Originally Posted by
Hippiebrian
Evidently you really don't care about the real reasons people decide to not wear helmets and are more interested in promoting your closed-minded religious promotion of them no matter what. Sad, really...I thought these forrums were for intelligent debate, but I guess I was wrong.
Evidentally you think that it is better to be distracted with a styrofoam hat on than to pay attention to traffic. I hope you thought that opinion out thouroughly...
The REAL reason you hate helmets has NOTHING todo with your ears, but what is between them. Paying attention to traffic will only get you so far, that is why i think some people here just got lucky enough to never get sense knocked into them.
Originally Posted by
chasm54
But if you are talking about a reduction in head injury it Is you that is being dishonest, because more helmets have not resulted in fewer injuries.
As to your earlier point, many years ago I did crash into a van, at speed, making contact with the van with my head and putting a considerable dent in the vehicle. Had I been wearing a helmet I may have been convinced that the helmet saved my life. Fortunately, I wasn't. I was fine.
Does this prove that helmets are useless? Of course not. Do all the "my helmet saved my life" anecdotes prove they are useful? Of course not. The facts are that mandating the use of helmets has tended to reduce the numbers of people cycling, without reducing the already low incidence of injury to those that remain. That is inconvenient, to say the least, for those of you who insist that helmets are necessary.
Helmets reduce head injury. You've taken some correlation study and implied causation - FAIL!
Originally Posted by
closetbiker
Are your intended consequences to get people hurt? BEcause that seems like what you're doing trying to white-wash helmets as no good(even CAUSING injury)! IT is well known your links belong mostly to the anti-helmet brigade and it's well known one can prove what they want by referencing "sites" and links on the internet. The truth however is that helmets DO prevent head injury... i suggest you stop wasting time.
Originally Posted by
Six jours
Frankly, I still have you pegged as very young. It's the most charitable way to excuse the stuff you post here.
At any rate, no, I'm not a pro. I'm a fat, bitter ex-pro. I also made a living coaching national and world class track racers, one of whom is a two-time world pursuit champion. And I've ridden a bicycle almost daily for more than thirty years. So I've done my share of crashing, and I've seen my share too, both in the pre helmet and post helmet eras.
As a result, I know for an absolute fact that riding a bicycle is simply not that dangerous, or at least doesn't have to be. You can make it dangerous by entering a cat. 4 criterium, or a downhill mountain bike race. You can also make it dangerous by being incompetent, which is a very common choice these days, and, I suspect, the reason so many cling to helmets as a necessity. But a competent cyclist, riding well within his limits, is simply not exposing himself to significant danger. That you apparently can't stop falling off your bicycle and landing on your head doesn't mean that everyone else is similarly handicapped.
Oh, thank you for excusing my behaviour. I like how you freely admit cycling can be dangerous and cite a "Cat 4" crit... well take a look around you on the road, that is right nobody is Cat anything... cat 5 plus even!
If i'm too young then you must be an some relic from the early 1900s who thinks new fangled styyroofoam helmets and seatbelts are for wimps... do i have that right? Why don't you stop trying to insult me. Riding within your limits is where a LOT of accidents occur, do you fail to understand what the term "Accident" means? It means you don't know it's going to happen! Smart people do something to mitigate that risk, like ooo say, wear a helmet.
