Hmmm, not sure how that relates since writing on this forum is not my job and thus I don't get paid and therefore I have no reason to care nor the time to care. But whatever you want to call me that's fine if it makes you feel like your a bigger man then I am.

I do not know if any potential attacking dragons wear helmets or not. Thankfully, my proven rune-covered ward has kept them at bay thus far. I'll let you know if this changes, but so far, my posting here seems to be living proof that these runes do, in fact, ward off dragons rather successfully.

Please PM me if you'd like a copy of these runes. Damn dragons could swoop down at any moment.

...all of which just goes to show that wearing a helmet affords zero protection against missing the point.

UM, Yea, some people actually "try to understand" what another person is trying to say. And then there are others that deliberately are trying to be "obtuse"' about the wording of what was said.... JMO. :rolleyes: I'm sure MOST people understood what I actually meant to say...

In all fairness, I read your post three times. The final time I really put in some effort, but the last line in particular left me with - seriously - no ficking idea what you were trying to say.

Toss me in the crowd that says you should wear a helmet.

As a kid, we rode all over the neighborhood and no one wore a helmet (not sure they had even been invented yet). Cycled the roads all over this hilly city for years as a teenager. Looking back, I consider myself lucky. Some where in the 20's I started wearing a helmet. Don't recall why. I know my mom was glad that I did... she might have even paid for it.

The day the helmet saved me was the day I was coasting down the gravel road from Peevine Falls in Oak Mountain State park. I was coasting at about 20mph when I started to brake to slow down a bit. Hit a bump and bounced one of my hands off the handle bar (if I hadn't been trying to brake with those old style canteliver brakes, I wouldn't have crashed). I went flying off the bike and somehow turned and landed on a combination of the shoulder (broke my collar bone) and helmet.

The helmet had MAJOR structural damage, and there was a nice gouge in the sell from the sharp edge of a piece of gravel that would have ripped my scale open (at the very least) if it wasn't for the helmet. The helmet did its job well enough that I never lost conciousness, nor had any symptoms of a concusion.

While not as important as a helmet, I also don't ride without gloves. I've experienced the pain of tearing up my palms from even a minor wipeout. But more frequently, I've experienced the protection of my palms because I now ALWAYS wear gloves.

After all, if you are taking a spill from a bike, you're most likely to either stick out your hands to catch yourself (so you need the gloves) or if you can't get your hands out in time, your likely going to hit your head.

Of course I can't force anyone else to ride with helmet and gloves... well, no one besides my kids.

Well, lucky in the sense that you are one of millions of people who have collectively cycled billions of miles without a helmet and didn't die from it, anyway.

Since becoming an adult, I've ridden a mountain bike in Oak Mountain State Park for a total estimated distance of about 3,000 miles (that's about 16 million feet). For most of that 16 million feet, my helmet did absoulutely nothing for me. But for that 20 feet (+/-) I travelled during my crash where I landed on my head/shoulder, the helmet saved me major injury and possibly saved my life.

I'm "lucky" that I never happened to have a 20 feet of travel like that during my rides as a teenager.

So from my point of view, riding a bike without a helment is like playing a game of Russian Rulette... except rather than one gun with 1 bullet among 6 chambers, your playing with a thousand guns, only one of which is loaded with 1 bullet. With that setup, the odds are that you will come out of that game alive. But the same can not be said of everyone that plays the game.

Gee such intelligent comments, I've known people who have driven hundreds of thousands of miles without a seat belt and never died either so I guess that makes a great argument for not wearing a seat belt.

Yep, but seat belts keep you locked in on hard turns... I've used my helmet to hold my gloves and skull cap while I wait for pastry and a coffee. Really don't want it used for what it's purpose is, but it's there, just in case.

In the first place, you have completely missed the point of the post you are replying to. In the second place, you give no sign of having read and understood the arguments that have been rehearsed so many times in this thread.

As it happens, were I a mountain biker I would wear a helmet. In the context of my cycling on roads, the chances of my having an incident in which a helmet might matter, are much lower. And this has nothing to do with Russian Roulette, but with an understanding of the limitations of helmets.

OK, did some "gram-er" fixing. Maybe make more sense now.?

That analogy applies whether one is wearing a helmet or not; you can still get killed while cycling even if you do wear a helmet. Even should we suppose that helmets are really effective in reducing the risk of mortality while cycling, at best the helmet adds some unloaded guns to the mix--it doesn't take the one with the bullet away.

See charts in post 5124 to see why this analogy doesn't work.

No, actually. But it does solidly demonstrate, to me at least, that you have absolutely no idea what you're doing here.

Well, I guess I better pack my bags and leave as I can't seem to get my point across... :rolleyes: Wear a helmet, just in case your head bounces off the pavement. It's better than not wearing a helmet when your head bounces off the pavement.

:thumb: Well played.
I can appreciate someone that makes a good and logical counter-point regardless of their position in a debate.

You get your point across just fine. You just don't have anything to support it, and can't seem to understand that just stringing words together doesn't make a convincing argument - or even a coherent sentence.

I have linked this before but... http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm Seems like way more people die that aren't wearing helmets than do wearing helmets... AND compounding that, way more people are wearing helmets than don't wear helmets, so... Those number of people that die not wearing helmets should be lower but are not, in fact they are much higher, 4X+ higher... :twitchy:

This is because you refuse to acknowledge that those not wearing helmet may be inherently unsafe riders in the first place, regardless of helmet use. Think about the people you see not wearing helmets -- most of them are not the bare-head brigade who hang out here with an informed view, they are usually people doing other stuff wrong on the road. Like riding wrong way in traffic, crossing in cross walks, riding at night without lights, running red lights, etc.

A less safe rider is more likely to die, helmet or not.

I agree with what you say about the less safe rider, and the bare-head brigade here... My point is that WHEN a bare head bounces off the pavement it has a higher chance of more injury/dieing than when a helmeted head bounces off the pavement. There would need to be 4 times as many bare-header riders over all to even out the odds... At the top of this page (poll) the numbers do not say that there may be 4X more bare-headers than helmeted riders out there in general... In fact it shows the exact opposite... EDIT; If you are saying that the numbers of more bare-headers dieing are skewed because more inexperienced riders ride helmetless than helmeted, I don't know, but that is a big assumption. JMO

You couldn't actually believe the self selected poll respondents of this (or any other) BF poll represent in any way, the bicycling population of anywhere.

Good one, that is the most ridiculous assumption posted on this thread. :lol:

Certainly you weren't serious, were you?

I don't really believe any poll/statistic is "accurate", but it (the poll) probably not any different than any other statistic that has been used in this thread, there's always an agenda... :innocent: It is interesting that the % in the poll here almost mirror the % of helmeted, non-helmeted or unknown in that link I posted...

Oh, puh-lease. Pretty much everyone on this forum, by definition, is going to care more about advocacy and safety than your average bear. If you consider this sample anywhere near insightful into anything other than demographics of bikeforums.net, you're more delusional than I gave you credit for.

Are you being intentionally obtuse, disingenuous, or are you really this disconnected from reality?

:thumb: