manapua


Ah--------a common sense logical post!!!

Naww, I wasn't referring to your crash, I was referring to Robberry, who visited briefly to tell us that he took a thwack to the head which apparently didn't do enough damage to even warrant a visit to the PCP, would have killed him but for his cycling helmet. Prima facie balderdash.

For the most part, I don't care what a person wears or doesn't wear when they're riding. I do object to the emphasis on helmets as a safety device, because (a) they're crappy and by all accounts (even those of the manufacturer), they don't really do much, and (b) all the energy spent on helmet education would be far better spent on getting people to get training, like a LAB Road 1 course, education and prosecution of motorists, and advocating for improved cycling infrastructure.

A case in point: I was giving a lecture to a community group interested in developing transformative processes for their community -- one of those transformations being creating a cycling-friendly community. Part of my presentation included Copenhagen as an example of a place that has become cycling-friendly and cycling-safe. My goal was to point out cultural attitudes, judicial attitudes and infrastructure that have allowed cycling to flourish, using photographs to highlight the issues.

The VERY FIRST RESPONSE? "What do you mean, those guys are safe. They aren't safe! None of them are wearing helmets!"

Next comment: "Yeah, they aren't ahead of us in anything! They're behind us! If they knew anything about bicycle safety, every single one of those people would be wearing helmets!"

It took a good 10 minutes to get these chuckleheads to move off the idea that safe cycling comes from a variety of factors, and in their community, wearing a helmet doesn't even make it onto the chart yet.

That's the kind of damage that the constant shrill drill of "wear your helmet" being bored into cyclists brains has done. And until we get past that incredibly juvenile idea that this foam pacifier in any way shapes our level of safety on the road, cycling's modal share will remain all but invisible, except in a few large cities.

It's way past time that American cyclists grew up, stepped away from the racing model of sport cycling, and developed a cycling weltanschauung inclusive of all of the bicycle's uses in a society -- and the rather marginal place that helmets have in that world view.

Judging by recent postings on numerous BF threads, the next trendy object being promoted as essential to bicycling safety is super duper fireworks bright lighting for cyclists, day or night. The alternative to super bright lighting apparently is death. Better yet when it includes a helmet beacon flashing, strobing and distracting in all directions. Now THAT is safety! eh?

:thumb:

What energy spent on "helmet education"? I don't see it in the industry. However, it does show up in any LAB safety course...

Imagine a presentation where you show Copenhagen, but then also show US communities which have improved their cycling share, and which includes shots of people wearing helmets. Might have saved a good 15 minutes of your presentation otherwise spent pushing your personal helmet agenda.

The dangers of fast-food safety in a fast-food society.

Let's see if you guys can solve my melon of a problem.

I have big head...okay it's Huge...who am I kidding...IT'S GINORMOUS! I wear a 7 7/8 hat which is a challenge to find as is.

I went to Wally-World and of course they didn't have my size but they did throw free dust on their helmets free of charge this year! :D



Where and what brand can support this melon of mine? Links and or direction would help greatly! Thanks!

Frankly, don't waste your money on a helmet. Spend it on getting a couple of books on safe cycling techniques, read them, and you'll be far safer than you would be having spent that money on a helmet.

skye

Will that book protect you when you blow a tire and are pitched to the ground?

Certainly, so long as you maintain your bike as recommended and master the bike handling skills that are recommended by such books.

The Good Book will protect everybody for sure... Even the non-helmeted shall rejoice in their good fortune if nothing happens to the old cranium after head bounces off the pavement, and they shall chalk it up to (see I was right, a helmet wasn't needed, just the good sense to not wear one as it could have been worse with one than without one)... :p

Ryda's post is a good illustration of the way many folks perceive cycling: horribly dangerous, with a fatal accident lurking behind every rock and pothole. And as I have argued right along, if you are falling over and hitting your head at every rock and pothole, then by all means wear as much protective gear as you can.

But what folks like Ryda don't seem to understand is that there are a great many cyclists who, for whatever reason, never fall off their bikes and land on their heads. The "But you're going to die!!!" argument is not very persuasive to those riders, and the "But there's a chance a helmet could save your life" argument applies to damn near every activity humans undertake.

