Now that's just crazy talk.

Only to people who can't really drive too good... :twitchy: Still a better idea than wearing helmets in the car for normal driving... ;) Just like handrails in the shower seem like a better thing, instead of wearing helmets in the shower like some around here are suggesting... :bang:

So when are you going to post the good question?

In a rational world, this post would be the end of the discussion.

Except for Canadians, I guess, who seem to like the alternative just fine...

Since when is the A&S part of the rational world? :)

Well, that's why the discussion will continue.

And continue, and continue, and continue...:lol:

Reality...will almost always win out, in the end, your head bounces off the pavement without a helmet the answer will be clear, to most people who survive with some brain activity... It's almost always better for the head/brain when that happens with a helmet as compared to without the helmet... It's just is the way it works, it's almost supernatural, will it save your head under any condition? No, so F' it some people are saying, but, really? Anyone who says that when a head bounces off the pavement it will be just as well off without a helmet is a... wait for it... A MORON... JMO... :twitchy: That is now including my son, :( who stopped wearing a helmet because it didn't help when he got a pipe in the forehead, and crashed... :twitchy:

Seriously, what the hell is it with Canadians anyway?

Maybe Canadian reality is different than my rationality.

Maybe I'm dealing with someone who seems to have lost a few IQ points when he hit his head on the pavement... And I can only think, what would have happened if he wasn't wearing a helmet? I suspect it wouldn't have turned out any better, probably worse, so that is why I am on here to say, and keep on saying wear a helmet, it might not save you from everything, but I think it's better with a helmet than without, when head meets pavement... :cry:

OR maybe you cannot see that there are other opinions just as legitimate as yours? Hit your head lately?

+1 (From a fellow, irrational Canadian :thumb:).

FB

While going to grandmas I drive a car with roll over standards, wear seatbelt and shoulder harness, and have an airbag in front of me. That is 4 safety devices, and there are more. So--------------wearing a helmet while cycling is not a big deal.

Really-----------what is the bottom line here of riders that dont want to wear helmets. Are they too vain, have a hairy chested idea they are such good rider, or simply dont understand the fact that the unexpected can happen to anyone. If a helmet only prevents road rash to the head isnt it worth wearing one.

FB

BTW we all pay dearly thru the nose in the price of a car for all the safety equiptment that the Fed b'crat nannies ordain that we must buy on our cars. And yet-----------------just like cyclist that wear helmets that get killed, some 30,000 drivers are killed every year. Forty bucks for a helmet that can and does prevent some injuries is pretty cheap in comparison.

This false assumption, over and over again. I'm not intending to single you out, because the same thing is in a line of posts but yours is the most succinct so I quoted it.

"When your head bounces off the pavement". You're assuming that anyone riding a bike is going to fall, and anyone falling is going to bash his head on the ground. It isn't true.

Wouldn't it be safer to NOT bash your head on the ground in the first place? Can you at agree that if the rider is someone who doesn't bash his head on the ground then the helmet is pointless? Or, say, if his chances of hitting his head are the same as getting shot by a stray drive-by bullet, that it makes the same amount of sense to wear a Kevlar vest as it does to wear a helmet?

Certainly I agree that if you don't hit your head you don't need a helmet and it's superfluous, and if you do everything right and don't fall you don't need a helmet, and if you are a good rider that follows the rules of the road you are less likely to need a helmet for all these reasons.... But... You know s*** happens... And no I'm not assuming everybody will hit his head at some time, but some people certainly will, and what I meant to say was "if" your head bounces of the pavement... As for wearing a Kevlar vest, normally I wouldn't, but if I was a cop I would... Everyone measures their chances of injury differently depending on what they are doing...

But you don't wear one on a bike do you? And you wouldn't advocate a Kevlar vest as standard reality-based cycling equipment.

It's a matter of probability, and we should respect people's own evaluations of their risks and capabilities.

I am against MHL, but I am just trying to point out that when s*** happens you would be "better" off with a helmet than without... If I was a bicycle cop I would wear a Kevlar vest and a helmet.;)

So in principle you wouldn't agree with "Are they too vain, have a hairy chested idea they are such good rider, or simply dont understand the fact that the unexpected can happen to anyone. "?

You seem to have a sensible perspective. As I mentioned, I plucked your post out to quote because it is succinct but I'm speaking in general to the false assumption, that just something that might happen is necessarily likely to happen. Or a forgone conclusion as the above implies.

No I definitely do not agree with the assessment. You have made a risk/benefit calculation and decided that helmets are warranted. That's fine. Then from that, you extrapolate that anyone who chooses not to wear one must be vain......

Has it not occurred to you that just as you've reasoned that hemlets are warranted, other equally intelligent people can reason that they're not? Nobody does every possible thing to endure maximum safety, so it's not black and white, but simply a question of where each person draws the line.

BTW- the very same maximum safety argument can be raised about bicycling in general, and maybe the government should regulate bicycles off the road entirely ---- for our own safety.

It's very simple. I respect your decision to wear a helmet without assuming you're an overly risk averse, chickenschit wimp. I ask that you likewise respect my decision without calling me vain or ignorant. Is that so complicated?

I am sure everyone understands that there's risk in everything we do, and should decide themselves what to do about it... I have lowered my expectations, as to what a helmet can do since I have been on here discussing helmet use... I have learned that a helmet is the LAST resort, one is better off learning to ride "safely" is way more beneficial overall than a helmet ever could be...BUT...

If you're talking to me, that was pretty much my point. (I was asking if he agreed with something another person wrote).

I said earlier that it's safer to NOT bash your head on the ground in the first place, and if person has a low probability of doing so then a helmet is pointless. And that we should respect people's own evaluations of their risks and capabilities. That respect should be extended to people on any side of the issue IMO.

Yeah, it's ridiculous. Luckily C&V cars are exempt. You can even legally drive a 53 Pontiac without seatbelts here. Also luckily, ABS isn't required by law.

Maybe if you ride pre-1999 bikes, helmetless riding should be an option in MHL locales :)

I'd probably only don the vest for certain calls, myself.