Six jours

Actually, part of the problem is that it does not occur only on this forum. Perhaps if you were constantly being abused, in real life, for your helmet decision you would have a bit better perspective on the debate.

Six jours

Actually, "this level of crazy" tickles me no end. IMO 3alarmer is trying too hard, but rekmeyata hit it out of the park.

Or maybe I'm just drunk.

njkayaker

More ad hominem.

rydabent

six

Where are you "abused" for not wearing helmet?

Six jours

When I'm on a bike, mostly.

rydabent

Six

Aw-------------poor baby. Where in the world do you live in the country that total strangers will "abuse" you like that?
To my knowledge it sure doesnt happen out here in the middle of the country where I live.

mconlonx 

You don't not wear a helmet, how would you know?

rydabent

mcon

Well you have a point there. When not riding alone, I ride with the local bike club, and the recumbent club in Omaha. We all value our heads enough to wear helmets all the time.

Again I might point out that I ride a recumbent, and ride a trike. Even with the recumbent being low, I wear a helmet for protection in any low speed accidents where helmet mainly work. Then there is the trike. The chances of needing a helmet while riding a trike is incredibly small. Yet I wear my helmet for the other minor reasons that having a hemet is a good idea. Mine has a visor to help shade and keep the sun out of my eyes, and also provides sun protection for the top of my head. Besides as I have posted, once a helmet is strapped on it is totally forgotten. I simply do not see any negatives about wearing a helmet.

wphamilton

If it's true that mandatory helmet use is more prevalent where there is more active cycling advocacy, and I have no particular reason to doubt it, there is one reason which strikes me as likely. Advocating for helmet use is low-hanging fruit. It's a highly visible issue, emotionally charged, and contentious yet easily understood by most people. Passionately taking up the cause, representing themselves as understanding an issue where a good portion of people are uninformed or reckless in a particular detail, seems to be a prefered tactic for people wishing to present themselves as experts. I can see how that would be attractive for those wanting to advance themselves in advocacy, primarily a political endeavor.

njkayaker

This is an important point but it might work better for people who are not bicyclie advocates. It could work against "bicycle advocacy" by annoying/alienating (many) bicyclists.

There's strong evidence that "bicycle advocacy" doesn't necessarily mean MHL. Evidence which people (including the reasonable FBinNY) are overlooking.

1) LAB encourages helmet use but (as far as I know) don't advocate adult MHL.
2) NYC (where FBinNY is from) as multiple large "bicycle advocacy" groups, none (as far as I know) don't advocate adult MHL. NYC is probably among the top 5 places for "bicycle advocacy".

(Yes, I'm talking about adult MHL, specificially. People, including anti-helmet people, don't seem to have much issue with helmet use by children and even children MHL. Interestingly, there's a lot less controversy with helmet use by children.)

====================

I'm going with "you really have no idea". You are just speculating (which is OK if you are aware of the risk and that it could be wrong). And, like sixjours and FBinNYC, you are imaging what your opponents are thinking (without letting them say what they are actually thinking).

wphamilton

I'll remind you that I did say "iIf it's true that mandatory helmet use is more prevalent where there is more active cycling advocacy" which leads me to wonder what your motivation is in saying "you really have no idea" whether it's true. Comes off as a pointless personal attack, an illogical one at that.

Regarding what they're thinking, we do see advocacy for mandatory helmet use just about everywhere. Practically every news article reporting whether the accident victim wore a helmet, because the cops writing the report present it as a critical factor. Invariably when medical professionals speak out on the subject. On and on, ubiquitously. There isn't any reasonable question about whether or not there is a strong advocacy for mandatory use; there is, obviously. The question FBinNYC posed is whether there is a correlation between MHL and strong advocacy groups, and if so why. The reason I give appears to be the most likely, until someone can present some factual information suggesting otherwise.

mconlonx 

Studies indicate than MHLs impact ridership negatively. Those "advocates" for MHLs are either misguided, or actually not really bicycling advocates, but self-appointed "safety"-advocates. They see what they think is popular, low-hanging fruit. What they frequently come up against is informed dissent from actual cycling advocates.

AAA, as I mentioned above, claim to be getting on board with cycling advocacy, but I can't see that they would advocate MHLs as policy in a vacuum--ie. they are as aware of MHLs keeping cyclists off of streets used by motorists they represent as any other player.

njkayaker

But you "have no particular reason to doubt it"!

It's a common criticism of the anti-helmet people here (you may not be one of them) that the "pro-helmet" arguments are based on guesses and lack of knowledge (among other things).

There is little actual factual basis for the notion that "bicycle advocates" are generally interested in mandatory helmet laws.

If you think about it, it doesn't really make sense that they would be.

I provided two examples that support that "bicycle advocates" might not generally in favor of MHL. Examples that FBinNY should have been aware of!

