No more or less true with the changes I've made. Seeing the point here yet?

again. . . A WASTE OF TIME. the censoring the helmet discussion because it might include the ramifications of politics or health care? and then you justify your tyranny by calling it "keeping the place clean." uh huh, clean just like sterile, void of life.
I'd rather ride all day into a head wind than agree for a second that the moderators do anything but stagnate and sterilize the flow of ideas around here. Sorry nannies but you're fired. I've got a flat fix anyway.

The point you appear to be making is that if a person is not going to wear EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PROTECTIVE GEAR, then a helmet is pointless. Got it.

More like: most of the reasons people give, for all the good helmets might or might not do, also apply to other protective gear; all the reasons people don't want to wear a back protector, knee, hip, and elbow guards on a regular basis also applies to helmets.

So, like I said, "if a person is not going to wear EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PROTECTIVE GEAR, then a helmet is pointless." Wear them all or make no claims of a helmet being worthwhile. Thank you for reiterating the point.

I reread the post a couple of times and, no, I don't appear to be making that point.

No, there's differences between what I posted and what you posted.

This is fun, keep it going guys.

It is! Will do!

Then please explain how what I posted is different.
It would certainly appear that in order to counter a pro-helmet post, the argument was being turned back on that poster that his/her claims also applied to back pads, elbow pads, etc. Clearly, the implication was that if he/she is going to encourage the use of helmets, then certainly he/she encourages the use of these other pieces of safety equipment. Otherwise, his/her pro-helmet opinion is invalid and we can all dismiss it.
The bare-head brigade has vehemently dismissed arguments that mention seatbelts, because it is not a fair comparison. This is the same unfair comparison, only the door swings the other way.

Ryda isn't participating in a thousand page thread about insulting helmetless cyclists because he thinks helmets offer slight protection. Ryda is participating in a thousand page thread about insulting helmetless cyclists because he thinks helmetless cyclists are suicidal idiots. So Ryda's post about helmets being worthwhile if they offer "even the slightest protection" is hypocritical, because Ryda isn't calling people names for not wearing elbow pads.

The two issues are nothing alike, because the evidence for seatbelts is clear.

My way, riding with a helmet is not pointless even if you are not wearing all the other safety gear...

Who is the safer rider?

Rider A) Wears a helmet. New hybrid, new rider. Casual rider, rides on sunny days, commuted to the office once, does some short shopping trips on the bike.

Rider B) Does not wear a helmet, rides a 20 year old road bike, been riding for more than three decades, commutes, tours, rides in all weather and conditions.

And your point is?

What if rider b has been lucky? What if rider a is unlucky? You cannot ascertain the future of rider a's safety record until you have 20 years of data as you have with rider b. Nor is there any recording of rider b's safety record which could be dismal or it could be steller. Your question is absurd at best.

mcconYour point if flawed. It is the same as saying you flip a coin 10 time and it came out heads every time. You then ask what are the odds on fliping the 11th time. They are still 50-50. So to answer your question, the odds of either of them having an accident is equal. Accidents can and do happen to anyone.

Several years ago an English rider was killed while riding in the TDF. Im sure he was a very experience rider.

You really do talk some nonsense, don't you? There has only ever been one English rider die in the Tour de France, and it was 46 years ago. He was indeed a very experienced rider - an ex world road racing champion, in fact - but your argument is somewhat undermined by the fact that he died not in an accident, but of heart failure caused by dehydration, brandy and amphetamines near the summit of Mont Ventoux. It isn't easy to see how a helmet would have made any difference to the outcome.

And as it happens, the incidence of fatal crashes in professional races has risen slightly since helmets became compulsory. I wouldn't make anything of this - the numbers are too small to be statistically significant - but the fact that deaths were so rare before the introduction of helmets testifies to the fact that even at the highest, most competitive, and some ways most dangerous levels of the sport, serious head injuries are rare.

Now, to the silliness of your response to mconlox. Crashing on a bike is not arbitrary, like tossing a coin. Your chances of crashing are heavily influenced by your experience, skill, judgement etc. So the cyclist with a long history of riding safely, while not invulnerable, is indeed much less likely to crash than the new, young, foolish or drunken rider. For most of us, riding a bike is just not dangerous enough to require protective equipment.

chasm

It was Tom Simpson. And it was an accident. And yes it was from booze and drugs. It still was an accident since I dont think he intended to kill himself.

Care to comment on the fact that either example rider has an equal chance to have an accident?

You redefine the term disingenuous, don't you? He may have "accidentally" killed himself, but he died of heart failure. This is a helmet thread. The fact that he wasn't wearing a helmet, and was an experienced rider, had absolutely no bearing on his death and zero relevance to the subject of this thread.

Reread my previous reply. The last paragraph deals with this point. To suggest that good riders have the same chance of an accident as bad ones is plain stupid.

Infuriatingly maddening, isn't he?

Maybe he's thinking of Wouter Weylandt, the Belgian cyclist who was killed in the 2011 Giro d'Italia.

Doubt it.

I'm not talking about comparable safety records in the next [x] timeframe; I'm not talking about the odds of getting into an accident.

The answer is Rider B). Riding experience trumps a helmet where safety is concerned. Helmet might help in certain situations, but not getting into those situations is more important...

Which will keep a new rider safer on the road?

A) Paying $75 for a mid-range helmet.
B) Paying $75 to attend an LAB Traffic Skills 101 class.

Paying $150 and cover both sides of the equation.

*ding, ding, ding*

Winnah!

But your example is flawed as Rydabent pointed out. Your logic is assuming that rider b has never had an accident and thus with his experience and safety record he would be safer then rider a...duh! But that still doesn't mean that tomorrow rider b goes out and has a not at fault accident that gave him severe brain damage or death due to failure to strap on a helmet. Not all accidents are the riders fault, and that's another flaw in your logic, your assuming he's never going to crash because he's never going to be at fault, you left out the other guy entirely.