Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 14662227)

Now to be fair why not post a note suggesting to the anti helmet crowd to quit telling everyone that they shouldnt wear a helmet.

Originally Posted by Brennan (Post 14663021)

I thought this distinction was clear in my post. Since apparently wasn't, I've edited the post for clarity.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 14663383)

The distinction WAS clear. Rydabent & Slacker are in their own fantasy world on the subject of obnoxious busybodies.

Originally Posted by Monster Pete (Post 14663887)

Agreed. I'd suggest just ignoring him and his talk of the nonexistent 'anti-helmet cult'

Originally Posted by shipwreck (Post 14661586)

I actually did it, I read this whole thread from start to finish. It was really hard, the characters keep changing, exept for a few. But most of the arguments stay the same.

The reason I just read 3321 posts is because time is hanging heavy on my hands while I heal from the hit and run I was in eight days ago. Broken collar bone, cracked ribs, massive bruising and enough road rash to drive me insane with the itching.
Interestingly I was wearing my helmet, something I don't always do, but I knew that I would be on a dangerous road on a busy weekend. Lucky me, a guy on a harley passed me on a sharp curve, a car came around and he dove over into me.
The sound my Limar helmet made as the left side of my head slammed into the road is something that I will never realy forget. As time seemed to slow to a crawl, all I could think about was how glad I was I had got the thing on sale. The second time my body flipped over and the back of my head impacted and then slid to a stop, grinding about 3/4 of an inch of the top of the helmet, I had pretty much stopped careing. It would have been my scalp, and possibly worse as the first impact would have rendered me insensible and unable to try to lift my head. At the time I went down I was probably going about 20-23 mph, having started slowing from about 27or so when the guy started to pass.

Now, since I read this whole thread, I pretty much know every argument, that I probably would not have hit my head if I was not wearing it, that the motorcycle would not have passed me, there is no proof that it did not just barely not actualy cause my neck to be broken. However, I was able to crawl off the road, and walk to the emergency room. Given the state of my whole body, and the condition of the helmet, I will have to say that it did help, a lot. Its nice to have a portion of my body that is not a scab.

But get this, and this is for the helmet humpers, I will probably venture out into the world again without a lid. And while the unexpected can happen even on an upright cruiser with a basket full of farmers market veggies, I am willing to take that chance. I figure that I have worn a helmet about 60% of the time up to now, and plan on keeping it that way, though I will probably wear one a lot at first because of all my nonriding friends and family will freak out to see me back on a bike at all, much less without a helmet. I made the mistake of showing the remains of the old one off a bit.

In the past, I have sniffed thru this thread, and had the thought(and at least three others have as well over the course of this thread)that everyone in it should be locked in a big room with a lot of mallets and helmets if you want them, and see who is standing at the end. Given the natural hard headedness of some of the posters, and the apparent soft headedness of others, I would actualy not lay any solid money on either side. And if, now that I have participated I was forced to be in that room with a hammer and my choice of helmet or not, I would probably bash as many helmeted riders as I would non. And I would be going for the knees.

This may all be the painkillers talking(I don't usualy take them, but some of the streched and bruised tendons make the broken bone seem like a minor thing)but whatever. take it as you will, because this has always been my favorite thread, in all its incarnations over the years.

Originally Posted by Rx Rider (Post 14664068)

non-existant? I wish you would have told me, I just ordered t-shirts!!

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 14663453)

i like to bike

And many of the anti helmet cult post insults and name call those of us that think is is stupid not to wear a helmet.

Originally Posted by Brennan (Post 14663021)

Rydabent & Slacker, it is one thing to advocate helmet use in a forum thread about helmets, where everyone who enters is presumably there to discuss the issue. I have no problem with this. I also have no problem with people giving their opinion in person if asked about it or if it happens to come up in conversation.

What I do have a problem with is complete strangers administering unsolicited advice, sometimes in a loud an rude manner, when I am out riding my bike and minding my own business. That is quite a different thing.

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 14666715)

Couple that with the other advantages, such as sun shield, and a place for lights and cameras wearing a helmet is very logical.

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 14666723)

Btw I get a kick out of the anti helmet cult. I think most of them are the hairy chested, fully kitted racer boy types with the look at me attitude. It is a free country, so if they dont want to wear a helmet, it is no skin off my head.

Originally Posted by ZmanKC (Post 14669888)

If it's no skin off of your head, then why all the invectives?

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 14666723)

Btw I get a kick out of the anti helmet cult. I think most of them are the hairy chested, fully kitted racer boy types with the look at me attitude. It is a free country, so if they dont want to wear a helmet, it is no skin off my head.

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 14670067)

FWIW, in my experience roadies are the most likely rider to wear a helmet (completes the ensemble :p) and one of the most likely to say something about wearing a helmet. Just my experience... I've met exceptions to that rule.

Originally Posted by Motopecane (Post 14671741)

Wow, this thread would be a lot more interesting for outsiders (people not debating in it) to read if there was more facts. I don't just mean for one side but for either. All I see is a lot of bias opinions flying back and forth and not much progress.

-Aron

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 14671975)

Most people seem to think helmets provide protection far in excess of what they are actually designed and tested for.

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 14671975)

There are no studies regarding less than serious injuries, which is the level of injury where helmets might provide some protection and injury mitigation; in studies regarding serious head injuries, helmets don't seem to provide measurable, relevant protection..

Originally Posted by SlackerInc (Post 14672257)

I've got to think even the old leather helmets football players wore a century ago would provide at least a little mitigation of severe head injuries. (Non-fatal ones, anyway: dead is dead.)

Originally Posted by SlackerInc (Post 14672257)

I suspect this is likely to be true.



This is what just doesn't pass the smell test. I've got to think even the old leather helmets football players wore a century ago would provide at least a little mitigation of severe head injuries. (Non-fatal ones, anyway: dead is dead.)

Originally Posted by Tuscaloosa News

NORMAN, Okla. — Moments after her son finished practicing with his fifth-grade tackle football team, Beth Sparks examined his scuffed and battered helmet for what she admitted was the first time. She looked at the polycarbonate shell and felt the foam inside before noticing a small emblem on the back that read, “MEETS NOCSAE STANDARD.” “I would think that means it meets the national guidelines — you know, for head injuries, concussions, that sort of thing,” she said. “That’s what it would mean to me.” That assumption, made by countless parents, coaches, administrators and even doctors involved with the 4.4 million children who play tackle football, is just one of many false beliefs in the largely unmonitored world of football helmets.

Originally Posted by CBC

Two previous concussions

But the judge ruled there were several warnings attached to the helmet itself, which informed consumers that serious injury may occur despite its use.

In his written decision, Mr. Justice Malcolm Macaulay found Darren was aware that people suffer head injuries, even when wearing a helmet.

"Darren himself suffered two previous concussions playing hockey, while wearing a helmet, but like hundreds of thousands of other Canadians, chose to play anyway," Macaulay wrote.