There are people (here, certainly) who think that helmets cause problems (not just "overrated"). That is, that people are worse off for using them.

Some of those people seem to talk about "choice" as a form of "concern trolling".

Many of the "big names" representing the "anti helmet" position here cast a "critical eye" on "pro helmet" research (sometimes usefully) but assume that, if something is anti-helmet, it must be true. Many of them use the same sorts of bad and dishonest forms of arguments that they accuse "pro helmet" proponents of using.

(Whether or not they could constitite a "gang" is arguable and likey moot.)

It's probably not a good idea to assume that what people do in this dopey thread has any correspondence to what people do in real life.

If folks have a real concern about possible negative consequences of helmet use, why wouldn't that be a legitimate topic of discussion here?

OTOH- what I see here is a large number of "don't be caught dead without your helmet" posts which sound more like the kind of thing I hear shouted at me on a daily basis.

I don't enter into the technical argument of helmet benefits or drawbacks since I've already made a personal decision that (for me) the risks don't warrant wearing a helmet.

OTOH, given the large number of times I'm yelled at on the road, and the tone of many of the posts here, I have serious concern about the reliability of the "I'm not in favor of mandatory helmet laws" posts here.

There's lots of room for serious and honest discussion about helmet design and whether or when helmet use is indicated, but the vast bulk I see here from helmet wearers is "if you don't wear a helmet, you're an idiot, and all I'll do is shout at you until you break down and start wearing one.

(Some) people assume that negative consequences are "certain" (not merely "possible"). No one is saying that it's an illegitimate topic (how else could you make things better?).

Anyway, the point I was making...

People who feel there are "negative consequences" (who clearly exist) are the "anti-helmet gang" you are calling "no such thing".

There are those and people should stop saying stuff like that.

This is a wacky thread. There was a poll here about MHL (which I inspired) and the number of people for them was very, very small. It's not supportable to assume that people have a position they haven't said they hold. The other problem with the MHL argument is the assumption that anti-MHL research is anti-helmet research.

There isn't much "serious and honest" discussion here about the "cons" of helmets either. (I ignore the ""if you don't wear a helmet, you're an idiot," arguments. That's easy to do because it's obviously bad.)

...look at where you live. People are gonna yell at you about something.:D

Amazingly, not. Poeple in the New York area have so many daily interactions with others that we generally mind our own business, otherwise we'd go nuts. (more than we already are)

prefer a Picklehaube

I guess we are all/mostly "pincko communists"....

I don't know about that, but you lot do seem to have spelling issues.

Re. mandatory helmet laws... I am seeing a lot of posts demanding that we all agree almost nobody here is in pro-helmet law. I am starting to wonder at the motivation of such posts/posters, because it's been quite a while since anyone claimed otherwise. Responding to every pro-choice post with "But almost nobody here is arguing for helmet laws!!!" is disingenuous.

But to elaborate on FBNY's post, I strongly suspect that what "But almost nobody here is arguing for helmet laws!!!" actually means is that BF helmeteers aren't actively pursuing helmet laws but would be perfectly fine with their passage and quietly satisfied with their existence.

Yes, the issue isn't necessarily whether bicycle advocates are in favor of mandatory helmet laws, but what they would say if public hearings were held on the subject. When laws like this are proposed there's usually a period of public hearings (show trials). Often these are poorly publicized with insiders such as perceived "spokespeople" or "leaders" within the affected class getting advance notice or invitations to speak on behalf of their "constituency". So the question is, would a bicycle who's a dedicated helmet wearer, and believes they saves lives (assumption based on the fact that they wear one) speak for or against a mandatory use law?

When Westchester Co. NY proposed a mandatory use law, most of the bicycle community"spokespeople" offered support speaking of possible lives saved. It was the outsiders who tended to speak in opposition, and ultimately is was the police who killed it because they saw an enforcement nightmare.

If we look at places where there are mandatory use laws in the USA, we see many cities with active bicycle advocacy and often salaried bicycle advocates. Coincidence?

...did you just call me disingenuous ? .............. seriously ?

I can only speak for myself. I'm a helmeteer and participated in several bicycle committees, here in Dallas. During this time, the city's all-age MHL had been declared unjust by the courts and was not being enforced. At one committee meeting, we found out that the court ruling had been overturned on appeal, so enforcement would restart. The question was put out to us of whether the committee should endorse this decision (and say so at a city council meeting). Several of us voted to not endorse the law. We were out voted. My regret was not coming prepared to make an argument against the law (I was absolutely surprised to hear the higher court had overturned the decision).

