Sod humanity! It's my future I'm worried about!!

- Wil

Well, you're wearing a helmet, so your future is secure. (It's my understanding, from this thread, that bicycle helmets render one impervious to any harm. Ask Ryda for details.)

Six

Again you are so wrong about what I have posted. I have stated may times if you are hit by a car doing 75mph you will die with or without a helmet. But at the low speeds most cyclist ride helmets will provide some protection against injury. In all cases NO, but is some cases YES. When you say no one should use a helmet (for some reason not fully revealed) you are sentencing people to injury that they need not suffer.

I guess they put air bags in cars because they want to keep idiots alive that don't know how to drive? Totally understand that if you don't crash, you don't benefit from the safety devices. I see people not wearing seatbelts all the time, even though it's not a big encumberance, same as helmets.

Curbtender, I can't see how anything you wrote there relates to my post at all.

I guess what I'm saying is that cars have thier own safety devices and you can choose thier use also.

Yes, exactly. just like the non helmet wearing crowd can choose not to wear a helmet (most places)... In a vehicle, you can pull the fuse for the airbags, seat belt waning ding-er, the anti lock brakes or the vehicle dynamic control and drive without all these superfluous gadgets that you may think don't help you in an accident, nay, may even make things more dangerous having them, interfering with your oh so perfect driving skills... :rolleyes:

These items are typically removed from race cars. Harnesses replace the seatbelts, however.

And a helmet coupled with a HANS device roughly duplicates the function of an airbag.

And fire suppression roughly duplicates driving your car into the river if it catches fire...


... no, wait

:)

Anyone else commute in Nomex?

Well, I am guessing we won't have to worry about anyone asking stupid questions about wearing a Nomex suit in the shower. :lol:

Only if you are posting to the helmet thread from there...

Even with all that safety equipment in cars, vehicle accidents are still the leading cause of head injury in the USA.

Perfect reason to get rid of ALL safety stuff in everything, if it doesn't save you from every conceivable accident, get rid of it, you don't need it, you can be just as safe without it if you are careful and good at what you are doing, so goes the bare-headed rhetoric, as I understand it... :twitchy: Oh yea, some of that "safety" stuff can actually make things worse... :rolleyes:

Intentionally missing the point doesn't make for very good debate.

Even-a-caveman-can-understand-it (unless he doesn't want to) version: Many, many people die from head injuries in motor vehicle accidents. Therefore, motoring helmets would save lives. Yet even the loudest bicycle helmet proponents sniff and snort at the thought of wearing a motoring helmet.

I am not sure, but I strongly suspect that these folks are against motoring helmets because they would "cramp their style".

Who makes motoring helmets? Where are the manufactures selling motoring helmets with fear?

Great way to shut down MHL advocacy -- when an MHL is proposed, be there to suggest that since motorists form the biggest block of head injury recipients, the bill or rule under consideration be amended to include motor vehicle operators and passengers.

Race cars are not built anything like passenger cars. Passenger cars are not driven on race tracks either.

So racing and transportation have different requirements for safety equipment, due to the difference in operating risks. The same is true for cycling.

OK.

No one knows! (It isn't true because you say it's true.) Bicycles used in racing aren't any different than bicycles often used not racing. And you seem to be implying that helmets are something (you aren't really being clear) for bicycle racing and not for "transportation" when the opposite might be true.

This thread should be retitled: FUTILITY

I worked in the office machine/computer industry. In the early days of PCs I got into a small amount of trouble for telling a customer the truth. When their hard drive crashed, I told them there are only two kinds of hard drives, those that have crashed, and those that are going to.

That is true with cycling. There are those who have crashed and those that are going to. If you never have and think you never will, I have some ocean front property here in Nebr that I am willing to sell.

The point I am trying to make is NO ONE can predict or prevent the unexpected. Be prepared, wear a helmet.

Except not all crashes result in a head hit, not all injury involving head impact would be mitigated by use of a helmet.

Is there a study out there indicating in what quantity of crashes, compared to all crashes, a helmet may have helped a rider?

I'd expect that number to be low -- cycling is safe, crashes rare, crashes where a helmet would help, rarer still.

Doesn't stop me from wearing one, but I can certainly see where the bare-head brigade is coming from...

Google "motorsports helmet".

Huh?

Huh, again? Are we reading the same thread?

Hi folks, have been absent from this wonderful thread for a while. I am currently staying in Spain. They have a MHL here, and it is a masterpiece of incoherence.

You must wear a helmet while riding unless:

1. You are in a town;
2. It is excessively hot (temperature undefined)
3. You are a professional, out training.

Not surprisingly, no effort whatever is made by the police to enforce the law. A wonderfully Spanish solution. We'll pass a stupid law but then ignore it.

Meh. I can't count the number of times I fell as a racer, both with a helmet and without. I never once struck my head/helmet in all those falls. Since retiring from racing 20 years ago, I have not fallen at all, despite near-daily riding.

So yes, you are right. It is theoretically possible that I may someday crash a bicycle and land on my head with such force that I would die or suffer serious brain injury, and that the force and angle of impact would fall within the design envelope of a bicycle helmet, thus preventing that death or injury.

But it's pretty damn unlikely.

Well... Bicycle helmets should certainly not be used in cars, and pro-level racing helmets are not necessary and would be an undue burden placed on car owners. There should be, as you cited, "motoring" helmets for use by motor vehicle operators and their passengers, the group responsible for the most head injury in the USA.

So how come they are not out there?

Certainly in this very thread, you'll find people claiming that bicycle helmet companies use fear of cycling, even promote fear of cycling, to sell helmets. Since motor vehicles are so obviously the leading cause of head injuries, where are the motoring helmet companies doing the same thing regarding "motoring" helmets? Sure could make a bundle doing such a thing...

This is a helmet thread, yes? One where even among the helmeteers most frown upon MHLs, yes? So instead of the constant bickering and semantic jousting, I figured I'd post a practical and politically expedient way to actually help shoot down MHLs where they are proposed. MHLs are silly, but not until you put it in the right frame of reference for non-cyclists to understand. Suggesting, nay DEMANDING!, a MHL bill or rule be amended to cover motorists is a great way to demonstrate how silly they are, and the numbers are actually on our side for such...