Six jours

So you wear a helmet any time there is a possibility of being "thrown to the ground"? Or are you just a hypocrite who chooses when and when not to wear one while complaining about other people choosing when and when not wear one?

rydabent

six

As I have stated many times I always ride with a helmet including when I am on my trike.

BTW have you ever seen a cyclist clipped in at a stop, and just fall over? As I say schidt happens. Be prepared.

Six jours

That doesn't answer the question. Unless, of course, you are stating that the only time there is any possibility of you being "thrown to the ground" is while on your trike.

Yes, I have seen that. I have seen all sorts of people do all sorts of stupid things on bicycles. "Some people are incompetent so you should wear a helmet" is no more more convincing than any of the other nonsense you post here.

rydabent

six

Are you saying that you are such great cyclist that NOTHING unexpected will EVER happen to you? Also are you such an elitist that you are saying that some people should be barred from riding a bike since they are not as competent and invincible as you are?

Six jours

You've apparently been taking English lessons from njkayaker.

Not that it will make any difference, but what I am saying is that A) I am a competent cyclist who is not at significant risk of life-threatening head injury from things like falling over at stop signs, and B) people should wear a helmet or not as they see fit, without having to put up with obnoxious and uninformed helmet bull**** from people like, well, you.

Six jours

And with that, it might be time for a re-statement of general principle:

I think the individual is the best judge of his/her own risks and abilities. I think people should be free to make an informed choice (or even an uninformed choice, if they'd prefer to just go along with whatever crowd they follow) about what (if any) mitigation they should take based upon that assessment of those risks and abilities. And I think the rest of should shut the hell up about it.

Short version: I think people like ryda should do what they think best regarding their own safety, and let everyone else do the same thing. I don't know why that's such a pipe dream, but there you go.

rydabent

six

Please inform me and others how I am "uninformed". Since I have been riding bikes all my life since I rode 2 miles to school when I was in the third grade, I say I am pretty well informed about cycling. Since I am now 75 and have tens of thousands of mile on bikes, do most of my own repair, and even assisted two of my sons while they raced, I have seen most of the spectrum of cycling. Having attended several professional bike races, mainly the Coors Classic races, I have seen even the pros crash. I remember in particular standing right in front of the start platform and seeing a lady racer slip off the side of the platform and head plant on the ground. Her helmet indeed help prevent injury.

Now--------------that said, what I find obnoxious are people that rant against helmets. If you dont want to wear one fine. But--------------why the continuous rant against helmets when new cyclist, and especially young cyclist may benefit by wearing one? Wearing a helmet is no burden at all, and some cyclist that are not as "competent" as you are may be saved from injury by wearing a helmet.

rekmeyata

So helmets are advisable for younger people due to inexperience but not older people such as yourself that are more subject to brain injury even in the slightest of falls even though your riding experience is much more but your balance is not as good as younger people? Not sure if you are meaning that, but if you are I find that wholly inaccurate...at least the last part concerning older people. Wearing a helmet does not have an age equation to it even though it is required in most, if not all states for people under 16 or 18 to wear one.

I do agree with you that if a person over 18 doesn't want to wear one then that's fine because that should be their right to choose, which is why I disagree with the seatbelt law too even though I believe in them and wear one myself, but to force someone over 18 to wear one is taking away a part of the freedom as an adult to choose what they want to do.

rydabent

rek

Actually even tho I am 75 I still have outstanding balance. I can ride off on my bent from a stand still usually on a line no more that 4 or 5 inches wide. Basically not wobbling at all.

With seat belts, I alway wear them like I wear my helmet when I bike. It is a fact that a very high percentage of people that get ejected in a crash end up dead. Again I just dont understand people that that dont use available safety equiptment.

FBinNY 

What you really don't understand is that the vast majority of the public simply doesn't give a hoot whether you understand why they do or don't act as you think they should.

Wear a helmet, don't wear a helmet, just stop the preaching to the choir. Even the choir is tired of it by now.

Six jours

First, "experienced" is not synonymous with "informed". The fact that you have ridden quite a bit does not necessarily mean that you understand much about helmets. Of course, after having spent so much time on this thread, you really should be more knowledgeable about the subject, but you seem dead set against learning anything that might change your opinion.

Second, the people "ranting against helmets" exist largely in your imagination. I have never in my life had a stranger yell "Take off your helmet!!!" at me, nor have I ever been lectured online about how important it is for me to ride bareheaded, nor have I ever been called an "idiot", "moron", etc. for choosing to wear a helmet. IOW, the busybodies are all on your side of the argument. I actually laughed out loud at your "If you dont want to wear one fine" bit. That's the attitude that your imaginary "anti-helmet" crowd is asking for from all sides, and if you lot truly believed it, this thread would cease to exist. The truth, of course, is that you don't really believe it. You see (or even think about) someone daring to ride without a helmet and simply can't resist the urge to step up on your soapbox and loudly proclaim your helmet-headed superiority while lambasting anyone who dares disagree.

Six jours

Pretty much everybody forgoes "available safety equipment". Even you. So it's not that you "dont understand people that that dont use available safety equiptment", it's that you disagree with people who don't make exactly the same choice about "available safety equiptment" as you.

rekmeyata

I agree with you, I don't know why people don't use available safety equipment either, but I don't believe we should be forced to do so.

Six jours

And again, everybody goes without "available safety equipment" for just about everything they do. That includes cycling, and that includes you. People suffer critical or fatal facial and spinal cord injuries while cycling on a fairly regular basis, yet for whatever reason very few cyclists wear face or neck protection - and nobody seems to feel the need to lecture them about it.

