Originally Posted by
rando
Wow, another one bites the dust! how many helmet thread closures does this make now?
For this thread, that makes 4. Only 2 of those were due to heated exchanges. The first closure was simply because the length of the thread was causing it to load too slowly.
Of course there have been many other threads involving helmet discussion that have been shut down.
Originally Posted by
RazrSkutr
Given that the previous title "Helmets Cramp My Style: Spring Airheads" was composed by a Helmet Compulsionist and directed as an insult at (especially) women who chose to ride helmetless it is dishonest of you to lead into the new thread with the above quote without mentioning this background.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you have the original title in reverse, it was "Spring Airheads... Helmets Cramp My Stye".
It was a condescending swipe at at a group of cyclists that perhaps need helmets the least and a nod to the "wisdom" of another group who wear helmets more often, but are injured more frequently. (Perhaps a classic case of risk compensation?)
The thread was started in April, 2005 by Jeff Williams when he posted a bit of provocation,
I see more ladies than men...[look] like they might not even OWN a helmet.
The ladies however are often young, on cruisers or classics, doing the 'hair show'.
Most KIDS are smarter than some adult cyclists.
It was nice to see so many riders today though. ....even the dumb ones.
Jeff realized he made a mistake, and a couple of pages in he went back and edited the OP by removing some offensive stuff including calling the girls, spring airheads. The mods later removed spring airheads from the title.
Of course the problem in Jeffs post is that that he is equating wearing a helmet with being safe. A helmet should be seen as being a means to an end, and not the end itself.
Irony lies in the fact that women in general are injured far less often than men or children, so to denigrate the safer cyclist due to a lack of head gear misses the point and places helmet use out of priority.
This idea is addressed in one of my favorite pages on cycling safety,
http://bicyclesafe.com/
It's first paragraph tackles Jeffs post head on
This page shows you real ways you can get hit and real ways to avoid them. This is a far cry from normal bicycle safety guides, which usually tell you little more than to wear your helmet and to follow the law. But consider this for a moment: Wearing a helmet will do absolutely nothing to prevent you from getting hit by a car. Sure, helmets might help you if you get hit, but your #1 goal should be to avoid getting hit in the first place. Plenty of cyclists are killed by cars even though they were wearing helmets. Ironically, if they had ridden without helmets, yet followed the advice on this page, they might still be alive today. Don't fall for the myth that wearing a helmet is the first and last word in biking safety. In truth, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It's better to not get hit. That's what real bicycle safety is about.
in that paragraph he links his helmet page that describes the issue in more detail
What's wrong with bicycle helmets?
Focusing on helmets distracts people from what's more likely to actually save their lives: Learning how to ride safely. It's not that I'm against helmets, I'm against all the attention placed on helmets at the expense of safe riding skills. Helmets are not the most important aspect of bike safety. Not by a long shot.
and really, why would anyone have a problem seeing someone on a bike look like this?
