Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

The helmet thread

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.
View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
178
10.66%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
94
5.63%
I've always worn a helmet
648
38.80%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
408
24.43%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
342
20.48%
Voters: 1670. You may not vote on this poll

The helmet thread

Old 03-09-14, 06:17 AM
  #7126  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,518
Liked 1,478 Times in 1,023 Posts
Originally Posted by Six jours
This is BS.
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).

Originally Posted by Six jours
You either like arguing against stawmen or you have comprehension issues.
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:

Originally Posted by mconlonx
Originally Posted by rydabent
How did you become anti helmet?
Reading pro-helmet nonsense in this thread.
Originally Posted by Six jours
Short version:

Who is safer - the cyclist who understands his vulnerability on the bike, or the cyclist who thinks his magic hat makes him "safe"?
This is a silly statement.

Originally Posted by Six jours
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 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.

Last edited by njkayaker; 03-09-14 at 07:23 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 03-09-14, 07:51 AM
  #7127  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Liked 1,057 Times in 636 Posts
At least a drunk riding at night with no lights and no helmet has an "excuse".
rydabent is offline  
Old 03-09-14, 10:40 AM
  #7128  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,849

Bikes: 27 speed ORYX with over 39,000Kms on it and another 14,000KMs with a BionX E-Assist on it

Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
Skye is anti-helmet. So is closet biker (in a concern troll way). So was meanwhile. And anybody calling them "magic hats". People have short memories.
+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..
350htrr is offline  
Old 03-09-14, 11:15 AM
  #7129  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by 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).
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.

Originally Posted by njkayaker
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).
This is a silly statement.

Originally Posted by njkayaker
You have a short memory too:
Ad hominem.
Six jours is offline  
Old 03-09-14, 08:17 PM
  #7130  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
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:
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.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 03-10-14, 05:11 AM
  #7131  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Bay area, Florida
Posts: 217

Bikes: '09 Diamondback Insight 1, '05 Trek 3700 ( now a hybrid street/cross trail bike), (Vintage model) Kent Supreme 10 speed road cruiser, BMX (just for fun), Trek Multitrack 720 and a homebuilt recumbent low-rider.

Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr
Certainly true... BUT, loosing $ at the roulette table is also less serious than loosing brain cells/memory/getting a concussion/getting a big cut on the old noggin... It can change your life... Thus my risk factor includes wearing a helmet to mitigate some damage. Will it stop all damage? I hope so, but probably not...
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.
fire is offline  
Old 03-10-14, 08:27 AM
  #7132  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,849

Bikes: 27 speed ORYX with over 39,000Kms on it and another 14,000KMs with a BionX E-Assist on it

Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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

Last edited by 350htrr; 03-10-14 at 10:32 AM.
350htrr is offline  
Old 03-10-14, 10:45 AM
  #7133  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Bay area, Florida
Posts: 217

Bikes: '09 Diamondback Insight 1, '05 Trek 3700 ( now a hybrid street/cross trail bike), (Vintage model) Kent Supreme 10 speed road cruiser, BMX (just for fun), Trek Multitrack 720 and a homebuilt recumbent low-rider.

Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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...
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.
fire is offline  
Old 03-12-14, 06:58 AM
  #7134  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,518
Liked 1,478 Times in 1,023 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.

Last edited by njkayaker; 03-12-14 at 07:10 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 03-12-14, 07:18 AM
  #7135  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,518
Liked 1,478 Times in 1,023 Posts
Originally Posted by Six jours
Originally Posted by 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).
This is BS. You have no basis for "many riders" at all.
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".

Originally Posted by Six jours
Short version:

Who is safer - the cyclist who understands his vulnerability on the bike, or the cyclist who thinks his magic hat makes him "safe"?
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".

Originally Posted by Six jours
As far as I've seen the helmet wearers are the ones falling off their bikes on a regular basis.
You see people falling off there bikes on a regular basis? Really?

Originally Posted by Six jours
This is a silly statement.

Ad hominem.
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).

Last edited by njkayaker; 03-12-14 at 07:32 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 03-12-14, 08:42 AM
  #7136  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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."?
mconlonx is offline  
Old 03-12-14, 09:23 AM
  #7137  
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Posts: 3,777

Bikes: Dulcinea--2017 Kona Rove & a few others

Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by mconlonx
..."I wear a helmet nearly every time I ride a bicycle."?
Then you must be in favor of MHLs.






KIDDING!
mconlonx, you're one of the most reasonable contributors to this cesspool of a thread.
MMACH 5 is offline  
Old 03-12-14, 10:51 AM
  #7138  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by MMACH 5
Then you must be in favor of MHLs.
WHAT?!? I can't believe you'd say... (oh wait, there's more...)










Originally Posted by MMACH 5
KIDDING!
mconlonx, you're one of the most reasonable contributors to this cesspool of a thread.
Heh. Good one. Had me going for a split second there...
mconlonx is offline  
Old 03-12-14, 09:21 PM
  #7139  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by 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 BS.

Originally Posted by njkayaker
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".
Incorrect.

Originally Posted by njkayaker
You see people falling off there bikes on a regular basis? Really?
Really. And it's "their".

Originally Posted by njkayaker
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).
Ad hominem.
Six jours is offline  
Old 03-13-14, 07:20 AM
  #7140  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Liked 1,057 Times in 636 Posts
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.
rydabent is offline  
Old 03-13-14, 08:40 AM
  #7141  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
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.
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?
mconlonx is offline  
Old 03-13-14, 12:33 PM
  #7142  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Liked 1,057 Times in 636 Posts
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.

Last edited by rydabent; 03-13-14 at 12:37 PM.
rydabent is offline  
Old 03-13-14, 12:39 PM
  #7143  
Clark W. Griswold
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: ,location, location
Posts: 14,251

Bikes: Foundry Chilkoot Ti W/Ultegra Di2, Salsa Timberjack Ti, Cinelli Mash Work RandoCross Fun Time Machine, 1x9 XT Parts Hybrid, Co-Motion Cascadia, Specialized Langster, Phil Wood Apple VeloXS Frame (w/DA 7400), R+M Supercharger2 Rohloff, Habanero Ti 26

Liked 4,346 Times in 2,902 Posts
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.
veganbikes is offline  
Old 03-13-14, 12:53 PM
  #7144  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 39,241

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Liked 3,087 Times in 1,700 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline  
Old 03-13-14, 01:59 PM
  #7145  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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 is offline  
Old 03-13-14, 02:03 PM
  #7146  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by veganbikes
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.
You know this, how? Because if flies in the face of what is actually known about the protective capabilities of helmets.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 03-13-14, 08:11 PM
  #7147  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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 is offline  
Old 03-13-14, 08:15 PM
  #7148  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by 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?
Originally Posted by rydabent
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.
IOW, "No, I can't."
Six jours is offline  
Old 03-13-14, 08:50 PM
  #7149  
Clark W. Griswold
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: ,location, location
Posts: 14,251

Bikes: Foundry Chilkoot Ti W/Ultegra Di2, Salsa Timberjack Ti, Cinelli Mash Work RandoCross Fun Time Machine, 1x9 XT Parts Hybrid, Co-Motion Cascadia, Specialized Langster, Phil Wood Apple VeloXS Frame (w/DA 7400), R+M Supercharger2 Rohloff, Habanero Ti 26

Liked 4,346 Times in 2,902 Posts
Originally Posted by 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?
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?
veganbikes is offline  
Old 03-13-14, 09:22 PM
  #7150  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Liked 1,057 Times in 636 Posts
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.
rydabent is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.