Thatz a change from a former helmet promotion campaign to sell helmets through fearlessness : Courage for Your Head!

That's right, create sales through fear...car companies and insurance companies have been doing that for years...but that's ok because there not helmets.

\

A careful reader would note that I didn't say helmeted riders don't die...

The article you reference isn't the article you say you reference. The one you actually reference is a printed refutation of the previous Amanda Grant article, published in a completely different media outlet. The cited article is actually a response, where a lawyer is saying that helmets sold via fear -- as supposedly suggested by Ms. Grant -- opens shops up to the possibility they they could be held liable when helmets don't measure up the way Ms. Grant assumes they should.

In other words, the Bike Biz article isn't about what you say it is, rather, it is a refutation of a previous article you didn't bother to cite. Reading comprehension much?

One media outlet spouting helmeteer nonsense; another correcting for the bare head brigade position. *yawn*

That you claim this is as one-sided as you do is just another example of misrepresentation and deceit on the part of the bare-head brigade.

How I wish that y'all actually held yourselves as accountable regarding facts and citations as the standards you hold regarding those opposing your views.

Sure, why not shock the little kiddies to wear helmets, they tried to shock us for years into wearing seat belts, it worked to a degree, but not enough, so now they threaten us with tickets.

Sales 101. Convince people they need something, then sell them what they think they need.

In this case, convince them cycling is dangerous, the sell them the item that will give them the courage to cycle.

Ironically, motor vehicles ate sold through the concept that they're safe, yet motor vehicles are the leading cause of accidental death and injury

Cycling meanwhile results in increased health and lifespan, yet many are convinced cycling is dangerous

The link is in there, you just have to make an effort to click on it and it's pretty clear what you meant.

Without fear, helmets wouldn't exist and here we have proof that fear is manufactured yet some people are still turning a blind eye to it.

Sad.

Helmet Article
 

I was riding with some new folks the other day who were just starting out in riding and one asked about my thoughts on helmets. Personally I wear one for my reasons. I shared that with them and also told them other reasons why not to wear a helmet. The idea was to give theme a broad since to make their own decision.

Wrote it up in a blog and wanted to know if there was anything else to add on either side.

Again, I have my own reasons for wearing it but wanted to share others opinions on both sides.

Click here to read it if you want.


:popcorn

What is really funny is all the antihelmet cult are forced to buy cars that have a bomb right in front of their faces, known as an airbag. Do they fear crashing, or do they have the airbag disarmed to prove they are hairy chested supermen???

In your blurb you make the (scientifically unsupported) assumption that helmets protect from concussions. Most evidence points against that claim, and some even indicates that they would increase the risk of concussion.

Note that I'm not talking about other forms of head injury.

Actually your wrong, cars do not lead in deaths and injuries...DRIVERS ARE!! If drivers are not paying attention for varied of reasons, don't drive according to the laws, don't know how to handle a car in an emergency situation, drive like jackasses then you're going to have a high degree of problems. So yes, motor vehicles and bicycles are safe...the people controlling them are not.

I'm not convince cycling is dangerous because I pay attention, ride according to the laws, don't ride like a jackass, which is the same way I drive my car, thus for me driving is not dangerous either. Sure I was hit by a drunk driver, a driver who drove illegally drunk, in other words driving like a jackass, and wasn't paying attention and ran a stop sign; my God and my seat belt system saved me. I haven't had a car accident in 40 years, and I don't expect to get into another but I'm always prepared for that possibility. The same with riding a bicycle, I don't expect to get into an accident but I'm always prepared for that possibility. If my driving or riding awareness and control abilities fail then my seat belt or helmet will help prevent serious injury...note I did not say prevent, I said help prevent.

Whattya think about this:

*I suspect that people who get high blood pressure when they see a rider without a helmet do not go on Critical Mass or Bike Party or other unofficial rides where some people don't wear helmets.

*I'm surprised that people still have the control reflex that pushes them write to magazines when they see photos of bikers without helmets. My misunderstanding of Type A controllers is that this impulse would socially wear off in a society after a few years, say, back in the early 1990's for the US. But that's not how it works. Canada's "Momentum" magazine just published an editorial about this in response to the letters they've gotten.