Those two paragraphs should, IMO, encompass the entirety of the helmet argument. Yet here we are at page 800...

[QUOTE=Six jours;15081722]Ryda's post is a good illustration of the way many folks perceive cycling: horribly dangerous, with a fatal accident lurking behind every rock and pothole. And as I have argued right along, if you are falling over and hitting your head at every rock and pothole, then by all means wear as much protective gear as you can.

But what folks like Ryda don't seem to understand is that there are a great many cyclists who, for whatever reason, never fall off their bikes and land on their heads. The "But you're going to die!!!" argument is not very persuasive to those riders, and the "But there's a chance a helmet could save your life" argument applies to damn near every activity humans undertake.

Those two paragraphs should, IMO, encompass the entirety of the helmet argument. Yet here we are at page 800...[/QUOTE]

Yes, but not really... The main difference is, in my opinion;

1; What are the chances of needing a helmet? Slim, And it can be certainly more beneficial to work on things that would reduce the chances of needing a helmet than just wearing a helmet and thinking you are safe...

2; What actually happens when all else fails, and the old noggin hits the pavement, is it better to have a helmet on or not?

To me there's a whole world of difference in why one would wear a helmet or not, in these two trains of thought, and reducing ones chance of needing a helmet is certainly more preferable than relying on a helmet to save the day, and is something everyone needs to work on. But... the bottom line is still, what would you prefer? Having a helmet on when the old brain-case bounces of the pavement or not having a helmet on when the old brain-case bounces off the pavement? And yes, no matter how hard one works on being safe the unexpected happens, thus preparedness does count for something most times (thus the non-helmet group is, IMO missing out on the last line of defence, which I don't really care about since they are doing the same thing that I am doing in the shower, taking the chance that I would not be needing a helmet thus not wearing one. It's the people sitting on the fence that need to realize S*** happens, be ready)...

We don't have a difference in opinion here, other than perhaps regarding the chances of needing a helmet: I only know the chances of me needing a helmet. Everybody else, not so much.

This is addressed by the "But there's a chance a helmet could save your life" argument applies to damn near every activity humans undertake" part of my post.

I just wanted a helmet...:rolleyes:

six

Again your point of view is terribly wrong, in my case anyway. I have been cycling for at least 64 years, and still am. If I thot cycling was totally dangerous, I WOULD NOT be cycling.

Wearing a helmet is no burden what so ever. It can probably mitigate injury when the unexpected happens like it did to me. I was knocked over at low speed by a driver comming out of a driveway that of course claimed "he didnt see me". At the very least it prevented road rash to the side of my head.

The operative word in this post is UNEXPECTED. Tell me how reading books and riding skilfully will prevent the unexpected!!!!

This is addressed by the "But there's a chance a helmet could save your life" argument applies to damn near every activity humans undertake" part of my post. Well, the UNEXPECTED part, anyway. As far as a reading a book goes, I don't know whether it'll help your tricycling or not, but it wouldn't hurt to be exposed to some spelling and sentence structure.

Anyone ever heard of this brand/model?

2012 GUB SV5

This particular brand of helmet was discussed on page 24. You should find what you're looking for there.

this is correct.

look, done correctly, riding a bike is a safe activity. you have no more need for a helmet while doing it than you do walking or jogging.

ive had instances going downhill where i have begun to fishtail and when applying rear brakes the swaying got worse, all i am saying is why risk getting hurt. if kept at slow speed it can be safe but anything can happen

The key phrase is "done correctly".

I still say that all the anti helmet cult try to rule out the unexpected. They can tell me all day long what masterful cyclist they are, and how safe they ride, and how many studies they have read, but the unexpected can bite them in the butt.

Example what happens if at 15mph our front tire explode unexpectedly, locks up the front wheel and pitches you to the ground? I for one would really want to be using a helmet when that happens.

Now I know that the chances of that happening are low, but it can and does happen. As someone says it is better to wear a helmet and not need it than not wear one and need it.