njkayaker

It probably isn't at all. There are many riders not using helmets who do really unsafe things (it's not of them and it may not even be most of them).

They aren't pro helmet. They aren't neutral either. To you, black is white. That they don't label themselves as antihelmet doesn't mean they aren't antihelmet (there is no straw man).

You have a short memory too:

This is a silly statement.

This is BS. You have no basis for "more often" all. As far as I've seen the anti helmet people have rarely given "meaningful" advice about which are "more effective" (meanwhile is the only one I recall). It's not common at all.

rydabent

At least a drunk riding at night with no lights and no helmet has an "excuse".

350htrr

+1, I remember those people/those days, things have changed a bit now... Helmets aren't being called useless and even dangerous so much anymore, just not very usefull and not worthwhile to have on the old noggin..

Six jours

This is BS. You have no basis for "many riders" at all. As far as I've seen the helmet wearers are the ones falling off their bikes on a regular basis.

This is a silly statement.

Ad hominem.

mconlonx

Well now, that was just a quip, signifying no general policy, merely a humorous aside.

You'll find me railing against idiot bare-headers as much as you'll find me berating moron pro-helmeteers.*

It's telling that that, considering my contributions to this heralded thread of epic proportions, you chose one quote completely out of context and made inaccurate inferences when referencing it. Typical.

_________
*Hint: you fall in one of those camps.

fire

Depends on whether you play Russian roulette, doesn't it?

I'm not sure why everyone gets so heted bout the subject though. If you wnt to we're a helmet, do. If you don't, don't.
It's a bit like gay marriaage, isn't it, if you don't believe in it then don't marry someone of the same sex as yourself, but there is no need to try to deny other people their right to exercise their freedom to do what they want to do.

Helmetcn obviously have the potential to prevent an injury, there's no doubt of that, but they don't automatically make a person a safer or more responsible rider.

350htrr

That is the problem, some of the people who don't wear a helmet justify it by saying it's useless, or even worse causes harm... I don't believe that's the only kind of information someone should make a decision with... Thus here I am saying my conclusion that a helmet is useful and if you value your head wearing one is better for it if said head bounces off the pavement... I agree doing all the other things that are involved in safe riding is good too, reducing the chance of needing a helmet is great, but...


EDIT; I don't really care if people wear a helmet or not, but the decision not to wear a helmet should not be carefully weighed... JMO

fire

I think that some people would earn more respect from those with opposing views if they showed some respect of those with a different personal opinion.

I grimace almost daily as I witness people riding in the city traffic or on busy roads, with no lights after dark, not adhering to traffic lanes, or wearing dark colours, riding against the traffic, and taking their chances riding through a red light at busy intersections.
I don't care what kind of helmet you choose to wear, but it's apparent that the saying "yopu can't fix stupid", is appropriate to those kind of riders.
Being safe isn't solely about wearing a helmet, and refusing to understand that some just don't like the feel of how it feels on their head, may seem a little overbearing when you consider all those that wear a helmet, yet still ride like morons when it comes to basic road safety.

njkayaker

It's not "out of context". You don't seem to know what that means. You say stuff that is confusing and then claim it's other people's problem.

It wasn't "humorous" either.

Anyway, the "context" of quoting you was "no one said they were 'antihelmet'". Your quote (whatever you meant by it) sufficed to dispprove that.

njkayaker

You really think it's not "many"? (I'm not claiming "most".) There is a large number of people who ride without a helmet. Even if a small percentage of them ride "unsafely", it's still "many".

This is a false dichotomy.

There's no indication that people wearing helmets ride more unsafely at a higher proportion of the population than people who don't wear them.

There clearly are "many" people not wearing helmets who think they are "invulnerable".

You see people falling off there bikes on a regular basis? Really?

This thread (and its prior versions) have numerous examples of "anti helmet" people. Your claim that they do not exists doesn't make any sense based on your participation here! If it's not a fault of recollection, it's a fault of observation (it's not a fault of lack of data).

mconlonx

It is indeed ironic that you chose previously to question my incredibly fantastic reading comprehension skillz and then post stuff like this. In fact, you are again commenting on one line of the post you quote out of context with the rest of what I wrote in a very short post. Your inference that I am anti-helmet remains incorrect.

Please quote more widely from the views I've expressed in this thread to support your assertion that I am anti-helmet. Perhaps you could start with a typical statement of mine like, "I wear a helmet nearly every time I ride a bicycle."?

MMACH 5

Then you must be in favor of MHLs.






KIDDING!
mconlonx, you're one of the most reasonable contributors to this cesspool of a thread.

mconlonx

WHAT?!? I can't believe you'd say... (oh wait, there's more...)










Heh. Good one. Had me going for a split second there...

Six jours

This is BS.

Incorrect.

Really. And it's "their".

