rear ended, was very wrong. Take a look at what his body and head does, and you will notice that his head would be one of the first thing to hit a car after the bonnet pushes the bike forward.

BobbyG

I DO wear a helmet, AND I'm not the a$$hole cyclist.

I DO wear a helmet...it's a personal choice...AND I have front and rear lights and follow the rules of the road, stopping at red lights, signaling and taking the lane firmly etc.
It annoys me that I see so many other cyclists on my urban commute that faithfully wear their helmets and then proceed to ride so dangerously, going through red lights
and cycling up on the inside of trucks and buses. People seem to equate helmets with personal safety rather than how they ride or whether they have lights at night.

See what I did? I changed two words and it still sounds sanctimonious. Mark my words: "It's not reasoning that will mute your anti-helmet argument, it's a closed-head injury that will have the last word."

...Ooo, there's that bright, warm sense of self-righteousness I was shooting for! Aahhh...

elcruxio

I'm not getting your point. According to one accident where someone hit his head we should all use helmets? (now that was a strawman! look it up man)

No but on the actually good point where a city is full of hard stuff.
So what? The world is full of hard stuff but we don't use helmets for everything. Why should cycling be an exception? And I mean you are at risk as a pedestrian for getting hit by a bicycle or a car or worse. Or you might just slip and hit your head that way. Same risks for TBA as cycling but none of the helmet fanaticism.

Drunk people should be mandated to use helmets. That would crash the TBA numbers.

jon c. 

If you're concerned with being perceived as the subject line implies, it may have nothing to do with headgear.

I always wonder when I see these uber defensive "I don't wear a helmet" posts if the purported bias against riders without helmets is as real as is suggested. I wear a helmet, as do most of the riders I know. But I don't know a single rider who cares what anyone else wears. As with motorcycles, there are surely pros and cons. I make my choice, you make yours, and I can't see any reason why either of us would be concerned about any choice but our own.

SmallFront

No, you claiming that my point was that because of a single accident we should all wear helmets IS the strawman. You are the one who should look it up, because it doesn't seem like you want to understand my argument, what with all the misrepresentation you do on a continuous basis.

No, we don't. But if I'm walking, I'm much less like to fall hard enough to seriously injure myself when walking in the same area I cycled. It's about proper risk assesment. And although we don't wear a helmet doing just anything, most of us use the seat belt in our cars, and most of us like the fact that there are airbags in cars, and as a pedestrian and cyclists, I am grateful that most newish cars have "pedestrian" crumble zones at the top front of the bonnet.

Why should white water kayaking be an exception? Why should a car be the exception, forcing you to wear a seat belt? Why should you wear a helmet on a motorcycle? Why should you wear a helmet DH'ing? Why wear a lifevest when boating? Why wear a helmet if you're racing on your bicycle? Well, since it seems I need to repeat it: It's about risk mitigation.

Because most people are able to see the real differences between walking and cycling, and the different risks they represent, that's why.

elcruxio

I think that is a difference in perception. I feel I'm much more likely to be rear ended by a bicycle than fall with one myself.

Kayaking is dangerous
Driving a car is dangerous (speeds are multiple times that of cycling)
motorcycling is dangerous (speeds are multiple times that of cycling)
DH is dangerous (see, you're getting it)
Lifevests are useful sometimes. Most times I don't bother
Bicycle racing is risky enough to warrant a helmet, depending on the race of course.
But utility cycling or day to day cycling in general, is not dangerous. At least not the type I do, and not the type my friends do, or the type people in my city do. It is exactly about risk mitigation and for something that is not risky one does not require a helmet. One needs to assess one's own riding behaviour and decide if a helmet is warranted.
I usually don't use a helmet in town. But sometimes I do since sometimes I want to race cars and just ride like a maniac. But that goes to the side of hobbying.


And this I suppose is exactly the reason why the intelligent and civilized majority of european cyclists don't wear a helmet while doing their groceries or when they are riding in the park for a picnic.
I personally don't see that big of a difference between riding slowly in town and walking around in town, or gods forbid, running!

lostarchitect 

Let's vote. Who here cares if OP wears a helmet or not?

