Look at the poll at the top of this thread. If the thread were about MHLs shouldn't MHLs be in the thread title or the poll?
Of course not. There is no debate there. There should be no MHLs and 99% (I made up that percentage) of people on this forum agree with that.

If you want to start a thread about bike safety and not talk about helmets, then it should probably not say anything about helmets... It should say from 1 to 10 or whatever, that to be a safe bicycle rider one should 1; learn and follow rules of the road, 2; improve bike handling skills, 3; signal, 4; have lights...

Fun facts:

Fact 1: In my home country Germany, the Bundesland (=state) of Baden-Württemberg (10 Mio people, 376 Billion € BDP, home of Porsche, Mercedes-Benz and Bosch) released their official traffic statistics 2013. In that year, 70% of all killed cyclists rode without a helmet. Thing is, Baden-Württemberg is far from having a 30% helmet quote. Lifesaver?

Fact 2: MBE Chris Boardman, a man who might know a thing about cycling, states: "Helmets not even in the top 10 of things that make cycling safer" - read the full article at http://road.cc/content/news/111258-c...p-cycling-safe

No it's not about MHL's but the Chris Boardman comments were, and discussion of them was rapidly hijacked into this thread. I hil I agree that the great majority of helmet wearers (and by extension those who post here) are not zealots, many are. Many of these zealots fiercely claim to be opposed to MHL's which prompted my with friends like these, who needs enemies.

By aggressively stifling any discussion, and categorizing anyone or any post that is not bona fide 100% pro helmet as anti-helmet, they ensuring that there'll be no balanced discussion, and no one to speak against MHLs. In this way many of the MHL denials have the same ring of truth as Henry II's denial of complicity in Becket's murder.

This thread has the tone of a religious zealotry and I'd no more try say anything negative about helmets here, than I'd give out Planned Parenthood literature in the religious revival tent. So, to all those zealot's here, you have your wish, I won't be wasting any more words here (and wouldn't have been here if my thread didn't been hijacked).

This likely isn't possible, because someone is sure to post the "wear a helmet because mine saved my life last week" comment. Or complain that "wear a helmet" should be at the top (or someplace) on the list, or accuse me of being anti-helmet by my omission o the most important thing.

I don't debate religion, and unfortunately helmets are religion on this forum.

And there is zealotry on both sides. You've demonstrated that with your ranting. You posted a story that was clearly anti-helmet and somehow thought it wasn't about helmets (while the story pointed out other safety issues, it was titled and bent against helmets–the author knew this to be controversial, and did this intentionally).
You decry those who promote helmet use in the same way they decry those who post about helmets' triviality.

Yes, someone probably would... But as the OP you can say this is not a helmet discussion it's about what makes rides safer, how to ride safer, ways to ride safer...

Discounting that CB's comments were in context of debate about MHLs in the UK, you posit that saying that helmets rank lower in the safety equation is anti-helmet. If he had said that they were number 2 would that also be anti-helmet?, If not, where's the magic line where one might say other factors are more important than helmets?

In any case, if people want to consider anything less than 100% support as anti-helmet here on the helmet thread, that's OK by me.

OTOH it seems that one can't even say anything that might seem to be less than 100% support of helmets in other threads. I didn't post this in the helmet thread pointedly because it wasn't about helmets (#11 or less) it was about ranking other factors higher. However helmet zealots decided to make it a helmet issue.

So nothing not in support of helmets on the helmet thread, and not elsewhere either. So question---, where might one safely (omygosh) suggest that the helmet message is crowding out discussion of other safety issues?

The simple fact is that saying anything less that helmets are the be al, and end all of bicycle safety here,gets you labeled as anti-helmet. I'm anti helmet despite never once ever saying that anyone shouldn't wear a helmet.

So please pardon me when I say that I don't believe the claims of many here to not wish for MHLs. OTOH, I've yet to hear anyone anywhere suggest banning them.

Read the thread, where I clearly asked that folks do not make this a helmet thread, after someone (a mod BTW) posted his "this helmet saved me".

In the minds of many here anyone not 100% in support of helmet use is per se "anti-helmet.

Not mentioning them at all would have made it a non-helmet issue. The author of that story had 9 safety issues to write about without even mentioning helmets. He wanted to stir the nest by including them.

+1 That's why it got moved... I suspect... I don't know... I think... :p

Let's grant your premise that that was the intent of the author. Is it such heresy to post anything less than 100% support of helmet use is allowed. By your standards Tomas de Torquemada was a free speech advocate.

OTOH- Maybe every time someone mentions a helmet I should post a "a helmet didn't save my life today" post.


[h=3][/h]

...helment.

I was riding all of last week, and a helmet didn't save me, not even once.

....helments are like baby Jebus, Francis. Even if you don't think you are saved, you are.

:rolleyes:

You tried to start a conversation not about helmets by using an article that used the word "helmet" nineteen times.

Do you really think that comparing people here with Torquemada is the way to have an open discussion?

Are you serious or trolling?

The open discussion door here was closed long before I came along, and before this most was moved into the helmet thread. As for the Torquemada reference, I've been here on BF for a long time, and my experience has been that when one says things like this individuals can fairly sort out whether it's aimed at them or someone else. So odds are only those at whom the comment is aimed are likely to be offended.

A huge pile of BS! It's the same thing, you can't have it one way for helmets and another for seatbelts and airbags, these are all safety items that may help in crash but not very meaningful in the greater category of safely operating a motor vehicle on roads or highways; or: Helmet = safe riding. May help in a crash, but not very meaningful in the greater category of safely operating a bicycle on roads or trails.

It's the same thing!!

Wait. Was I supposed to be offended by your twisting my logic?

I have no idea whether they were offended (I'd guess that they weren't). It's just "over the top". You've been here "for a long time" but you don't seem to realize that the Boardman argument is old and trotted-out regularly.

It was also a crappy way of changing the "discussion" since it went on about "helmets" and "MHL" and ​failed to mention 9 of the "10 things" that were better than helmets.

Not at all. There are those who would post studies about football or skateboarding helmets here and try to make equivalencies; others who claim that if a helmet is needed for cycling, obviously they are needed for climbing ladders, showering, and just plain walking along. These have nothing to do with cycling and helmets, just like safety features in cars have nothing to do with cycling and helmets.

And that whole, pesky part about airbags and seatbelts having been proven to save lives and reduce injury, where the same cannot be said for bicycle helmets.

I think rek's point is that helmets have little to do with safe cycling just as seatbelts have little to do with safe driving just as goggles have little to do with safe power-tool operation. None of these affect how safely or dangerously you operate this equipment. They are all there to reduce injury when something goes wrong. Whether they are effective is irrelevant.

Ah. I see.

So helmets have little to do with safe cycling.

Got it! :thumb:

Sometimes that's true. More often, though, it's the "anti-helmet" people who give meaningful advice about which helmets are most effective, because they are the only ones who've actually tried to learn anything about them. The pro-helmet side comes up with meaningless platitudes and nonsense they read in Bicycling. Generally, the "anti-helmet" guys mind their manners until the helmeteers start dragging out their latest stories about the last dozen times they had their lives saved by their helmets, etc.

This. ^^

The thread was merged because the article linked to was primarily helmet-focused under the guise of general cycling safety. There was really no other discussion of what to do to improve cycling safety in the article, just a focus on helmets. Any pro or anti-helmet discussion belongs in this thread.