Six jours

The problem with that is that it prevents the general membership from seeing any kind of rational discussion re. helmets and their role in bicycle safety. Simply dumping any discussion containing the word "helmet" into the A&S cesspool means that nobody but us handful of lunatics is ever going to see it.

It's too bad that helmet threads can't be allowed to stand on their own, at least unless/until they get out of hand.

MMACH 5

Thank you, Six.
I wasn't trying to defend us Helmeteers. My attempt was to point out that the complaint being put out there applies across the board.
Friendly fire is usually ignored, (i.e. - Helmeteers ignore when someone inserts pro-helmet-speak where it doesn't belong, while Bare-Headers ignore someone trivializing helmets when not germain to the conversation). Opposing opinions tend to be exaggerated - again, across the board.

rekmeyata

You just like twisting words, if they don't agree with you you twist the words to fit your needs, I tried to explain it, then MMack 5 tried to explain it, you don't get it because you want to twist it, sorry but you lose this argument by a huge margin.

350htrr

I think there IS a big difference when talking about riding a bike safely, what it takes to ride safely, and being safe (safer) on a bike in a crash, because you wore a helmet, or elbow pads, or wrist guards, or body armor... And because they are not exclusive of each other when there is a crash we have this thread... If you don't think you will ever have a crash then you are going to care less about PPEs...

rekmeyata

This is a brain on pot.

350htrr

No, A few beers... But if you read it carefully and pause at the commas... It should make some sense, maybe, theoretically...

mconlonx

Here, let me parse it a bit more succinctly:

Helmets have little to do with safe cycling.

Do you agree or disagree?

njkayaker

Injury-mitigating equipment has nothing to do with avoiding collisions. No one is suggesting that it does.

You either like arguing against stawmen or you have comprehension issues.

mconlonx

We've gone over my mad reading comprehension skillz previously and they have been demonstrated as superior.

But if we're talking strawmen, tell me where I referenced collision avoidance, exactly...?

So you agree that helmet use has not only little, but "nothing" to do with safe cycling? Thank you.

njkayaker

That isn't true since you are obviously having difficulty understanding rekmeyata and MMack 5 are saying.

Since you don't think "safe cycling" is "collision avoidance", you are using some private meaning that no one else has any idea about. You need to define what the heck you think "safe cycling" is!

No, I didn't say that. No one knows what you mean by "safe cycling".

MMACH 5

I'm pretty sure he understood my comment. He responded a bit sarcastically, but I think he understood it.

njkayaker

Apparently, to him, "safe cycling" isn't "crash avoidance".

They have nothing to do with "how safely or dangerously you operate this equipment".

Since that should be obvious, it can't be what people are talking about when they are recommending helmets. So, then, what the hell is he ranting about?

I'm assuming you meant to use "relevant"?

rekmeyata

Just another reminder of what you said, and now you changed what you said.

MMACH 5

Actually, no. I was trying to convey the similarities, in this very specific situation. Whether helmets, seatbelts or goggles are effective in protecting the wearer is irrelevant.

I'll try to explain it, here: These three are effective in varying degrees, when called upon (thus, not similar). Their effectiveness is not relevant to this comparison, (the Bare-Head Brigade use this to debunk arguments comparing seatbelts and helmets - and rightly so). None effect how safe the user operates his or her equipment so this is the similarity they share. So, whether they are effective when called upon is irrelevant. What IS relevant in this specific situation is their similar inability to effect safe user operation.

njkayaker

"This very specific situation"??? What the hell is that?

**********?? Who the hell is arguing that they "effect how safe the user operates"?

(Actually, the so-called "Bare-Head Brigade" do frequently argue that helmets cause cyclists to ride in an unsafe manner.)

This is badly written. Since the object of "effective" is not stated, it would seem to be referring to the object mentioned in the prior sentence ("reduce injury").

"Effective" at what??? "Irrelevant" to what?? "reducing injury"???

Helmets could only possibly be effective at "reducing injury". They have nothing to do with "safe cycling" (no one is saying that they do!). So, effective can't be referring to "safe cycling".

"very specific situation"???? Again, what???

**********

This either doesn't make any sense (it's too vague) or it's a strawman. No one is saying that helmets have "an ability to effect safe user operation".

HBxRider

281 pages of debating, and not a single mind changed. Keep trying. I'm sure it will happen someday.

350htrr

I thought I cleared, explained this whole mess up, with ^^^...

mconlonx

Not having any difficulty at all with what they are saying, compared the the difficulties you have, placing my comments in context to them.

Hint: "collision avoidance" is only one part of safe cycling.

Safe cycling: riding within the bounds of state vehicular code, local considerations, and not crashing. Which helmets have little to do with, unless there is an extant MHL in effect to a rider's local area.

FBinNY 

Not as long as the attack crowd makes reasonable discussion nearly impossible.

Sadly, there are topics that warrant intelligent debate, such as changes in helmet technology. But that will never happen because a small number of people are so busy parsing sentences, looking for snippets that can quote oout of context and attack. They make anybody foolhardy enough to post anything that might be of interest regret getting involved.

To anyone who actually cares about helmets, other than wanting to say "a helmet saved my life yesterday" I suggest you look for another forum.

mconlonx

From what to whither? And did change in wording substantially change my meaning?

mconlonx

My mind has been changed because of this thread. I've said this bluntly a few other times. In this thread.

However, my helmet use has not changed. I wore a helmet while riding before I ever stumbled onto this thread; I still wear a helmet while riding since I've read and participated in it.

Where it has made a drastic difference is in my perception of how helmets can help and how they can't. I was wearing helmets for the wrong reasons, now I wear them for the correct ones. Many of the assumptions I'd made or been led to believe regarding helmets and cycling safety/injury mitigation were wrong. I am a much more educated rider and consumer due to this thread.

But maybe you just haven't been paying attention?

3alarmer 

...helments.

FBinNY 

Just for you, Mike.

I crashed the other day, and survived without a helmet.

3alarmer 

...you are mistaken. This is like the third or fourth incarnation of the helment thread. Please pay attention.

3alarmer 

...thank you, Jesus !