I vote no.

SmallFront

You are presenting a false dichotomy. Falling by oneself is not what makes the risk of cycling greater than walking. Ever heard of faulty risk assesment?


Well, that depends on which type of kayaking you do, just like theres a difference in risk between walking and various types of cycling.

Hmm, yet some people still refuse to wear seat belts. But in any case, a car has much better protection than a bicycle at the same speed. It needs to, since it travels at higher speed. In any case, the point is that it has safety to match. The most important to protect for most cyclists is their heads. For DHing, maybe their spine too.


And yet, some people still argue that wearing a helmet on a motorcycle is more dangerous than not wearing one.

I have gotten it all along: Quite a lot of things are more dangerous than walking. It's funny how you can't seem to get that.

Well, most fishermen don't bother either, thinking their experience will save them. Yet they drown quite often.

You are now backing down from the argument that cycling is as safe as walking, and asked why we didn't argue for wearing a helmet while walking. You see, there is a spread to risk, and obviously, some cycling is more dangerous than others. I put the risk if you have an accident while cycling in a city on just about par with cycle racing. At least when racing, you don't have to content with a lot of other traffick and hard stuff in all directions.

Day to day driving isn't dangerous either. Yet we still wear our seat belts. However, both are more dangerous than walking which was your previous argument.


If only every accident was solely our own fault, and all other trafficants were behaving exactly as they should.

You don't have to "ride like a maniac" to get rear-ended or sideswiped, or pushed into something hard and tall at the side of where you are riding.



And you base this on some Dutch numbers and extrapolate that to all of Europe

Your loss.

daihard 

I just envy those of you who live in the area with no mandatory helmet law. You do have a choice there.

SmallFront

Hmm, edited after the one below, it seems when I edit, a new post is created instead.

SmallFront

Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. I refreshed the browser, and there it was again.

elcruxio

If it's not the risk of falling or having an accident then what is it? Seems pretty straightforward to me


We were talking about white water. Don't go shifting the goalposts now.


Some people some people blah blah. What does that have to do with anything? Seatbelts save lives and that has actually been shown statistically. People don't die in city speeds anymore due to seatbelts since they have a variety of useful things going for them. For example they allow for the airbags to work properly. You get some of the use without one in a head on collision but they are much more useful with a seatbelt. These devices are required since city speeds are often in the range of 40-60km/h which can be fatal if no safety devices are used. Bicycles rarely travel over 30km/h and the average dutch cycling speed was 15km/h. Comparing cars and bicycles doesn't really make sense since they are completely different in terms of speed, equipment, protection incidence rate.

I don't know where you pull this stuff but where I live, motorcycling helmets and their use is a given. I have never encountered resistance and most motorcyclists wear body armor even though that is not mandated.
Motorcycle helmets work somewhat effectively (but even they cannot help in the biggest of bangs naturally) because of their substantial protective layers, shock absorbtion, full face design etc.
And we are again in the situation that motorcycle speeds are significantly greated than cycling speeds. More protection is warranted.


I don't seem to follow. I thought we agreed that many things are more dangerous than walking. Utility cycling not being one of them but many other things yes.


I don't know about that. But considering fishermen actually go to sea and I stay near the coast I think I'm covered.


You are assuming stuff unfortunately. I'm not backing down in anything.
Everything is risky if you have an accident. Using that argument is just stupid man. It's about the risk of having an accident and the risk involved in the accident. Greated speeds, more difficult riding conditions create greater risk for an accident whereas greater speeds create a bigger risk for injury. We need to consider racing (a crit for example) and the average joe going to a nearby shop to buy some milk.
Crit speeds can be near 50km/h where you are riding into curves on the edge grip and of clipping a pedal in a tight formation of other riders all doing the same thing. One mistake by one rider can put you down. That creates a propability for an accident where protective equipment is warranted. The speed then creates a greater risk for injury since the energy is greater in the actual accident.
The Joe I mentioned is not in such a great risk since there are only a few risk factors around and those are usually easily observed due to a slow speed. A slower speed also reduces braking distances and gives more reaction time. All of these factors lower the risk of an accident. If we consider Joe rides the average speed of Amsterdam (15km/h) a spill may or may not cause him to hit his head. However at such a low speed the risk of serious TBI is relatively small in the very rare case he does hit his head.
And I mean what? the risk in an accident is the same? It is not. Don't be stupid. 40-50km/h against 15km/h. Do the math!