Well, you should have some reason to doubt it!

There is a lot of "pro-helmet" advocacy. Little of it (none of what you listed) is actually "advocacy for mandatory helmet use". You, like others here, are conflating the two things.

I was only questioning the assumption that it's "bicycle advocates" that are behind the "strong advocacy".

And, you really should look deeper into what you mean by "strong advocacy" too (see your, in my opinion, astute comment following).

Advocating for "helmet use" is not advocating for "mandatory helmet use".

This could mean that "strong advocacy" isn't necessary at all. Indeed, it's possible that many/most of the people who would vote for MLH don't bicycle!

No, he's assuming/guessing it's true. Which is odd, considering, there are examples from where he lives, that indicate that there isn't any general association.

==================

Exactly.

It would seem being for MHL works against "bicycling advocacy" (whatever opinions people have about helmets by themselves).

Whatever is the actual thing that is going on (we might not know), it should be clear to people that this could be the case. (But wphamilton has "no particular reason to doubt " that MHL are being pushed by "bicycle advocates".)

==================

The notion/implication that "bicycle advocates" are generally for MHL is bizarre. There might be a few or some "bicycle advocacy" groups that are for MHL but it's very obvious that some "bicycle advocates" are against MHL. It makes no sense to lump "bicycle advocates" together!

FBinNY 

I've basically sworn off this thread as pointless, but for the record, I never said (accused?) that bicycle advocates were asking or would ask for MHLs. I said they couldn't be counted on to speak against them.

There's a key difference, but the ultimate effect is the same.

The bicycle advocacy literature is rife with "always wear a helmet" advice. And most advocacy groups have a strong pro helmet stance (not pro MHL, just strongly pro helmet as a necessary safety measure).

Laws like MHLs don't need advocates to ask for them, they happen like mold on bread. Some well meaning legislator wishing to do something about the tragic loss of life thinks this is a good idea and proposes law. The literature of bicycle advocates suppots helmet use, the folks coming to testify at public hearings mostly wear helmets (or at least those with some sort of "credentials"). Those speaking against the proposed MHL will be seen as ignorant louts compared to the "experts" and voila the stage is set.

Bicycle advocacy groups don't have to ask for or even support MHLs, but they'll get them whether desired or not the same way Henry II solved his Becket problem.

BTW- I woudn't be at all surprised to see a serious attempt to pass a MHL law in NYC within the first term of the new administration. There's already a culture that decrees that any effort to expand bicycle use should be coupled with a free helmet program. It's only a hop, skip and jump from there to an MHL.

But don't believe me, nor should it matter to anyone who already wears a helmet, and firmly believes everyone else should also.

njkayaker

You said it here:

Here you are suggesting that there is a positive correlation between MHL and "active bicycle advocacy". (If they could "not be counted on", there would be no correlation. If they were effectively against them, there would be negative correlation. Of course, it's possible that MHL will be passed even if they are actively against them.)

I don't believe you have any idea whether there is an actual positive correlation at all.

The "ultimate effect" isn't necessarily the same.

If "you" keep saying that "bicycle advocates are for MHL" when they are not, then they won't be inclined to listen to "you". If "you" address what they say their position is, you are indicating that "you" are paying attention and they will be much more likely to consider "your" position.

FBinNY 

Look at the map, and search for active bicycle advocacy and you'll see a correlation. Of course it's not 100%, but it's there. Nor do I mean to imply that correlation means causation. I leave that to readers.

In any case, how do you think MHLs happen, Lighting strikes. The published pro helmet literature of bicycle advocates, and that which grows out of it is the basis used to support these proposals.

MHL's are further supported by bicycle advocates who keep repeating the message that bicycling in traffic is dangerous as a rational for demands for segregated infrastructure. One doesn't have to ask for specific action. One need only create the right climate and the weather takes care of itself.

But, let's be real here. While I don't say anybody here on this forum is pro MHL's, helmet users need to honestly ask themselves how opposed to they they are, and why. As a helmet wearer you aren't affected, and as believer that helmet use is so critical to bicycle safety (only you know how important you consider helmet use, and helmet wearers vary from a can't hurt to a absolutely critical to safety attitude) would something that got others who didn't see the light to be safer be such a bad thing. After all it's for their own good?

BTW- I know a great many helmet wearers who consider it a purely personal choice, never proselytize, and understand that reasonable, intelligent people might choose to ride without a helmet. Problem is I don't see that many posting here.

wphamilton

I'll just note that this is how I understood you, the incorrect assumptions of another respondent notwithstanding.

njkayaker

It looks like the correlation is coastal (but you'd have to look a bit deeper to really know).

