Because we are stupid?

Who is going to impose this requirement on "them," you? Where did you get this ridiculous notion? Here is another for:

Perhaps "they" will require that all bicyclists be forbidden from getting on their dangerous devices unless the bikes are equipped with rollbars AND training wheels, air bags and a parachute to prevent any injuries. Better get used to it, eh?

I wish I were smart enough to say that. I wouldn't doubt if the US had the equivalent of riders that Europe has, some lawmaker would seek to improve the world by forcing safety equipment. I have to admit when I see adult riders with a child's level skill, the idea of mandatory training doesn't bother me too much.

Please keep political/health care out of this thank you very much.

this place is really a huge waste of time, moderators your God complex is showing.

This forum is anything but a waste of time, This thread has little to contribute, and there's been a lot of repetition since halfway through the first page.

Moderators keep this place tidy, and without them, it would devolve into chaos in short order. Unless you've been an admin or moderator on a large, international forum, you have no idea what goes on in the background. Considering the pay scale, they deserve a lot more than than carping by thankless members.

It concerns helmets, and the discussion was about the wearing of helmets. You failed attention in class today. Other then that, this subject is a huge waste of time, in one word...BORING!!

What still remains really funny is that all the members of the anti helmet cult either wears a helmet to race or to ride on club rides---------or----------sit if a huff and watch the other cyclist go by.

So will you admit to what you do?

We delete posts where it's obvious that a bitter off-topic argument would ensue. For whatever reason, discussions of health care are just like helmet discussions, they become anklebiting-fests very quickly. There is a P&R forum for discussions about the political ramifications of helmet wear. Take it there. Seems simple enough

id wear a helmit if i can find 1 i like looking at...most are UGLY!

Really... They are ugly, that's your main reason for not wearing one? Not wearing one because it messes up the hair is a better reason to not wear one even... JMO :p

actually, my helmet straightens out my hair. I usually use a helmet liner though

I'll bite- I will wear a helmet if I'm on an organised ride and the rules require that I do so. I may voice my opinion at the time, but I'll follow the rules. In any case, racing can be an entirely different situation than regular transportation. Nobody wears a full race suit and helmet to drive to work.

You really must give me contact details for this elusive 'anti helmet cult'- it sounds like a fun organisation. Are they anything like the Jedi?

They normally are flying in Black Helicopters keeping tabs on the wizards who want to foil the evil plans of the "anti-helmet cult."

News flash: When on the ground the cult has been detected in "White Vans."

See: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post15320133

No fear of being converted to the "anti-helmet cult" -- helmet is perfect for wearing over tinfoil hat.

As someone who has been an admin, I too think they keep way too tight of a leash here. Hinders discussion, and doesn't stop people from getting offended. And, as pointed out, it's sort of part and parcel to helmet, and even advocacy discussion in general. But it ain't my forum, ain't my rules, and that's fair enough. Just pointing out that the false dichotomy of chaos or micromanaging discussion is incorrect; I've been to many forums that practice more laissez-faire adminning with no problems, and I've been an admin myself. It's certainly possible. As long as there is an ignore feature, people do surprisingly well.

He's just doing what he does best, trolling.

zman

The actual trolls on this thread are the anti helmet types that immediately jump on anyone that posts a personal experience where they claim their helmet saved them from injury. It happens almost every time.

No, it doesn't. Few if any of your so-called "anti-helmet" folks argue that helmets do not prevent injury. We just argue that they aren't very good at preventing serious and fatal brain injuries, and that they cannot possibly prevent as many of those injuries as their proponents claim.

If the pro-helmet argument was merely that helmets are good at preventing bumps, bruises, and lacerations, then this thread would not exist.

So the next time a NASCAR driver dies from brain damage suffered in an blow to the head during an accident they should rule that the helmets just aren't good enough to prevent fatal brain injury and then argue against wearing them since their good for nothing more then preventing bumps, bruises, lacerations, and burns.

six

I personally have never stated that wearing a helmet will protect a cyclist when hit by a car doing 80 mph. I would suggest that probably 90% of the time bike accidents take place below 15mph where helmet are best at preventing injury.

I've dropped this conversation for a while now but I thought a few might like to know how that court challenge to BCs helmet law turned out.

After the judge heard all the evidence he said that he doesn't believe that there is a "safety in numbers" effect for cyclists, or that ridership in BC has decreased because of the law, and despite his acknowledgement of there being much evidence that questions the efficacy of bicycle helmets, he felt that because majority of the literature he reviewed still supports the conclusion that helmets are beneficial in reducing head injuries and saving lives, the law will continue to stand.

So keep it up Helmeteers, the "evidence" (often not evidence at all, often merely supposition) you provide leads to laws for all.

No helmet, no bike. It's for our own good.

The best argument I've seen for not wearing a helmet (lol):


not that I agree with it exactly but in a way it's perversely true...


This site has probably been posted in the thread already but it's pretty good pointing out pros and cons for helmet use. After reading the site my thoughts move more towards the not use side of the equation but I'll still personally use one.
http://cyclehelmets.org/1139.html

Except that significant protection from full-face motorsports helmets is clearly demonstrable. If the same were true for bicycle helmets, then again, this thread would not exist.

And again, nobody is arguing that helmets cannot prevent injury. The argument is that bicycle helmets are unlikely to prevent severe and/or fatal brain injury. The argument is also, of course, that riding around below 15 MPH is generally so safe that trying to protect yourself from severe and/or fatal brain injury doesn't make any more sense than it does while walking, bathing, or sleeping.