*I note that the interest in cycling by young people seems greatest today in urban areas. In the 70's youth bike interest included a huge amount of touring interest and racing. These also recently increased but citybiking has grown the most. Thanks to the Interwebs the world knows Copenhagen bike culture and fixie hipsterism. Society has also just naturally picked up on citybike fun, fashion and freedom. It appeals to youth. Also to other age groups, of course. The youth side seems, maybe also naturally, to value the freedom aspect highly. Also "wind in the hair." And hat-wearing is increasing. As a result we see a lot of helmetless biking in the citybike and youth urban bike scenes. Helmets are also seen as cool. Youth don't seem to be definitely against helmets. It's not a matter of cool but of choice and variety. I'd think young/urban bikers would show big numbers in the "sometimes wear a helmet" slot. Are aggressive helmet advocates upset about this sector? The poll at the top of this thread shows: 61% rule-wear; 22% sometimes; 17% don't. Among urban/youth the sometimes is probably more like 50%, I'd think. ? Do agro helmet advocates think about the 22/50% differently than the 17%? Do the 22/50% irk them more or less or no diff? Is there a stat result which, if reached, would make the advocates happy or would they always need vigilance and to keep their edge? Would 99% helmet-wearing mean "mission accomplished" or "keep pushing!"

*I've had neighbors feel free to yell at me and get angry when they see me biking without a helmet. I've talked to them about it and now they don't yell but instead they shun me and won't look at me if I ride by on a sunny day and wave at them. These people uniformly are very serious riders who only do one kind of riding: they wear lycra, ride fancy bikes and go fast on their own or with a scheduled club: they are training. Doctor's orders. I ride in a half dozen ways and social settings. I might be riding an old cruiser, wearing flipflops and a big straw hat on a 100F/90% humidity day, going the 1/2 mile to my parents house and they'll still scowl at me. We ride for groceries. We're the only ones in our community who do so. Again, I've never seen the Scowlers do any other riding but for training. We do use lights, blinkers and vests when visibility suggests and to keep texters from hitting us. We wear helmets on mtbike rides and on highspeed training rides with those of differing skills. We wear them when conditions seem to warrant. Often we wear them for visibility because our helmets are brightly colored. As riders we're experienced with crashes and sliding and wiping out without getting hurt -- we're nimble folk, not stiff, ungainly or fragile. (We do know folks who wobble, crash, get hurt occasionally while biking.) Basically, our helmet wearing is nearly a reflex but sometimes sun or fun means skipping the helmet.

*When helmet-yellers/scowlers visit car-free places like Mackinac Island where visitors and residents alike, by the thousands, bike without helmets, do they get hoarse with yelling? Does their face hurt from glaring? Are they consistent? Do they talk to all the parents of kids not wearing helmets there that they can? --Kids being of most concern. Since these types of communities ride bikes every day for every purpose at every age and do not typically wear helmets and do not seem to suffer for it in a way that spoils their days, I find it surprising that helmet-demanders still think they know best. (However, such places perhaps have indeed experienced efforts to require helmets.)

*Do those who write in about helmetlessness in magazine photos get their letters translated and mail them into other non-US magazines around the world that show such photos? I note that most other countries and world cities and their magazines would show helmeted riders only part of the time because not many people elsewhere in the world wear helmets. Doesn't this really bother the helmet-letter-writers? Are they extending their campaigns to these other places? Does the global lack of helmets really bug them?

*What do they do when they visit Europe or Copenhagen? Do they yell/scowl/correct/teach? Write letters?

*I'm guessing that helmet wearing is increasing in Europe, maybe as traffic worsens. Is "wearing as a rule" also increasing very much? Or is it the "sometimes" sector that's getting people from the "haven't worn yet" sector? It's kinda hard for me to see the Copenhageners converting to "always" apart from all weather, heat, fashion, ride-mission concerns, but I could see them owning a helmet that they sometimes wear, depending.

*My impression of the fact that these letter-writers write only to local magazines means their concern is only provoked into action where they feel permission for it to be unleashed. They COULD do it elsewhere and mount possibly effective campaigns, but it's an easy reflex to indulge here in the USA where the reflex is catered to. I imagine that they cancel subscriptions to US magazines -- I've seen this threat in letters about various offensive things in print so helmetlessness gets likely included. Some must subscribe to European magazines -- do they cancel those subscriptions when they depict typical bikers in their cities? To some extent it seems like they write to US mags because it's been done before. But maybe this is common to all localized groups: people take ownership of mags about their relevant scene and ignore those outside their bailiwick, or at least put less effort into them. Helmet-buffs likely do contribute to helmet enforcement elsewhere around the world. Is it just a case of compassion fatigue? You can yell/scowl easily at a neighbor (or someone who lives in your nation), but interest is somewhat lessened with strangers.

