Originally Posted by
dirtyhippy
In this argument you make no qualifications between injuries that are statistically inevitable and injuries that would be prevented by wearing helmets... does it make sense to wear a helmet or not?"
Statistically, it's inevitable that head injuries are going to occur and wearing a helmet can reduce some of the effects of some of the head injuries that can result, so the question is not so much does it make sense to wear a helmet while cycling, but why do some insist to wear a helmet while cycling when it hasn't been shown that cycling has elevated risk for head injuries?
Originally Posted by
dirtyhippy
why don't we try and summarize the arguments for and against wearing helmets
because I don't think that there are many here that are against using a helmet.
I think there are quite a few who think helmet promoters want people to wear helmets but I think those who are skeptical about the need for and effectiveness of helmets wouldn't want people to remove their helmets as much as they'd prefer to just see more people ride their bikes and if they wanted them to be safe, they prefer they'd ride in a safer manner rather than concentrate on helmet use.
Originally Posted by
dirtyhippy
p.s. - I don't wear a helmet while biking.
I wore one for 21 years. 9 years before it was required by my province's MHL and 12 years during the MHL. I removed my helmet last year and am now an outlaw. I'm risking fines and confiscation of my bicycle if a police officer so chooses to charge me. So far in spite of many interactions with police while helmetless, I haven't been charged. Police are turning a blind eye to cyclists without helmets and one even
wrote a column about being swayed by the arguments against the MHL and asks if it is time to reconsider this legislation. I write a regional
newspaper column that deals exclusively with cycling issues and if I get a ticket for riding without a lid I'll use that ticket to bring awareness to the public on the issue.