How is day to day driving not dangerous exactly? Last I checked a lot of people are killed in traffic every year... I consider driving to be dangerous because of the great speeds involved.



You can affect your risk for accident greatly with your own riding and behaviour. And I have noticed that the choice of bike is a big one too. I now consider that a 29er is the safest two wheeled bike available.


This is again something your behaviour and riding can in most instances prevent. In my country sideswiping and not yielding are the most common accident types. In our infrastructure one can pretty much 100% prepare for such instances if one is aware of the danger. Rear endings here are so rare as not to warrant a comment. In the US they are however a big problem and thus I hope never to cycle there ever.



"And this I suppose is exactly the reason why the intelligent and civilized majority of european cyclists don't wear a helmet while doing their groceries or when they are riding in the park for a picnic.[/QUOTE]
Well you know, Italy, scandinavia, netherlands, finland, hungary etc. I've been to most of europe and cycling helmets aren't that common. It would seem that in most countries the majority of cyclists don't use helmets.

SmallFront

There you go again, moving the goal posts. First "cycling" is no more dangerous than walking. Then you admit that some forms of cycling is dangerous, and then, pertaining to the above quote, you make a false dichotomy by saying: "I feel I'm much more likely to be rear ended by a bicycle than fall with one myself."When countered on why that is a false dichotomy, you then scurry to add "or having and accident", and then you make-believe that I said something I didn't.

I can't deal with such intellectual dishonesty, so I'll stop after the next paragraph:

It's funny, how you come to think of moving the goalposts, just after you did just that. I specifically said white water kayaking for wearing a helmet, which you then made into "kayaking is dangerous". I then pointed out that not all kayaking can be considered dangerous enough to wear a helmet, but that white water kayaking was dangerous enough. All this to make you understand that you could not say that "cycling" was as safe as walking, when there are different types of cycling, as there is different types of kayaking.
To make that seem like I am the one moving the goalposts when it is evident you are doing all the moving.

But as I said, I can't deal with such dishonesty. If you have to be that dishonest and disingenuous to defend your position, your position is vapid.

mconlonx

SmallFront

I know I said I'd stop, but after posting, I saw the very last paragraph you posted:


It's funny how it's now merely "the majority" who doesn't use helmets, and the sentence before that, it was "helmets aren't that common". Even if that were true (which is isn't), it's really weird to watch you evolve and move the goalposts - even in the very next sentence, as if it wasn't clear enough, just how disingenuous you were about this.


You probably haven't noticed, but I live in Europe.

mconlonx

Grant, like many, is wrong about this. There was a study done: those who usually wear helmets ride safer without them, those who usually do not wear helmets did not ride more recklessly while wearing them. Inconclusive. But a couple of points: Not that those who usually wear helmets ride dangerously all the time, but take their helmets from them and they tend to ride safer. And those who usually do not wear helmets do not suddenly start riding more dangerously just because they think they have that much more protection from harm.\

PS: in before the move to helmet thread, where this belongs...

yote223

If I had to wear a bike helmet by law, I would prob give up cycling. That is how much I hate mandatory helmet and seat-belt laws. You can TRY to justify helmets a million different ways but the bottom line is that it is MY choice. Period. I don't need someone else "looking out for me". I do just fine on my own. That's why I won't ride in events that require helmets.

JoeyBike

TWO helmet threads!


Image Source

elcruxio

This is getting weird. I needed to check my earlier post just to make sure.
I have time and time again I have pointed out that some forms of cycling such as utility cycling/day to day cycling are not any more dangerous than walking.
I have differentiated between types of cycling and the one time I made a sweeping statement about cycling being safe I also followed it with differentiating different types of cycling and their risk levels.
That is in no way moving goalposts.
Stop inventing stuff I have written or at least quote the whole text with its context. Without it you are just a... Not gonna say a bad word here but I guess people here can assume what you are.