So what it really boils down to is that you, like every other cyclist, have made a decision about what "available safety equipment" to use and to not use. The great majority of us think that's just fine, but a handful apparently believe that their choice is the only appropriate choice and that anyone who doesn't agree needs to be lectured into capitulation.

3alarmer 

....please turn to page 32 in your hymnals. We shall now sing, 'Softly and tenderly'.

3alarmer 

rydabent

rek

Agreed. And remember I have always been on the side against MHLs. OTOH I am on the side that says logical people will wear a helmet, for several good reasons.

rekmeyata

But again it boils down to rights...our rights, if we choose not to wear a helmet that's fine, and I mentioned in the same post you took my quote from and you ignored it. Just as I think people should not be forced to wear seatbelts or risk a ticket if they fail to comply. I have the right to use or not to use available safety equipment, personally, and I said this as meaning just me thinking and not trying to lecture them as you so elegantly put it, that if it's available then why not take advantage of it.

I find it hysterical that you say I'm lecturing people to use a helmet but don't seem to think it's big brother and his police state that forces us to wear seat belts, and they lecture us all the time about wearing them, but you're ok with that? Give me a break.

rydabent

six

Your saying that most people do not use available safet equipt. How about the fact that a majority of people now wear seat belts while in their cars.

Not only do I wear a helmet, I classify my recumbents as safety equiptment. I am lower to the ground and less distance to fall, and I arrive at the scene of the accident feet first rather than head first. There are several more reasons that recumbents are safer. I can list them if you want. Just let me know.

elcruxio

Seat belts are also about general safety as personal safety. A seat belt becomes crucial immediately you have someone else in the car as it keeps you from colliding in the other person and causing injury. Also seatbelts combined with an airbag will save you in an collision which would absolutely kill without an seatbelt and likely kill you without the airbag. However if you don't use the seatbelt in said collision you would still sustain massive injuries or die as the airbag doesn't actually work without the seatbelt.

In accordance seatbelts are extremely useful in city traffic. A collision at 20mph is rarely deadly due to seatbelts but before seatbelts were common it was a different story. Try running against a wall 15mph (i'm calculating a bit of crumple zone absorbtion here hence 15mph). You hands are not going to be sufficient to absorb the impact in any way so your face is going to be doing the absorbtion with the steering wheel and windshield.

Now you can make of what you want of this but basically without the seatbelt every other safety feature built in a today's car becomes irrelevant. So seatbelt as an individual safety device becomes the enabler for a mass of other safety devices which in turn do save a lot of lives. That is the reason they are mandated.

So it's not really valid to compare seatbelts to bicycle helmets. Motorcycle helmets would be a better comparison but still the speeds a motorcycle achieves constantly are higher than those of a bicycle so a helmet and reinforced riding gear is truly called for. I know it's possible to ride down a mountain 80mph with a bicycle but for the average user a speed of 15mph is relatively high (when seeing cyclists as the vibrant mass for example copenhagen has to offer and not the hobby cyclists who think 15mph is a slow average zone1 speed)

fugue137

Do you wear a helmet in the bathroom or on staircases or when walking or driving? What's the relative likelihood of an injury in these cases vs. on a bike? Do you wear eye protection and kevlar gauntlets when chopping vegetables in the kitchen? Do you drink alcohol? Do you eat sugar or white flour? Do you sit in chairs for more than 20 minutes at a time? I just don't understand these behaviours when they're clearly less safe than alternatives.

As for "available safety equipment", there's plenty of science showing that wearing a helmet while biking doesn't make you safer. In other words, claiming that helmets are safety equipment in any meaningful sense is controversial at best.

See "Six jours"'s post as well, but I guess I'm one of the "fictional" anti-helmet people, since I've been pointing out that there's evidence that those wearing helmets probably make cycling no safer for themselves and actually more dangerous for everyone.

LesterOfPuppets

Lotta snow and ice here the last few days so I expect to be thrown to the ground while cycling.

Most cycling trips of mine aren't accompanied with expectations of being thrown to the ground. I come around blind downhill curves expecting sand, a stopped car or a deer so if they appear I'm not usually thrown to the ground. Sure there are crazy drivers around but I expect all cars to do exactly the wrong thing at any given moment so that also helps reduce throwings-to-the ground.

YMMV.

3alarmer 

...OK, the chair thing is just is just over the line and a low blow. Don't be dissin' the Barcalounger, compadre.

rekmeyata

AGAIN, I DON'T CARE!!! It's about personal freedom to choose! Sticking my finger in a light bulb socket while standing in a bucket of water has been proven to be dangerous, yet the law doesn't say they'll write you ticket if you do so, or that you have to strap yourself into a chair before doing so! Driving a car is dangerous too with or without seat belt on, so you might die sooner without the seat belt so what? it's your life, you control it, you own it, your life doesn't belong to the government and you don't need a nanny state looking over your shoulder all the time.

Six jours

I'm not talking about helmet laws, so rights have nothing to do with it. In point of fact, I don't even have the "right" to ride bareheaded without other people lecturing me about it. All I can do is mention that the lecturing A) does not induce me to wear a helmet and B) makes the lecturer look like an A-hole.

Re. seat belts, I do think it's "big brother and the police state" and I'm not actually "okay with that". I simply was not aware that I needed to include every single thing with which I am "not okay" in every post in which I complain about A-holes lecturing me about bicycle helmets in order to avoid causing you hysteria. My bad.