Ad hominem.

rydabent

Brought up on another thread is the deal about cyclist involved in accidents when they are not wearing a helmet. As I pointed out you can google "cyclist at fault for not wearing a helmet". In many cases where cyclist were hit and injured, but not at fault, when the case got to court the driver's lawyer made the case that by not wearing a helmet the cyclist was at fault or partly at fault.

Like helmets or not, they can be useful and an anti lawyer device in case of an accident. BTW before replying, dont annoy us with the diatribe "I ride safe and never will get into and accident" nonsense.

mconlonx

Can you find me a case of this in the US where cyclist not wearing a helmet was found partially at fault because of it? Actually, I'd prefer you posted at least three of the "many" cases you claimed.

Because when I Google as you indicate, in the first two pages, there is exactly one case that comes up, a pending case in Germany, where the defendant's lawyer is claiming such, but for which no decision has been made.

In fact, Googling your exact words brought up an interesting examination of this on a lawyer's website:

CAN EVIDENCE BE PRESENTED TO A JURY THAT YOU DID NOT WEAR A HELMET?
If you are injured in a Wisconsin bicycle collision with a vehicle and were not wearing a helmet during the collision, it is unlikely that the jury will hear evidence of this.

ARE YOU PARTIALLY AT FAULT FOR YOUR INJURIES IF YOU DON'T WEAR A HELMET?
In Wisconsin, if you are hit by a car while riding your bicycle, there may be an issue involving what percentage at fault you were. Generally, any recovery you obtain at trial will be reduced by the amount you are determined to be at fault. (Note, this is a general rule and there are exceptions). The question is, what if you are bicycling without a helmet. Should your damage award be reduced because you didn't have a helmet on? Answer-most likely no.

So not only did I not find "many" as you indicated I would, I didn't find any in the two pages of research I put into it.

Were you just hoping no one would follow through with the Google search you suggested?

rydabent

mcon

I notice that you cherry picked a couple of cases out of Wisc. Even the were not conclusive.

In the wax an wane of life, probably most members of a jury are drivers. Right or wrong a good percentage of them hate cyclist. That means that they are liable right or wrong to take in to account the fact a cycist wasnt wearing a helmet.

veganbikes

I am sure this has been said in some form or another but "just wear a damn helmet". I had a coworker who finally started wearing helmets, crashed and luckily got away with some minor scrapes and just a very light concussion instead of serious brain damage.

MHLs are bad and I don't think it should ever be mandatory and I think we should oppose MHLs at every junction. However common sense is the way to go. I know it may not look the coolest nor does it provide the open airiness that being without a helmet does provide but it could save your damn life and is not a huge investment unless you want it to be.

However in the end it is your life, your brain and your bike.

FBinNY 

You keep citing that the cases are there if only someone will do a google search for them. Many have done as you suggested and can't find them as applied to bicyclist, in any of the 50 states here in the USA. There is one case in Germany where a cyclist was deemed 20% co-negligent, but Germany isn't one of the 50 states. So since you know of so many, maybe a single link would be helpful. Just one, please.

Now you've moved from saying there have been cases, that juries are made up of "anti-cyclist" motorists who might find the cyclist partly responsible. First of all, juries would most likely be barred from considering this for a number of reasons, the main one being let lack of evidence that a helmet would have prevented the injuries in the particular case before them.

So we're left with the inference that you may feel this way as a juror, and that's despite your claim to be opposed to MHLs.

mconlonx

I googled the phrase, cutting and pasting your wording exactly into Google.

Not one case in the USA came up, where you claimed there would be many.

I clearly attributed the quotes regarding WI to a lawyer's website, not "cherry picked" cases.

There were no cases to cherry pick from because apparently it's not an issue. You do the pro-helmet cause no good in this thread when you say stuff like this but can't back it up, and when investigated, actually proves false.

Please post a link to one court decision where a cyclist was found at fault even a little bit because they were not wearing a helmet. You claimed there were many, this shouldn't be difficult.

mconlonx

You know this, how? Because if flies in the face of what is actually known about the protective capabilities of helmets.

Six jours

Wait, so as evidence of the need to "wear a damn helmet", you post a story about a guy who was fine until he bought one and then suffered a brain injury while wearing it?

Six jours

IOW, "No, I can't."

veganbikes

Seriously??? If he hadn't worn the helmet he would have been a lot worse off. That thing did its job. The helmet took most of the impact while he took very little. Also there is more reason than that little story, that just happened to be a story I rattled off.

Why are people so anti-helmet? Do you lose hipster credits if you don't hate on helmets. Where do you spend your hipster credits? And one final question, can I get one of those fake moustaches with my credits and wear it ironically?

rydabent

veganbike

Since you posted a real world situation where a helmet did its job, notice how you are being piled on and vilified by the anti helmet crowd. It happens every time. The same usual crowd of anti helmet types would rather believe some obscure "research paper" than what happens in the real world.

Maybe if they wrapped enough of those research papers around their head they might get some protection.