buzzman

Amazing! This thread continues to go nowhere.

Same old arguments questioning the safety of taking a shower, climbing a ladder, crossing a street... same old back and forth about studies and conspiracies on the part of helmet manufacturers and safety nannies.

The only thing of interest, really the Elephant in the Room, is the poll which someone wisely added some time ago. 84% of the respondents claim to wear a helmet. That percentage hasn't changed since shortly after the poll started. What seems to happen is that some newbie enters the thread with a post containing anywhere from an ill informed to a well reasoned argument to wear a helmet. Whereupon they are immediately set upon by the pack of helmet skeptic regulars with their well practiced responses. Except for a few oddball die hards the pro helmeteers eventually leave. Probably leaving the seasoned helmet skeptic debaters smugly satisfied they have once again been vindicated when in fact they've just worn down their "opponents".

All that arguing in all that time still hasn't changed the percentages in the poll. I, like others, occasionally pop in this thread just to watch the paint dry on the walls. And to wonder what possesses people to stand so firm literally year after year in the face an obviously overwhelming majority who do not take heed of their advice.

Monster Pete

I'm all for people wearing whatever safety equipment they deem to be necessary, as long as they know why they're wearing it and what it can and can't do. Wearing a helmet because lots of other people do, or by equating it to motorcycle helmets or car seatbelts are not valid reasons. However, someone who's looked at the capabilities of their helmet and has decided that there's enough of a chance of it being used that they'd rather wear it is fine by me.

I think I'd speak for a lot of bare-headed riders in that I don't mind people wearing helmets out of personal choice, but take issue with others trying to force me to wear one through legislation.

buzzman

Well, good for you.

But regarding this thread and how it stays alive by polarizing the issue demonizing helmet wearers as safety nannies and the bareheaded rider as a potential organ donor seems counterproductive to the topic of helmet legislation and mandates. As has been demonstrated in this thread on countless occasions- though the large majority of poll respondents wear helmets very few, that I recall, have posted in this thread that they are pro-mandatory helmet laws.

I would think that rather than alienating those of us who oppose such legislation for adult riders and yet would be personally unaffected by such legislation (I wear a helmet every time I ride) the bareheaded crowd might seek some common ground with regards personal responsibility, the law and freedom of choice.

Instead threads like these inflame the argument, take it off track with misinformation, hyperbole, biased studies and statistics when, in fact, the truth is a certain percentage of riders simply, for their own reasons do not wish to wear a helmet when they ride and do not wish to made to do so.

I doubt you'd get much support to change the helmet rules for charitable events and in competitions but for the every day cyclist, independent of organized events and rides I think you'd find that most helmeted riders could care less whether you wore a helmet or not. I think many bareheaded cyclists displace their ire at all helmeted cyclists because family, friends, co-workers and strangers feel compelled to give safety advice even for activities in which they don't participate. Sometimes their advice is out of love and caring, sometmes for a need to control the behaviour of others due to their own personal anxiety about risk and mortality.

And yes, sometimes a bareheaded cyclist is admonished by another cyclist. Sorry but, big deal, so what. If you've thought it out and you've justified not wearing a helmet for yourself you should be tough enough and mature enough to handle such admonishments as they come.

But for those of you who perpetuate the fallacious, off-topic and endless bickering of this thread by tilting at the windmills of the helmet zealots of your imagination you have not won my support to fight mandatory helmet legislation. I'm inclined to get just as self involved as many of the bareheaded cyclists seem to be. After all, if my state passes a mandatory law tomorrow it would change nothing about any ride I might do. So you're on your own- all 16% of you.

mconlonx

If people are wearing helmets for the wrong reasons -- that it will help prevent serious TBI and concussion -- and that gets them doing what they perceive as a risky activity like cycling, I'm all for people wearing them for the wrong reasons. In this case two wrongs do make a right: helmets won't help with what they think they will, and cycling is not as risky as they think = someone out on a bike who wouldn't otherwise be riding.

Thus making cycling safer for everyone.

In this way, helmets increase safety, even for those who don't wear them.

Most of those who do wear helmets also take issue with MHLs.

Six jours

I have never had a genius tell to wear a helmet, that I know of. That there are idiots offering the same advice is hardly news.

If you ever break your neck while cycling without a full-face MTB helmet and neck brace, I hope nobody will make light of it. I certainly won't.

And I don't use condoms because I have been married to the same woman longer than you have been alive. There is a chance that she will cheat and expose me to an STD, but - you've heard this before - the risk is small enough that trying to protect myself from it is irrational. No matter how many idiots tell me "But if there's even a chance it could save your life...bah...blah...blah..."

Six jours

Everything you've written in this post is as true for showering with/without a helmet as for cycling with/without a helmet. That's the whole point of the showering/walking/whatever helmet line of debate: to point out the irrationality of having to wear a helmet for a certain activity while blithely dismissing helmets for other potentially risky activities.

Six jours

Of course, there are folks arguing that helmets are the cause of that perception of danger, thus dissuading participation. But I suppose your point still stands: people who are too afraid to ride bicycles are unlikely to die from crashing a bicycle.

So maybe if we want to really cut down on bicycle-related deaths we should mandate things that would make nobody want to ride, like undersized Spandex clothes in neon colors, white patent leather shoes, and iridescent bug-eye sunglasses.

