[QUOTE=oxfordd30;14315241]If people don't see me they just aren't looking which would describe most drivers. I trust myself because I am attentive when riding but I don't trust others. I use it without giving it a second thought.

QUOTE]

I'm glad you said that. Most drivers aren't looking, their driving by feel, and a lot of cyclists ride like that too. And whether I'm riding my bicycle or driving a car I don't trust those around me either, but I do trust myself. On rare occasions things will happen that are way beyond your control, but most of the time you can avoid 99% of all accidents that wouldn't even be your fault if your stay alert. When I was in High School in Ohio back in the 70's I took drivers ed, and the teacher taught the students something called the Smith System of Driving (I think that's the name of it), but when I learned that it became second nature whether I'm driving or riding the bike.

Except that helmets apparently are fine for low impact falls which are associated with low speeds, and vice versa. Yes, counter-intuitive, I know.

hagen

Are you embarrassed by the type of people that promote MHLs?? It is very relevalent to this thread.

I'm embarrassed that cyclists exaggerate the dangers they face and exaggerate the effectiveness of a few ounces of foam

Rydabent you seem to be part of the right-wing "clik" that blames all of societies ills on the pesky "liburls". If we could just get rid of 'em, life as we know it would be blissful perfection.

Wasn't it a conservative Australian gov't which passed national MHL...?

I'm embarassed when the bare-head brigade fails again and again to acknowledge basic human nature when we naturally turn to a 'magic pill' solution...

If one wishes to fight MHL, the mindset of one's opponents is of course of interest, but putting labels on people won't help anybody in that context. And as others have noticed, MHL isn't a "liberal" specialty.

I guess it's sort of a catch-22: The slower the speed, the more effective the helmet, the less you need it. Which doesn't make sense until you realize they were more intended for children, who are a little more likely to plink over when tottering along at low speeds...

so dothose who are anti helmet for whatever reason at least recomend that children wear them?

everyone who is "anti helmet" please raise your hand. oh that's right, tonight is the big anti helmet rally & they're probably still doing dangerous helmet-less activities, just spite us. to answer your question I overheard one of them yell," and the children must suffer". bastard.

I was a sking a serious question.

My kids have (mostly) used helmets when under the age of 12-13. The smaller they are, the greater the need, I think. But it all depends on the context. The more likely they are to be distracted, and the less space they have to wobble a bit, the higher the risk that they'll fall. And toddlers being transported in a child seat are at the mercy of how their parent's bike may fall, so I think it's a good idea for them to wear a helmet, too. But again, depends on circumstances, and where the risk of any kind of accident is rather minimal, I can't see why the poor kids should be over-protected.

But yes, small children ride slowly, and may thus benefit from a helmet.

Young children riding, those learning to ride, riding in ice and snow, riding on a technical mountain bike trail etc, riding in a road race in close proximity to other riders. These situations all raise the possibility of a fall (and even bike-bike pileups in the case of road racing) so for these I would recommend a helmet along with whatever other protection may be necessary. When I first ventured out in the snow on a bike, I did wear a helmet, because I believed the risk of falling off was sufficient. For normal commuting etc on a good road surface, however, I don't believe there is enough of a risk of simply falling from the bike to justify wearing a helmet.

Wouldn't that often be with a more solid helmet than for...

...where the helmets mostly used seem to be of very little benefit - given the speed, what we know of helmets, and the statistics of fatalities in the TdF, Gd'I etc.?

No, typically not: they are made to the same standards (in the US). There is one difference: MTB helmets often have a visor. (There is a difference for downhill MTB riding, but there are other differences there too).

Actually there are two or three XC-oriented full face options these days.

MET Parachute, for instance:

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/I...Full/45391.jpg

They are not "typical". Most mountain bikers (recreational) aren't using these. And it appears that the head part isn't different.

I think typical BMX riders/skateboarders seem to have the right idea when it comes to helmets- decent head coverage and a smooth outer surface, minimising the chance of the helmet catching on something.

BMX races are sprint (short) events and skateboarding appears to be a low-effort activity. A helmet with poor air flow isn't as much as a problem.

Downhill skateboarding takes little effort, most other skating endeavors take a moderate to great amount of effort. Many serious downhill skateboarders wear full face MC helmets and full leathers.

For BMX racing they can indeed run beefier helmets because of race duration as after a 2 minute race they can remove their helmet for the half hour wait 'til their next heat.

For BMX freestyle, park riding and DJ a beefier helmet is a good idea because your chances of crashing are much better than those from JRA. Similar for skateboard stunt riding. For summer pusher racing (approx 5-15 mile crosstown races over flat or undulating terrain) you do see some skaters opting for bicycle style helmets for better cooling.

I would likely have my kids wear them, especially as they are still learning to ride. The older they get, and the more solid their riding skills, it slowly becomes unnecessary (note: I don't think it is strictly "necessary" in the first place, as in a kid must have them to ride, lest they be in grave danger. But I think kids have the most chance, and probably will, stand to benefit from their use).

I would note, as I have in the past, I even wear them if I suspect my chances of falling are high: First rain coming out of the dry season (oil slick roads), pouring rain, icy, etc. I have no illusions that it'll save my life, but it may help cut back on some nasty gashes or bumps; if I'm riding in a situation where I think that may actually be a useful tool, I'll definitely use it. I just don't think 99% of my riding which consists of commuting, riding to the grocery store, post office, etc, has even an outside chance of standing to benefit from helmet use, so I forgo it for convenience.

TL;DR: yes, in most cases.

Firstly, riding a skateboard isn't what I would call a low-effort activity. Like a bike, it is what you make it... you can mosey along at a walking pace, or you can bomb down the street.

Secondly, I think the important point here (for me) is it establishes that people are willing to sacrifice safety (better helmets) for convenience (uber-vented helmets). If we've already established that, all we're really haggling on is the price. For some people the choice may be no lid at all, for others it may be a vented helmet, while others may want the more complete protection of few-vents, like a skate-style helmet.

But it definitely doesn't put anyone who is using a typical vented bicycle helmet to be in a holier-than-thou position to mock those who choose not to don one at all as "organ donors" or people tempting fate, as they too have sacrificed their safety to an extent. That's the point I try to make when I talk about body armor: We all choose to take some amount of risk every day for the sake of convenience or enjoyment; even riding the bike itself is a (small, in most cases) risk. Forgoing helmets have shown to probably not be that big of a risk, so it's silly to get worked up over. You don't need one to ride reasonably safely. If you, or anyone else, chooses to wear one, I don't care; it's the attitude that everyone else should too that I find misguided and illogical. Statistically, when a MHL passes and the number of helmet wearers rise, the number of injuries doesn't change significantly. That's enough for me to deduce helmets aren't all that important. If someone chooses to wear one because it holds no "downside" for them, that's fine; I choose not to wear a lid just as I choose not to wear body armor because I don't think the minimal protection it extends will outweigh the inconvenience of using it.

??? What "most other skating <skate boarding> endeavors" are you talking about?

This pretty-much supports what I said.

???

How are they "bombing down the street"?

I'm not saying it does not require skill but it typically doesn't require long, sustained application of heat-producing muscle action. It seems that how much power you can apply while skate boarding is limited by biomechanics (it seems you can't move your legs fast enough in repetition to build up a lot of heat).

This was "established" long ago. It's kind of obvious and basic (there is always a trade-off in everything).

Freestyle
Street
Park
Pool
Ramp
Pusher racing



Except the last sentence. Skateboarding is not a low energy workout. Skating a mile is harder than cycling a mile but easier than running a mile.

Mostly you shred for a while then take a break for a while, however, much like BMX.