And, except for some urban areas, a lot of the states that have child MHL, the populations don't ride bicycles. (And, except for maybe, NY and MA, it's not adult MHL.) It seems that many anti-helmet people have no problems with children wearing helmets. Seattle, WA is one place with bicycling advocacy that has an adult MHL.

So, you are kind-of saying that "bicycle advocates were asking or would ask for MHL".

You haven't said this but it's common for people here to guess/imply/assume that "pro helmet" people here are for MHL.

People who do that are not going to convince "pro helmet" people of anything!

If one is truly interested in convincing people, one should not keep saying that one's opponent has a position that they don't have!

I don't have a problem with this. It isn't putting words in people's mouths.

FBinNY 

I've said my piece, I have no interest in convincing anyone that I'm right. Unlike the more rabid pro helmet folks here, I don't care what others think or do. Nor do I have an interest in trying to change the minds of those who've "seen the light", something which is a waste of time.

While some here have said things to the effect that they cannot understand how anyone could be so foolhardy as to ride without a helmet, or others who feel the need to spread the pro helmet gospel, I don't have an agenda here except to suggest some respect for those who disagree.

Wear a helmet, or not, just leave me alone if we should pass on the road.

As for those who are less rabid about helmets, make your own decision, and consider my thoughts on MHLs, giving them whatever consideration you consider they deserve. We'll never know how right or wrong I am, until later on. I for one would be thrilled to be wrong in my assessment.

FBinNY 

This is the crux of why reasonable debate or discussion on this thread is nearly (or totally) impossible.

Except for a small segment who believe that the negative consequences of helmet use exceed the positive, there are NO anti-helmet people. The anti-helmet position is the creation of helmet true believers (simply choosing to wear a helmet doesn't put one into this category), who view the choice not to wear a helmet a heretic, and somehow dangerous.

This is like saying that any non-christian is anti-christian.

Nobody has ever tried to hard sell the idea that one should stop wearing helmets (expressing an opinion is different than hard selling). But many here are seriously adamant that anyone who rides without a helmet is a fool. More to the point, there are no proposals to ban helmets, yet there are plenty for MHLs and will continue to be.

So we have an asymmetrical situation, like or or lump it, but it isn't going away anytime soon.

njkayaker

Historically, these people have been the most vocal and prolific posters in these thread (it's actually appears to be shifting recently).

There are numerous of the "organ donor" argument people but their posts tend to be very short.

FBinNY 

I suggest you do a post count.

While I try to be clear about separating helmet wearers from helmet advocates, the rabid advocates don't seem to draw a parallel distinction, and prefer to see any post not in 100% support of helmet use as a post against helmet use.

njkayaker

If you count total words (over all these thread), it might not be as heavily "pro helmet" as you think. (If the post is a "organ donor" snipe, it's not a serious post.)

You don't seem to realize the same thing happens in the other direction too.

Apparently, anybody who suggests that helmets might provide some benefit is necessarily a "rabid advocate" for them (and for "mandatory helmet laws")!!

FBinNY 

No I realize that, but it's a numbers game. There are large numbers of true believers out there and on this forum, who constantly remind non-helmet wearers of their foolishness.

Try this experiment at home. I assume that everyone who reads this has ta least one friend or associate who rides without a helmet. Ask how often they are verbally accosted by strangers with the "where's your helmet?", or how often they've been asked hwy they don't wear a helmet.

Ask a parallel question of folks you know who ride with helmets.

I'll bet 10 beers to one (your word is good enough for me) that those who don't wear helmets get yelled at markedly more than those who do.

That is what makes those who don't wear helmets, not anti-helmet, but anti-helmet proselytizers.

There is a legitimate spectrum of opinion on the benefits of helmets, and the extent of protection they afford under various conditions. Likewise there's a large spectrum of opinion regarding just how safe bicycling is under various conditions, and to what extent, or where or when helmets are of greatest or least benefit.

But, it's difficult to discuss the subtleties because the rabid (not all) helmet advocates (not wearers) (it's sad that I have to keep qualifying this difference to prevent being quoted out of context) don't want to hear of any reason which might attempt to justify the choice about whether to wear one or not.

Helmets save lives has become dogma, and as long it's dogma, we can expect those less knowledgeable (legislators) to buy into the dogma and pass MSLs. Why wouldn't they? Can we count on helmet wearing bicycle advocates to enter the fray arguing that MSL's are bad law? And even if they chose to put such an argument forward, how can they square it with their stance in support of the helmets saves lives dogma?

njkayaker

Those people aren't making a serious argument. And their opinion isn't going to change. You should ignore them.

It's actually the moderate people who you should address. And "you" have to be careful not to assume they hold a position they don't hold. Otherwise, you are establishing that you aren't listening to their comments and make it pointless for them to take you seriously. All that moderates are likely to see is that "you" think they are the ones yelling at you.

Which means you should ignore these people.