*When they see a pic of a group ride in the US and someone isn't wearing a helmet do they ever consider the other social aspects or are they always outweighed in their mind by the Safety Calculus of "here's a sizable risk that's easy to reduce if people would just put styrofoam on their heads" which due to the severity of head injuries outweighs all other conceivable issues. Like, a wide brimmed hat is cooler in the sun but a helmet is not so uncomfortable so it's still worth wearing -- the higher risk of mild heat-stroke is less severe than a low risk of lifelong brain injury -- so you can feel free to yell/scowl/letter-write/legislate. I note that an interesting and possibly relevant social aspect of a US bike group where one/some riders are without a helmet and everyone is still smiling is that said group would be consensual and have no boss. Everyone there would be equals. If the ride had an official boss they would have required helmets. If someone showed up violating the boss's rule then there would be yelling/scowling/shunning -- stress. Is the quality of equality on a ride worth considering? I understand that the easily prevented risk of serious head injury outweighs all other concerns but does it make those other concerns not even worth mentioning? I suppose for some people that it does.

*Do gungho helmet advocates wear helmets when they drive, run or walk? The risk of accident is small per user but overall it adds up to MOST head injuries. Like a hundred thousand a year. If it saves one injury (much less so many thousands) isn't it worth it? Is it that inconvenient? Any more so than wearing a seatbelt or putting on any other hat?

*What do those who are really into helmets think of helmets and XC skiing? It's the only fast sport done close to hard objects remaining to be helmeted, isn't it? (Maybe there are other sports worth adding to the list of 'needs a helmet.' Let's see 'em.)

*Safety practices are serious in many fields. They're often an on/off switch: violations do not proceed. I agree that safety is serious in cycling. I insist on good skills and don't ride near sketchy riders. I'd get far away from a hunter or shooter who was misbehaving and would report them to a club officer. I used to get scared badly by a hunter friend who was careless in how he handled a gun. I worried mostly about me but I suppose also about him. Hmm, I'm not sure if my energy would be activated if it was only the violator who would be harmed. I could see the theoretical extension of "I don't want to be around you and have to deal with you when you get hurt" activating my concern. If a situation was extreme enough in cycling this might happen with me and helmets, but to me this might not even include racing or touring. I know a helmet likely adds some safety and that the head is very important (so is the whole of the spine) but to me the risks are still negligible.

(PS: I don't mean to insult the yellers/scowlers but don't know how else to describe them. "Those who get really worked up." ? "Aggressive helmet advocates"? Is there a term they prefer?)

Nothing. Get to the point/bottom line.

Pick yer point! Yeah, it's long. But why does there have to be one point or "a" bottom line? Life is complicated. So are helmets. Which points don't you like? Which points weren't worth thinking about?

Ah ha! Maybe I figured it out. Maybe there IS a point to my longwinded screed...

Folks like to think that their position on helmet wearing is rational.

I'd suggest that those who go to extremes in this issue are NOT rational. This includes those who yell/scowl/shun/write-letters.

I suggest that their response is largely a CONTROL issue. (And thus can be explained as being out of control for them. That's funny about controllers.)

Are there any helmet personality or other helmet rider-detail stats out there?

I could see always-lycra tending to be always-helmets, but always-helmets including more types of riders. Now, always-lycra/helmet isn't the same as those who yell, etc., but I'd think there might be some crossover. And Controllers might not always yell, but they might tend to be always- something or other. I'm not sure they mix'n'match very well. For instance, how many aggro helmeters ride in a wide variety of settings and types? Are they tolerant or mixers in other respects? Do they even do Bike Party Rides? I'd think that helmeters would be against CM also. If they're racers do they also do errands or ride around the corner to their mom's or on flipflop cruiser to the cafe? Do they ride in both lycra and mufti, in both roadie cleats and street shoes?

I wonder if those who are aggro about helmets would self-identify that way. We'd have to use neutral language to make it comfy for them to do so.

Anyway I'd think that Controllers would avoid cultures where they don't have some amount of social permission to indulge control or control-righteousness. Or they'd keep a low profile and maybe compartmentalize -- they might self-identify that they "put up with" the helmetless in that situation (maybe including a visit to Copenhagen), not that they saw how it worked there.

