Originally Posted by
buzzman
What exactly are you imagining people are going to do with the helmet on than without it?And why does this make any difference to you at all? Unless it drastically changes the way people ride, and I doubt very much it does, what business is that of yours?
It isn't my business what people choose - I'm simply trying to provide sources of information so that people can make their own choice, and forwarding my situation and what choices I've made and why.
I see people do stupid things on their bikes all the time. They do stupid things with helmets on and without helmets on. I definitely observe non-helmeted riders do outrageously stupid things- no light ninjas, salmon riders, sidewalk riders in busy areas. Are you honestly telling me that you observe helmeted riders doing stupid things at a noticeably greater rate?
Not necessarily. Look, as someone who has participated in a number of activities where knowing your equipment is terribly important, I know it's a very dangerous thing to be misinformed about the capabilities of your equipment. As a fencer, when you are dealing with pieces of forged steel being thrust at you, and likewise to others, you need to know what the equipment is able to handle and what it can't, and what to do when it fails. It would be terribly dangerous to fence thinking a mask will stop the steel all or almost all of the time (they do, in reality) when they only stop incidental face hits (which was so in the past). Can you see how this would greatly affect how you fence? Obviously, if both fencers know the limitation (which used to really exist and this was a real scenario), you make a concerted effort not to put your face in danger or the opponent's, because the mask is only meant to stop incidental hits some of the time. If you think it will stop full on face shots, it can lead to tragedy, since they have fenced more aggressively under the impression the mask will protect them 99.99% of the time (which is the case today). If tomorrow masks became ineffective and nobody knew about it, it could lead to some pretty tragic cases.
This is a slightly extreme example, but it's one I'm quite familiar with and I think it demonstrates the importance of knowing your equipment's ability in a way most people can readily understand.
How hard can you thrust before the sword breaks? What do you do if it does? How much safety equipment do you need to wear, and what is it capable of stopping? These are all very important things to know.
Ask any rock climber, or really anyone who relies on safety equipment. You need to know the limitations of your equipment in order to properly assess when to use it, and what your actions will be. I'm not sure why this seems such a controversial idea?
If cycling is such a relatively safe activity do you think bicyclists will die at a higher rate because they wear helmets and believe it will save their lives in circumstances in which it may not? In the 1970's, when most riders were riding without helmets, cycling deaths were over 1000/year in the US. Now I'm not saying it's because of helmets but cyclist deaths are now about 650/year. If the introduction of helmets were going to cause more cyclists to take risks that would lead to death or serious injury wouldn't we see that in the statistics?
Not necessarily, as we've seen a
lot of changes aside from just helmet use.
Please don't tell me you ascribe to this "risk aversion" theory. I mean if you guys are supposedly into the "data" and the "studies" and the "statistics" please show me the vetted, peer reviewed study of bicyclists with helmets and bicyclists without helmets and the difference in their behavior in terms of risks taken. Until you can demonstrate some hard facts to support this "theory" as it specifically relates to bike riders I really can't buy this argument.
How can you not buy it, at least to a point? Take the extreme; if people could wear an amulet that they know would stop all harm from coming to them, do you think they might be more reckless? Or worse, that others might be more reckless around them? Do you think the consequence of dying doesn't effect people's risk assessment? Come on, this isn't revolutionary thought here... the consequence of dying greatly affects people's decision making (it's one reason I've decided against being a base-jumper
), and something that makes them think they are reducing that risk while not actually doing so (or at least doing so to a far less degree than they thought) can pervert their decision horribly.
It should be obvious why people ascribing more ability to a piece of safety equipment than it really has is a dangerous thing. Anybody who relies on such equipment can tell you why. If you're counting on it to do something it doesn't, you don't see how this can be a bad thing and bad things happening as a result? You don't think it's important people should at least know of these limitations?
This is where I'll hold my personal experience against a lot of what I see written in these threads. I cycled many years and many miles without a bike helmet. I can recall descending an incredibly steep hill in Pennsylvania with my nose two inches above my front wheel in order to see if I could hit 60 mph or descending the Blue Ridge Parkway in a snowstorm-these are just two of thousands of ridiculous risks I took at at time when I absolutely refused to put on a helmet.
Again, it is not an end-all-be-all thing. People can be stupid with or without a helmet, and donning one does not instantly make a person more unsafe or an idiot. But surely you must be able to see why overestimating the ability of a piece of safety equipment is a bad idea?
You say you used to wear a bike helmet and now you don't. You obviously survived your risky, wild helmet wearing days- do you ride more safely now because you don't wear a helmet? Or do you ride more safely now because you are a more experienced rider? What kinds of risks did you take as a helmeted rider that you don't take now?
In short, I don't know. I'm probably a bit more conservative, somewhat out of experience and somewhat out of the shock of finding out how little a helmet really does and how vulnerable we still are with or without it (something I foolishly hadn't really given much thought to). As I said, I do still wear one sometimes (bad weather), with the knowledge that it may help me mitigate nasty gashes or other painful injuries that I have a higher chance of incurring.