Now that Fort Worth has a fairly successful bike-share program, there is talk on the Dallas city council about starting one in Dallas. Is there anything that will kill a bike-share faster than MHLs?
There has been some rattling about the city starting up another bicycle committee and I've applied for it. Hopefully, we can get this law taken from the books.

Many of us helmeteers really are quite displeased with the existence of MHLs.

(Edit) oops. I managed to contradict myself by starting out with, "I can only speak for myself" and ending with an overly generalized, "many of us helmeteers really are..."
For that I apologize.

The problem was that people ASSUMED they knew what opinions their opponents had. That's not an exceptable way to argue. And FACTS proved that assumption to be wrong.

This is basic stuff and people were warned about it. Yet, you continue doing it!

:rolleyes:
Sure, what you should do is imagine what your opponents are thinking and speak for them. Ridiculous.

This is interesting (though, more detail is needed).

But it also is putting words in people's mouths by suggesting that all/every "bicycle advocates" has the same opinion (which is incorrect).

There is lots of "bicycle advocacy" in NYC but no (adult) helmet law.

FB

The good news is that out in the real world I do NOT yell at people on bikes to wear a helmet. Also out in the real world people do not stop me and tell me that I am a stupid ninney for wearing a helmet, because some obscure person with an agenda says wearing a helmet is dangerous and worthless.

All of that only occurs on this forum.

If I was at a meeting where MHL was being discussed I would say no for adults yes for kids... What age? I don't know, up to... 12, to 16.?

EDIT; Oh I never told or even suggested to anyone that they should wear a helmet that I seen on the street, (except my son)

Oh I see, because humans are carnivores, and since most humans eat meat, we that do are all haters? Nice, real nice, you just called about 99% of the readers here haters. It seems your the real hater, hater of mankind.

I suspect that position is fairly common. Some of the more rabid anti-helmet people here seemed to have no problems with kids using helmets (it's not clear whether they would object to MHL for children).

...this level of crazy makes me very uncomfortable. So long for a while.

No, I say you are a fanatic because your arguments generally go this way:

Fanatic. Hyperbolic. Over the top to the point that anyone who discounts your arguments is probably smart to do so.

I'm with him.

I think that whatver could be said here has been said. Nobody is going to change his opinion, and the thread is now reduced to entrenched positions hurling verbal artillery at each other across a DMZ.

FWIW, since people may have lost track, as evidenced by posts in the past few pages, I am pro-helmet, wear a helmet 99% of the time I'm riding a bicycle, feel naked on a bike without one.

Part of it is that I am very unconvinced by arguments put forward by the bare-head brigade, part of it is following up on pro-helmet-use studies, and part of it is just the fact that I like helmets are relish a legitimate chance to wear one.

But that's just where I'm coming from. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine by me. Come into the shop where I work and ask if you should get a helmet, and I will spend as much time as you can stand going over the pros and cons (thank you BF helmet thread!) but ultimately point out that they are not required and it is up to you to ride with one or not. I am charged with selling accessories as part of a bike sale, I will mention helmets in the same breath I mention cycling computers, water bottle cages, and fenders. But if someone says "Well, I guess I should be safe and get a helmet," I will tell them the truth -- helmet does not equal riding safety. It can be useful in some situations, but the biggest benefit will be not having morons yelling at you to "wear a helmet!" The most honest way I sell them is as fashion accessories.

I'm also a cycling advocate, have attended Bike Summit a few times and make sure I attend anything up for consideration at the state level when committees open a bill for public comment. I stay current on governance as it relates to bikes in the various municipalities I through which I bike regularly as a commuter, and if cycling needs representation, I will attend and speak at meetings. Most recently, I was up in Augusta, speaking before a committee, talking down a motorcycle MHL... which ultimately was killed in committee. At Bike Summit last year, I was thrilled that AAA sent a representative to say how pro-cycling they are becoming, but was dismayed that they seem to be pursuing an MHL agenda -- watch for that at your local and state level, fight it.

And for those questioning my reading comprehension, tests indicate that you are wrong. I graduated with a BA in English and work in publishing, where I typeset, proofread, and edit text professionally. If you question my reading comprehension, well... people pay me well for my ability and a few snarky online insults regarding such only make me smile.

I have very little tolerance for idiocy in politics, and that's what I see here, all the time, perpetrated by those I've labeled fanatics. You don't have to be on one side or the other to be a moron, all you have to do is write in public for the world to make up their own minds...

I'm still wondering about your sudden change from semi-reasonable poster to whiny little girl. If I had your email addy I'd send you a note about your account being hijacked.