Oh, wait...

mconlonx

Comparing walking and showering to cycling is indeed silly -- the potential for injury and severity when crashing while cycling is greater than when crashing while walking or showering.

I don't know of anyone saying that pressure to wear helmets where there is not a mandatory use law cause the perception of danger while cycling. Certainly contributes to it, but I'd argue that contribution is low versus the greater "cycling is dangerous" concern, where others think it a major contribution.

They happen to be wrong, however.

Six jours

When I was doing the paramedic thing I ran several calls involving almost-dead pedestrians who were struck by cars. And many, many "mechanical falls" involving elderly pedestrians and bathers, some with quite serious head injuries.

And as a climber, I have often found myself in situations where walking involved significant risk of head injury, to the point that sometimes I do wear a "walking" (mountaineering) helmet. Funny, though: I've never had a fellow climber call me names for wearing or not wearing a helmet as I felt the situation dictated.


Look, everyone knows that thirty-seven angels (and not one more) can dance on the head of a pin. And anyone who says different is wrong.

350htrr

Well I suspect that falling in the shower is not the same risk as going 50 to 72KM/H on my bike, even a 30KM/H fall off my bike would be riskier than a slip in the shower... JMO as I perceive risk...

mconlonx

Sure, and an elderly walker can easily break a hip -- what are they doing, walking around without hockey pants??? The situations you cite are as much outlier data as cyclists killed while riding. I'd love to see comparisons of injury between the groups regularly compared here, but they just don't exist. Since they don't, such comparisons are essentially pointless, emotionally based, and political.

38!

Six jours

A fractured skull is a fractured skull, eh?

Frankly, I have no idea how risky the shower is for you, nor do I know how risky cycling is for you - and that's another facet of the comparison. Showering for the average healthy 20 year old is pretty low risk no matter how you slice it. But how about for the 90 year old one-legged Alzheimer's patient? Is anybody saying that both of those bathers have to wear protective gear? Or that neither of them should?

The rational solution, of course, is to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis, but for some reason that rationale is rarely applied to cycling: we are told that all cycling is risky for all cyclists and that the answer is for everyone to put on the same helmet, whether for the ex-pro roadie riding his basket upright two blocks to the market, or the newly-minted Cat. 5 embarking on his first road race with a 50 MPH downhill.

So, as always, I am all for people wearing whatever protective gear they have decided is appropriate for their situations - and leaving everybody else alone to do the same.

Six jours

That's a great point, and it dovetails neatly with the point I'm trying to make: there is risk inherent to almost everything we do. Most of us are happy to let folks deal with that risk however they see fit. Yet for some reason, bike helmets change the paradigm, and formerly reasonable people start foaming at the mouth at the very idea of people going for a bike ride without a helmet.

I disagree, because the point isn't relative risk so much as the existence of risk. Moreover, it's foolish to say "Cycling carries ___ level of risk" because there are so many kinds of cycling and so many kinds of cyclists. Again, I argue that the only rational approach is the one we use for most other activities: let the individual decide the level of risk and how best to manage it.

mconlonx

Well, the people who yell at others for not wearing a helmet, I equate with the worst of the bare-headers around here. There's really no accounting for political fanatics.

I fully agree with your second statement that I quoted here. And luckily, I live in a country, and commute through two states and various communities, all of which leave helmet use up to the rider.

skye

Your hypothesis is not borne out by the evidence. Not a single study shows that increased helmet use results in increased ridership. They show the exact opposite.

So, while I would normally be willing to entertain your notion, the horse died before it even hit the gate.

rando

yes!

mconlonx

You found a study correlating rider rates and heavy-handed helmet use "encouragement" in places without MHLs? Do please share this study with the rest of us; don't keep it to yourself...

skye

You've created a difference without a distinction. The cause of increased helmet use is immaterial, the results are what are important.

mconlonx

Right, you got nothing. Show me anything proving that ridership decreases when helmet use increases in places without a MHL... On the other hand, there's plenty of places in the USA where ridership is increasing in spite of an exaggerated sense of peer pressure to wear helmets.

Hey, post another football helmet study like it has something at all to do with cycling and helmets.

rydabent

Maybe we should go back to the simple question of why not wear a helmet? After about 10 seconds of putting one on, all thot of it is gone until it is time to take it off. It also gives some a place to mount a rear view mirror, or a camera, and provides sun protection. And of course in that 1 in 10,000 chance you crash and land on your head, it will probable mitigate damage to your head.

Six jours

Because whenever anyone gives you the simple answer ("for the same reason you don't wear a helmet in the car") you either ignore it, dodge it, or say something so completely inane that the rest of us have to wipe our hard drives and start over.

rydabent

Six

Not a really logical answer. In my car I always wear the lap/shoulder seat belt. My car has an air bag in the steering wheel and there are air bags at the top front of the doors. Therefore I am using the safety quiptment for a car like a helmet is safety equiptment for a bike.

While neither in my car or on my bike do I plan to crash. With both tho I am prepared for the unexpected and things beyond my control.

Wil Davis

Please add one more category:

I only wear a helmet when I think I have something worth protecting X

Thanks -
- Wil

Six jours

Except that 30,000 Americans die each year from car crashes, many of them from head injuries. Logic says that more lives would be saved with driving helmets than with cycling helmets, yet you continue to drive without a helmet. I just hope you have your organ donation card signed.

Six jours

Well, that's certainly original. Thank god you're preserving that brain - the future of humanity might depend upon it.