Depends. IIRC, In California, it is specifically mentioned lights are only required after dusk. Pretty sure, but could be wrong.

That said, if it is a night ride, or if the state doesn't specify that, you could have a point. Never thought about it.

Same here, but the route and start time mean they will be riding after dusk.

Regardless of helmet use, yes?

You mean the first fourteen words that begin with "We suggest..."?

That's what they say, but it's not true. Insurance policies require reasonable safety precautions, but the ride organizers are the people who translate that into mandatory helmets.

No kidding. I'm still waiting for proof positive that the "insurance requires it" helmet requirement excuse is legit. Or that there are citable lawsuits regarding helmet use where a shop or group was sued for not requiring helmets...

No, you said the publicist was "whack" for stating that it was a good thing he was wearing a helmet even though he died. That's not the case. I've copied your original quote here so you can recollect what you wrote.

So hard to revise history on the interwebz...

...until you came along...

Are there instances where a ride organizer has been sued for not requiring helmets?

if this is a get together ride I fail to see who would insure it or even the need to. to think that these days that anyone would expect a shop or group to provide coverage for an activity grown adults willingly decided to take part in, or expect an organizer to be responsible for anything that happens on the ride. as for organized events, don't the riders sign a waiver? IDK. not that they mean much. at least waivers remind us we live in a dangerous place.

I came upon a night group (rec) ride last summer, instead of zipping past, I mingled and worked my way up. by the time I was in front, three people had told me I needed to wear a helmet if I wanted to ride with them. riding 12mph, 20 person blob formation, on a dark US hwy., yep I need a helmet alright but insurance?
I blame people's love of enforcing rules as the reason group's are forced to wear helmets. that and "common sense" needs to be upheld and respected at all times if we're to remain a civilized nation. common sense is the un-written rule, which acts like a law when people are looking.

six

What is sad that my post hits so close to home that the anti helmet cult is too embarrassed to talk about it. In fact the hairy chested anti helmet cult is very little different than gang members in big cities. They both feed off other members, and are seeking reinforcement with their flawed culture.

Yes, of course. No self-respecting researcher would use words that implied that what they had found was proven, like a mathematical theorem can be proven. "It appears"... "the data suggests"... "would lead to the probability that"... Is the routine vocabulary of research papers.

'bent, you need to put down the pipe.

Not really. Helmet laws are pretty easy to enforce, thus an easy target to enforce. Safety requirements on the other hand are much more complex and often need to come from grass roots efforts vs laws, otherwise if its a law that turns into licensing/registration issues to verify compliance which would be more detrimental than helmet laws to begin with.

some states don't even require drives ed anymore.. any parent can signoff on their childs driving and get them a license. We don't teach motorists the rules of the road, i'm not sure making cyclists the brunt of education would change anything at all.. just as the anti-helmet people seem to cite cases where cars didn't give cyclists as much room while wearing a helmet as a reason to not wear a helmet.. so bass ackwards to me that we agree to dillute our safety equipment needs in lieu of teaching drivers to be more considerate of cyclists. Helmets in most cases don't do much to protect against cars on a deathwish for you, however they do a fine job for inevible accidents of cycling.. be it tree limbs and not estimating how tall you are to tumping over because you couldn't unclick or group riding and someone wiping out and crossing wheels in front of you.

oh well.. i just find it amazing we punish ourselves so much on the debate of helmet and safety training for cycling yet we avoid at all costs actually making those creating the hazards more aware of the risks of driving.. and yes, we have some dumb cyclists who need a little edumacation, i'm all for that.

Alcohol be it the auto driver or the biker accounts for 34% of cyclist deaths on the road with 1/5th of all cyclists killed in 2010 being drunk, 72% of the fatalities being urban and NOT at intersections. almost every safety course i've seen teach rules of the road and how to handle situations which stastically are low on causes of death to begin with.. but i am a suburbanite so i don't get to see what urban cycling advocy groups teach directly.

and yes, i'm completely biased and very much for safer conditions in general.. bike paths, overpasses/underpasses for major roads (especially on routes to schools and community parks / pools / playgrounds).. i would much rather fund those in lieu of funding helmet laws for the sake of passing a helmet law too but i don't see helmet laws being the reason cycling declined for a while to begin with.

Exactly. The blind leading the blind. It's frightening that my sister will be teaching my nephew how to drive. She is an uber aggressive, SUV driving, suburban soccer mom.

She calls me "grandpa" because I drive the speed limit. :rolleyes:

Thanks you for copying the original quote so we can see what I said which was, "To not be able to see a helmet hasn't helped, even when someone dies, is pretty whacked."

I didn't say, the publicist was "whack" for stating that it was a good thing he was wearing a helmet even though he died.

The publicist assummed what many helmeteers do, that a helmet has provoded protection in cases where it can't. That isn't good news, that's "whacked"

This whacked out logic is presently on display in London, where a driver (arrested for suspicion of dangerous driving cusing death) of an Olympic bus ran over a cyclist, killing him, has high profile British cyclists endorsing and encouraging helmet use for impacts with motor vehicles.

Helmets are made for simple falls, not collisions with motor vehicles. That's just whack if you think that's what they're for.

There was a short discussion on BBC radio today about the 'Wiggins effect' causing more people to cycle and how not to get killed on a bike. Only one commenter that I heard seemed to have his head screwed on, talking about prioritising motorist education, cyclist training etc. The others were all parroting the usual 'you wouldn't drive without wearing a seatbelt, make cyclists wear helmets, I fell off/my helmet broke and so I would have died without it' nonsense. And there was me thinking the irrationality was mostly confined to the other side of the pond...

Irrationality is a human trait, so it's present everywhere however, in matters regarding cycling, it seems the irrationality is in greater abundance where cycling is less within the "norms" of society.

Bikebiz has coverage on the death showing the rational approach outweighing the irrational reactions

http://www.bikebiz.com/index.php/new...-debate/013440

Irrationality is a human trait, so it's present everywhere however, in matters regarding cycling, it seems the irrationality is in greater abundance where cycling is less within the "norms" of society.

Bikebiz has coverage on the death that shows the rational outweighs the irrational

http://www.bikebiz.com/index.php/new...-debate/013440

... another news outlet chimes in with crap saying cycling is dangerous and helmets are what's going to protect a rider in collision with traffic

http://news.sky.com/story/967839/cyc...incident-named

That was an attempt at a low blow - failed.

You see, conversation stops when people refuse to listen to sober reasoning based on sound statistics, and stobbornly stick to anecdotal evidence and greul propaganda.

The facts are out there. They have been linked to again and again, to no effect. If you wish, I can take you through them. If not, you should realize that YOU are the one who's being smartass.

Given that helmets probably are helpfull in some cases, and that they don't have any statistically significant beneficial effect, I think the logical answer is: equally as many as helmets save.

Ever heard of "ad hominem"?

If not, look it up.

Exactly.

tried a new way to biff tonight, I rode a wheelie right into the ground. kind of funny really, once I got off the ground with a skinned elbow/knee, bruised thigh and ribs that will be talking to me for a week or so . . .the imaginary helmet still without a scuff. I wonder if some folks like to fall on their head where as I really enjoy beating the rib cage. I did grow up with a trampoline and I credit that for keeping the head off the ground during a fall (at least the funny ones). now if I can just find styrofoam ribguards I'll live forever!

the best part was some teenage boy asked me if I was okay, so today's youth ain't as bad as reported by old farts.