But even if Controllers deign to join in they might give indicators of not fitting in. Like, after being invited to such a place or ride and having it explained, they might wear a helmet (which is fine, blends in) and not yell at the helmetless (polite) but ride an aero carbon bike even though they had a cruiser at home (whups!) or wear pro-team lycra kit (the semi-nude serious-sport attire on a citybike ride might be a bit underdressed) or not bring bike lights, reflective gear or walkable shoes when they'd been informed about the afterdark and offbike aspects of the place/ride. Just one example of how dissonance/rigidity might tend to rear its head. Dunno if it really relates to Controllers, though.

I clicked your link. It's a link to a helmeteer debunker getting approximately equal time as the helmeteer in question in bike media. The link to the original article you cited but failed to link to, is in the article you did link to, not in your original post. That's pretty typical of what I see from the bare-head brigadiers around here.

You have proof that some helmet company flunky is trying to get bike shops selling more helmets through not even one of the more widely distributed bicycle industry rags. We've been over this before -- here in the US, there's a culture of fear, bicycle riding is certainly no immune to this, and helmets appear to ignorant consumers as the magic safety pill. Helmet companies would be stupid not to capitalize on this.

And then you top it off with "Without fear, helmets wouldn't exist..." Seriously?!? The fear is not manufactured, it's there already, part of a larger problem. If you know of a way to turn the USA away from a culture of fear, please let us know how to do so...

Helmet sales based on fear are a symptom, not the problem.

Well goodness,

You seem to have an issue with magazine letter writers... When they show up, I ignore them. If anything, it makes me scowl that yet another "tut-tut, cancel my subscription" letter is taking up column space where an interesting letter might be. Or even a mediocre advertisement.

When such letter writers visit Amsterdam, or Copenhagen, or Beijing, their heads asplode, like this:

http://media.reason.com/mc/psuderman...if?h=203&w=344

"Look at all those people riding bikes without helmets! And no one to write a letter to! Grrr..." *ka-boom"

^^^ Maybe he should have worn a helmet...

The scowlers are part of the no-fun brigade. They are the stormtroopers in our culture of fear. The one's who think scarlet letters are a good idea and the Grand Canyon should have a railing about 50' back from the edge. They look forward to the day when airbags are built into their kids' clothing.

Good fun? Show up at some helmet-required event you don't want to attend anyway with a disposable cooler duct-taped to your head...

Boy, are some people lazy, and do some people only see what they want to see.

In the first sentence of th article I linked,
http://www.bikebiz.com/index.php/new...-lawyer/013638
was the active link
http://issuu.com/carltonreid/docs/bi..._a_safe_upsell

I know it's hard to get through a whole sentence, but there it is

+1

Nothing will save you from every event, witness plenty of people dying on the roads today with cars designed to absorb the impact and offer crush zones to protect the occupants, seat belts, and airbags, and they still die. So does that mean we should just disarm our bags and not wear belts since people are dying anyways? Of course not. Yet some of you are thinking exactly that when it comes to helmets while riding a bicycle.

Maybe some of us are concerned about concussions, and helmets don't decrease their severity, but actually increase it.

Nice avoidance of the issue at hand, well played. *golf clap*

Referring back to your original post, how is bikebiz.com -- as you incorrectly represented the situation -- responsible for an article "...about how it is every bike retailer's "responsibility" to inform customers about the "dangers" of cycling to sell more helmets."?

Oh, that's right, they're not.

In fact, they -- as an industry insider periodical -- called out another industry insider periodical on their sad piece of helmet manufacturer propaganda.

Of course you didn't reference the actual offending article in your original post, only the refutation published in another article...

The news here shouldn't be your blindered view that an industry insider magazine puts forward a helmet company marketing hack's misguided tactics for selling helmets; it should be that another industry insider periodical called them out on it. How often does that happen, with a bare-head brigade POV informing the article you negatively reference?

But in the meantime, you're more than willing to blame a periodical and article shooting down a tactic proposed for using fear to sell helmets. A tactic suggested by a helmet company marketing hack, with a quote from both the president of that company and a racer who [I assume] uses their products, without actually quoting the offending article in your original post or even the first follow-up after you've been called on it.

Nice. :thumb: So typical...

You probably also missed the article in the original periodical, following the article you forgot to cite, dealing with bike safety...

??? Where's the proof of that?

LOL!!!HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA This is great stuff!!! There's a comedian born every second around here.