Now this is where you are just getting plain weird. Seriously dude, get a grip.
As I said, I have time and time again differentiated between the types of cycling and when I have mentioned that cycling is as safe as walking I have also pointed out that UTILITY or DAY TO DAY is as safe as walking. I have also pointed out several times that different types of cycling require different safety equipment. I have pointed out that utility or day to day does not require safety equipment. That is not a sweeping statement or a generalization. And even if that has happened (has not in my opinion but if you can scrounge up a quote without context go right ahead) there has always been a clarification about types of cycling.
There is always a clarification about types of cycling in my posts since that is my main idea behind this whole helmet thing.

Then again you did start with a specialization of whitewater kayaking. That gave me reasonable expectation that I could respond with kayaking without generalizing the whole field since the specialization has been thrown in. Furthermore since kayaking was not the main topic I was of the belief one could sweep that aside without all the semantics and point out that "kayaking is dangerous" with the intent that "whitewater kayaking is dangerous" which you started with.

I think you have been a bit lost here. If you have not read my posts properly and have understood my differentiations of cycling disciplines wrongly then that is your problem. My whole and only argument for the duration of this thread has been in a nutshell (and actually before you even came in)
The requirement for helmet use depends on the type of riding.
Had you read my first post in this thread you might have gotten that and all this could have been prevented.

elcruxio

Dude... Seriously.... What. Are. You. Doing?
You take two sentences which are in conjunction, take the context out and try to blame for goalpost shifting.
Ever heard of "building up to". As in use of a precursory sentence to build up for the conclusion. That is what happened. That is the reason why those two sentences are after one other. Jeez you are a piece of work. I need to give actual language lessons with arguing at the side...
I mean, it's your delusion but umm... Get a grip.
Helmet use, safety and obesity
helmet wearing statistics right there. Read them. Look at the braketed percentages. I'll give you a small tidbit. Germany has 2% helmet use rate. Wow. Is that a minority or a majority?
Well, actually that was in 2000, but to be fair those numbers for example in Finland have risen a bit. however even though Finland is one the most helmet wearing nations in Europe the use is still way below 40%. Now again, is that majority or minority? Can one say that helmets are common, or not common?

Phew

SmallFront

Outright lie on your part. Great way to open your post, by introducing not only dishonesty, by outright lies, making sure I won't read more than the first sentence. Which continues here:

In all but the posts where I go back over several posts to show how you move the goal posts, I have quoted your entire posts in my, as I responded to each and every claim of yours. When the dishonesty got a bit too much, I gave up, after showing how you once again was utterly dishonest.

At most, I can "assume" what you think I am, but with all that intellectual dishonesty from your hand so far, that opinion of yours doesn't carry any weight whatsoever.


First you claim that there are next to no one using a helmet. Then it's "not common", and then it's just the majority. I didn't take it out of context whatsoever. I just pounced on what was yet another bit of intellectual dishonesty from your side, being you moving the goal posts.

Yes, I have heard of it. But I use the term "premise", and if your premise is wrong, it doesn't matter what the conclusion is. Each premise is either valid or not. And if you constantly change your premises as you see fit, well, there is the problem, and why I call that intellectual dishonesty.

In effect, you are asking me to ignore your premises, regardless of how much they change, regardless of them being valid or not, and just take your word for it, that your conclusion is based on sound premises.

But I have made the decision to try to ignore you, because everytime I see a post from you in this thread, it is so dishonest that I frankly think I'm wasting my time. And the more you write, the more that is the obvious bit.

1986raleigh

I wear a helmet because my wife cared enough to buy me two one for home and one for work. She cared enough to buy em I care enough to wear them.
I could freaking care less if someone else wears one or not and won't give a furry rodent's behind if some one not wearing one goes tits up from a head injury during a wreck.

elcruxio

Did you just learn the words intellectual and dishonesty? I can tell you have been dying to use them