Actually, it's just a Rorschach test writ large. Pro-helmet folks see it as proof that helmets save lives. Pro-choice folks see it as a helmet failure in a situation where helmet failure is inevitable.

And then there are guys like me, who still believe that ability and intelligence are far more valuable than equipment. I mean, I'm glad the guy didn't get killed, but I'm amazed that a cyclist would cruise blithely through an intersection without even looking at oncoming traffic. And the helmeteers call me a Darwin candidate?

At any rate, I personally don't doubt that helmets save lives. But I think it's nearly impossible to use individual incidents to show anything useful. As I've written before, in the pre-helmet days people would land on their heads and then get up and think "Hope that never happens again." Now people land on their heads and immediately report in to BF to tell everyone how their lives were saved by their helmets. And, on occasion, cyclists still die from head injuries, regardless of what they have on their heads.

So the basic question, as always, is "If helmets save lives, why don't you wear one?" And the basic answer, as always, is "For the same reasons you don't wear one in the car, or the shower, or on foot, or..."

Oh, and re. TdF speed: a few years ago I crunched the numbers all the way back to the start of the derailleur period, and it turns out that increases in average speed have been remarkably linear. They've been averaging 0.7 MPH faster each decade, all the way back through the 1940s.

I personally don't have an airtight theory as to why deaths have gone up, but I strongly doubt that it's because they're going 1.4 miles per hour faster now than they did in 1992.

No.

If "The point most non-helmet people have is that they've chosen not to use one when they ride in low risk situations", we would not have this debate. Neither would we have it if the helmet propagandists would care to read the relevant statistics.

Looks to me that either you haven't understood very much of the debate in this thread, or you have simply jumped to the end of it without at least trying to understand what the arguments are about.

That's rather poor debating style, IMO.

It's likely you to be so highly blithely unpolitely and unkindly, which was precisely my concise divinely wise and timely point was, but alas to that end I must say good nighty.

No one's saying helmets don't provide some protection. The argument lies in just how much protection they can provide. In my humble opinion, I find most people think they're suitable for conditions that are far beyond what they're capable of, probably as a result of the fearmongering needed to promote helmets. Most people aren't afraid of a fall similar to one that they may have when they trip, but they are afraid of collisions with cars, so they wear them for that, even if those collisions are not what helmets are made for.

Funny, that's what I thought when I read your post.

There are tens of thousands of accumulated anecdotes in the form of population statistics that support the hypothesis that helmets make essentially no difference (apart from convincing morons to believe that they're "protected" when they wear one and diminishing cycling rates).

Helmets are a prominent display of ignorance, fear and incompetence.

You mean, like http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post14444675?

:innocent:

Wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet does not display ignorance, it's simply a choice a rider makes to provide whatever protection to his head that a helmet might provide. If you don't care to wear one, don't. There is no need to go calling those that choose to wear one morons, ignorant, fearful or incompetent unless you're just trying to inflate your ego.

My ignorant self should have know better than to post in A&S. Since I'm feeling courageous, I think I'll go ride. I just hope while doing so my incompetence does not come though making my helmet a statistic for this debate rather than a moronic display as you suggest.

Have a nice day. :)

rx rider

Yeah sure you are doing 50 to 60 mph all the time. Your statement falls into the same group as----It tastes just as good as fresh perked!!!!!!

Have a good ride (and try to avoid being hit by a car) :)

I'm just about to go for one too (but without a lid, because it wouldn't do much good in the unlikely event of being hit by a MV)

IF he sometimes ride that fast, THEN the noise is a problem.

That wasn't so hard to grasp, was it?

do you need a geography lesson? Colorado has mountains. mountains are big, steep things with roads on them. when you ride a road bike on these roads it's very easy to exceed speed limits, both personal and legal. a helmet would do little to nothing to protect you at these speeds.
the 50 mile loop I ride has over 26,000 feet of climbing and I have yet to see a bent, they must all be at the coffee shop, admiring each other's helmets.

Yes. Like marshmallows. Or one of those baseball hats with a shark built into it.

Easy for you to say. Now, I'd like you to peddle your tolerant ass out to Nova Scotia, where I'm going to be cycling, and have you explain this to the cops there, that have the power to confiscate my bicycle if I indulge myself in the luxury you so graciously extend to me.

Oh, now, ... you! I didn't say that wearing a helmet proves that you're a moron! I said that morons believe they're protected by them. It's entirely possible that all the people wearing helmets (frequently incorrectly) have an accurate idea of the amount of protection they afford... not morons at all.

It's just an observation. All you guys posting about helmets seem to fall of regularly, be very afraid of traffic and not to have read any of the necessary background material, hence: incompetent, fearful and ignorant. Not insults, just descriptions.

You have a lovely day now. I hope you didn't get upset. I mean what are the chances of that on this subject? Hope you don't fall off.

Ahhh, this statement is quite enlightening. If I lived in the tundra and were forced to wear a helmet, I'd probably be bitter also. My condolences.

When the law was passed to prevent deaths by automobile on the strength of a single study that examined injuries from simple falls (eg - no collisions with automobiles), a lot of people were (and are still) bitter.

On the other hand, these laws provide motivation to research the issue, leading to more resistance and positions against them. Sadly though, great damage is done. Not only are these laws very hard to rescind, popular opinion is such that most think cycling is a dangerous thing to do, and helmets help in collisions with motor vehicles.

:innocent:[/QUOTE]

You're not just whistling Dixie are you?

This comment is unspeakably ignorant and harmful.

I'm being more civil with you than you deserve; so if that's what you mean, then yes.

Harmful to the pro-helmet side of the argument, maybe. I know if I was a helmeteer I'd be pretty unhappy having this guy on my team.

rx rider

The last time I was in Colo comming down one of the passes on my bent I was doing 73 for a short time.

By the way I was wearing my helmet and was not paying any attention to wind noise.

then why are you calling me a liar? just don't have anything else better to do these days? search wind noise and helmets, I'm not the only one that's bothered by it, but then I have good hearing.

lol. Thanks for proving my point. If you don't understand what is wrong with the analogy of smoking vs not wearing a helmet, I'm not sure what else to say. One has a proven extreme risk in engaging in it. The other is riding a bike without a helmet. :p

So I hope you can see why now it is inflammatory. It completely invalidates any of the reasoned argument that was presented about why wearing a helmet may not be necessary, because it implies that the only decision one who values his head can make is to wear a helmet. On the contrary, I don't care if you choose to wear a helmet, but I value my noggin' enough to use my noggin' in making choices. ;)

Really not sure why you're having a hard time with this. Should be pretty obvious.

This is worthy of repeating. Gotta love Social Darwinists; the folks that brought us eugenics! :p

I think the reason IS obvious, given the lameness of the bogus "arguments" presented by some of the the ardent helmet proselytizers here and elsewhere on BF. Politeness and BF rules limit the degree to which a logic-impaired spade can be called a logic-impaired spade.