This is the problem with trying to guess people's intentions; you can usually come up with more than one logical conclusion.

I don't know if you are asking me or if this is rhetorical, but since we all like to blather on apparently, I'll assume the latter .

If you are asking me, then yes, I think so. My argument has always been simply that the protection they provide is much less than the general public may think (including cyclists), and that I personally feel that most adults doing general purpose riding probably stand to gain relatively little-to-nothing. And I do think it is a bit logically inconsistent to wear one for riding but not jogging or running. But ultimately, it can be useful in some situations (as I've noted before, I wear one during slippery conditions (especially the first rain in dry Fresno, when all the oil in the road surfaces)) knowing that it probably won't save my life, but might save me a few stitches in a situation where I'm much more likely to go down.

My real concern though is simply educating about what they can and can't do; past that, I don't really care all that much if someone thinks they need one, whether or not they do in reality. Who am I to judge? As long as they don't try to nag me for wearing one, I'm OK with it (I'm even OK with people mentioning it... I realize they are concerned for my safety. But once I've said "no thanks" they need to lay off )

Interesting article in the Globe and Mail this morning. It pegs Ontarios helmet usage rate at 31%, which places the stat of 26% of cyclists wearing helmets dying in a different perspective.

I think this (missing) information discredits the Coroners recommendation


https://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/na...service=mobile

I was gonna say the same thing, glad I held back now. You know there is a special offender list out there for people like you

the point I was making was the zero speed fall. that's what I was talking about when someone decided to once again paint the world in the widest black and white strokes possible and hijack my intent. I'm not suggesting "straight arming" (not what I said) a high speed fall. I'm saying if an adult falls over at zero miles an hour and doesn't put an arm or a leg out to minimize the impact with the ground I will laugh my ass off, as I did with the chap I saw do this. AND if people think a zero speed fall is why a helmet is needed then they need to pick up golf because cycling is not for them. AGAIN ZERO SPEED FALL EVERYONE, the same speed we stand at.

If I know I'm going down at 0 mph I still try to tuck my arm in and roll over onto my back.

YMMV. Do what you want, wear what you want.

Renata D'Aliesio's article lacks any sources for the most important factual claims in it:

1. It cites some old geezer who fell off a bicycle and split his helmet and claims that his life was thus saved.
2. It claims that helmets save lives:
I thought the article was biased and, more importantly, lacked any citations for the more important assertions that she shoe-horned in there among the fear-mongering. The Globe and Mail can do much better and the sub-editor needs to go back to journalism school.

Hmm. If the helmet wearing rate is higher in the general population than in the dead group, doesn't that mean that wearing a helmet lowers the risk? Might not be significant, and you'd have to adjust for sex and age...

Of course the article states that it is the geezer who fell, and proponents of helmets who are making such claims, and then goes on to say that what they claim, research has shown not to be necessarily true.

Of particular note is the name of an author quoted, one Mr. Ryan Zarychanski, who last I read was quoted in an article in which he was advocating mandatory helmet laws all across the country saying, It's atrocious that in 2010, every province does not have some sort of helmet legislation... Clearly, helmet legislation works and clearly it reduces serious head injuries and facial lacerations."

Now he's saying, “There is uncertainty whether [wearing helmets], combined with everything else, makes a large difference. Does that mean legislation doesn’t work? I don’t know. It means it’s complicated.”

If the helmet wearing group has a much higher rate of fatality than the non-helmet wearing group, doesn't that mean those wearing helmets were running the greater risk?

Not necessarily, because it is more the conditions of the incident that caused the death that is the more reliable indicator, but people who want to believe in the helmet credit survival to the helmet, even if the helmet had nothing to do with the survival.

Proponents of helmets also like to point to simple things like, more people die without helmets, to convince others. A key element in conveying this belief is to restrict information like wearing rates that show the information to be not as it is. In other words, they use poor arguments, wrapped in deception, just like some BF members do on this thread to justify their mocking of those who choose to go without a lid.

I agree that helmets are not really relevant when fatal incidents occur. And if you are investigating the behavioural effects helmets may or may not have, you have to look at all injuries and not restrict to fatalities.

If the general helmet wearing rate was say 99% or 1%, then you could draw some conclusions. But in this case it's likely too close to be significant. For instance most fatalities were male, and the wearing rate is lower for males too.

The conclusion that the Cornoer comes to (because 3 times the amount of cyclists die without helmets, helmet use should be mandatory) is as rational as if he had said that males should not be allowed to ride bicycles because males make up 86% of fatalities on bicycles.

Big Dummie syndrome...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNoo9ZekHbs I saw this yesterday morning while watching a commercial for a lawyer. It sure got my attention. I always wear a helmet.

Yeah, because paying acttention to where you're riding doesn't matter at all...

If you make life decisions based on things you see while watching lawyer commercials, go for it. Don't be shocked when not everyone follows suit.

While my riding platform pretty much precludes an endo, I'm wearing one to set an example for the kids and to keep the wife happy.

Majority of people who wear helmets, do so out of the mistaken impression that a helmet will provide some modicum of safety, such safety effects attributed to helmets in very outsize and outlandish proportion to what they are actually good for.

Still, the perception is that if you are wearing a helmet, you are a safe rider (in locations where this might be the case...). A helmet certainly won't keep you from riding safely, right?

So why not wear one? If helmet use is the primary factor in indicating to other, less informed riders and the general public that you are a safe rider, why not wear one simply to indicate that you are among those who ride safely? That you identify as a proficient rider to those who don't know The Savage Truth About Helmets and Those Who Use Them?

Haha, I laughed my helmet off when I saw that.

very good. this is correct.

Because I just don't give a **** about what the public thinks about me - especially those members of the public who are so mud-dumb stupid that they automatically think "Organ donor! Darwin candidate! I'm going to yell stuff at him!" when they see an unhelmeted cyclist.

My pipe-dream, WRT public perception of helmet use, is to return folks to a time where people let people decide what is best for themselves. Me putting on a helmet to placate the above-mentioned mud-dumb stupid crowd does not further that goal.

Unbelievable! Ignoramuses who would use their helmets as "indicating" and "identifying" signals to their comrades in ignorance.

Since I too ride recumbents the chances of head injury is quite low, especially on my trike. Accident do happen tho and I am prepared. Also as another poster wrote, it is a good example for kids.

Yes, I'm sure kids have a great appreciation for an oldster riding a recumbent tricycle and will strive to emulate that example.

Vancouver is currently hosting Velo City 2012, and as you may guess, along with bike lanes, and bike share, our helmet law is a hot topic.

In this mornings paper is an article featuring a Dutch economist, educator and cycling advocate Hans Voerknecht who is not a fan of helmets.

https://www.theprovince.com/news/News...#ixzz1z6PW4S9o

In a related side bar story, there's a story that says, "Statistics show helmets help save cyclist lives: coroners service"

Read more: https://www.theprovince.com/news/Stat...#ixzz1z6Q7sTZw

of course these are laughable statics, and "prove" nothing of the sort, they just perpetuate the poor argments people use to justify the "importance" of wearing a helmet

Why would you care? I can't believe the degree of hatred you have for some one who thinks differently then you do. Talk about being ignorant.