There is little to back up this assertion ... as you well know. Serious head injury rates were observed to rise in Australia following the widespread use of helmets. Often our "expectations" are incorrect.

Lawyers. I'll bet most of them don't cycle. But they are involved when a cycling club incorporates. And when weighing the likelihood of a lawsuit against their client, they calculate that their chances of winning are higher if they have safety standards written into the by-laws of the club. If the club has no safety rules, regardless of how effective they may or may not be, the odds of them being sued and losing that suit are likely higher.

It's obvious. Rider A hits the ground first (larger diameter of helmet ensures this) and absorbs a disproportionate share of the energy. Rider A's helmet (engineered as it is to deform at low velocity impacts) catches the rough road surface and effects an increased twisting motion causing a broken neck.

Rider B heads to the emergency room and has the irritating b*gg@r amputated.

There's nothing to invalidate this assertion either. Note I specified less than serious head injuries. Even if it only mitigates bruising, laceration, and abrasion, it's still more protective, and still, as I said, marginally safer.

I'm for mandatory helmets! Why not? The law requires we have to wear seat belts, all but 3 states require motorcyclists to wear helmets, so why should cycling be any different? You can argue about rights all day, but that argument is false because we don't have the legal right to not use seat belts, or MC helmets in 47 states.

Claiming that a proposed new law is justifiable because there already are similar existing laws is nonsensical. The argument says nothing at all about the quality of the new law, or even of the old one.

I live in one of those states without mandatory MC helmet laws. One came up again this year and it was shot down. We'll do the same with bike helmet laws.

Until all motorists are required to wear helmets, until one cannot be on a public road in or on a vehicle without a helmet, cyclists should not be forced to wear them.

Nope, when the clubs I've been involved with incorporated there was no mention made of helmets. And when the clubs discussed riding rules there were no lawyers present (unless some of the cyclists happened to be lawyers).

Well, then there you go. You must be right. Every cyclist, everywhere is secretly wishing there were mandatory helmet laws. :rolleyes:

The fact you're pointing to something ryda said as a point in your favor is something that should give you pause.

That's not what was said. What was said was the much more reasonable statement that many do. I don't think that's all that earth-shattering considering how heavy "helmet culture" is here. Or for that matter, how we've become such over-the-top safety freaks in every aspect of life.

Because cycling makes people live longer, and MHL's are proven to drop cycling rates? That alone seems pretty compelling.

The statement of many was made in response to my comment that I couldn't recall anyone in this thread calling for MHLs. The point got rather derailed and I'm partly to blame for that. I then devolved to exaggeration and sarcasm. For that, I do apologize. :)

Woah--that kind of statement has absolutely no place in this thread. You take that back right now! :lol:

Someone posted their belief that Ins companies dont require bike clubs to require riders to wear helmets on their rides. That may or may not be true. Lets say they dont. But if a rider gets hurt on an organized club ride and sues, you can bet your bottom dollar the Ins Co's lawyers will claim they dont have to pay because it was proven the rider didnt wear a helmet.Look at a lot of accident cases. There have been cases where drunk drivers have hit a cyclist on the sidewalk, and the courts either let the driver go or gave him a slap on the wrist because the cyclist that was killed WASNT wearing a helmet.Everything else that is argued in this thread aside, wearing a helmet is some protection in the courts if an accident happens.

Any references for these "cases"? Besides your imagination.

Seriously... wth are you trying to do to this thread?!?!?!?! :p

Sorry, guys. It was late. I don't know what I was thinking. :)

I likeJust read some of the threads on this forum and others. Several mention that the driver, some drunk, that hit a cyclist got off easy because the cyclist wasnt wearing a helmet. The drivers lawyers always claim that since the cyclist wasnt wearing a helmet he was partly responsible for his own death!! Purely stupid I know but thats what happens in many cases. And what makes it really stupid is the fact cyclist were killed riding on shoulders, bike lanes, and even on sidewalks. The sorry fact remains, courts really dont give cyclist much justice, especially if they are not wearing a helmet.

What is really stupid is believing everything someone reads on BF, the Internet or any other unverified "source." The rumor and gossip doesn't become any more true just because it agrees with his/her preconceived notions.

i likeWell-- how about an actual case in the papers here in Lincoln. About 3 years ago a judges wife hit and killed a cyclist waiting to make a lefthand turn at an intersection. This was on a 4 lane street, and he was in the left lane waiting for traffic to clear. The city Att "decided not to prosecute".

Because the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet?

does anyone here know in person someone that would "survive" or would have gotten out easily if they wore helmet?

Hey, Ryda - There was a case here where the rider was intentionally struck by a motorist and the motorist was let off without even a warning, because the cyclist was wearing a helmet which was supposed to save his life.

And you know my story is true because you read it on the internet.

I asked that question in a poll on the road forum a while back. Before the moderators shut it down, nearly half of participants claimed that a helmet had saved their lives.