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 03-21-14, 10:00 AM
  #7251  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,917

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,496 Times in 1,019 Posts
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
However, experience with numerous bicycle incidents has shown that what was thought to be impossible happens all too often.
Nobody, except you, is claiming what is "thought to be impossible".

Responsible Hazard Analysis and Risk Management Plans are evaluations and subsequent plans to deal with hazardous events and their credible results. The risk evaluation process and its results are worthless if only the worst case scenario (catastrophic severity of injury) is considered as the only credible outcome, no matter what the probability. The resulting recommendations are even less than worthless when the recommended control (bicycle helmet) is incapable of mitigating the severity of that worst case scenario.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 03-21-14 at 10:04 AM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-21-14, 01:32 PM
  #7252  
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Nobody, except you, is claiming what is "thought to be impossible".

Responsible Hazard Analysis and Risk Management Plans are evaluations and subsequent plans to deal with hazardous events and their credible results. The risk evaluation process and its results are worthless if only the worst case scenario (catastrophic severity of injury) is considered as the only credible outcome, no matter what the probability. The resulting recommendations are even less than worthless when the recommended control (bicycle helmet) is incapable of mitigating the severity of that worst case scenario.
That is not how Oregon OSHA and Federal OSHA look at things:
(1) A severity rating for each violation shall be determined by the Compliance Officer on the basis of the degree of injury or illness which is reasonably predictable. If more than one injury or illness is reasonably predictable, the Compliance Officer will determine the severity based upon the most severe injury or illness.
https://www.orosha.org/pdf/rules/divi...203.pdf#page=2
...Step 2. The most serious injury or
illness
which could reasonably be expected
to result from the type of accident or health
hazard exposure identified in Step 1...https://www.osha.gov/Firm_osha_data/100007.html
Concerning these ways of thinking, you can state that they don't apply to bicycling, but there are many of us who feel otherwise. What is the worst case injury which could reasonably be expected from a bicycle accident? Heads do hit the pavement, and that is a reasonable outcome from a worst case fall off a bicycle.

If we want to preclude bicycle/auto collisions, then we look at different types of management strategies. These, if you accept the Hierarchy of Controls, would be engineering controls by separation of bicycles from traffic. Those types of engineering controls are very expensive, and are best put into place at the design phase of a project. This is called Prevention through Design (PtD), and is one of the best practices for safety. Administrative controls could also be used, but are less effective. These include training, bike lanes (which cars ignore sometimes), and rules (passing at three feet, for instance). The lowest level of control is PPE, and bike helmets fit here. But in auto/bike collisions, because other types of injuries can be life-threatening in these cases, they may be less effective; however, in leu of other controls, bicycle helmets can help. Someone above described being hit by a car on his back wheel, thrown for 20 feet in the air, and not having a head strike--that is the luck of the draw. He could easily heave been killed by that accident too.

By the way, no more pronouncements from you...if you have documentation to back up your assertions, show them, link to them; otherwise, your input here is useless.

John

Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 03-21-14 at 04:26 PM.
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 03-21-14, 05:07 PM
  #7253  
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

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1024 Post(s)
Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
What a reputable hazard analysis must take into account when determining the likely results of a hazard are the credible probabilities of various types of injury severity that would result from various events. Not just the worst case scenario; this is not a chemical plant or nuclear reactor being evaluated.
.
So, 10,000+ falls off a bike in 1 month where the person gets up, looks around embarrassed and gets back on the bike and rides off should count more than...
say 100 that result in going to the emergency or
say 10 deaths or brain injury sufficient to alter ones life...?
350htrr is offline  
Old 03-21-14, 08:18 PM
  #7254  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,917

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,496 Times in 1,019 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr
So, 10,000+ falls off a bike in 1 month where the person gets up, looks around embarrassed and gets back on the bike and rides off should count more than...
say 100 that result in going to the emergency or
say 10 deaths or brain injury sufficient to alter ones life...?
You can "say" anything you like with any numbers that come to mind and you might come up with the right ones. You might even guess a perfect bracket on basketball pool. When your mind is made up before hand what the conclusion AND solution should be, you probably qualify for the Ratliff School of Hazard Analysis Smoke Screens.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-21-14, 11:21 PM
  #7255  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
Six jours, that was meant to be somewhat cynical but humorous pun of the comments you (plural use) have been using against those that feel bicycle helmets have value.
Well, it obviously went completely over my head, and still does. In the past, I have often felt that you are wrong but still well-intentioned. Now, I don't know. One of us has taken a turn off into some pretty outrageous territory, and in all candor, I don't think it's me. As always, you are welcome to whatever protective gear you feel appropriate, but as an argument for everyone else to use it, I think you are farther away than ever.
Six jours is offline  
Old 03-21-14, 11:32 PM
  #7256  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
...if you think it is a reach to plan for the worst case, I cannot dissuade you.
Worst case is being hit by a semi at freeway speeds. So in worst case, using a bicycle helmet as mitigation is laughable.

So what the pro-helmet crowd is actually doing is not "worst case" analysis but rather "particular case" analysis. IOW, "If an accident happens in a very particular way, with not too much energy involved, but not too little either, and really just for certain kinds of blunt (not too acute, now!) impacts, where rotational forces aren't significant, and the face, neck, vital organs, etc. are not involved, a bicycle helmet can help, maybe, not that you'll really be able to prove it one way or another. Therefore, you are an idiot if you don't use one."

I personally find this less than compelling, especially when accompanied by the usual ration of smug helmeteer bull****.

But hey, maybe another study will finally convince me.
Six jours is offline  
Old 03-21-14, 11:44 PM
  #7257  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Responsible Hazard Analysis and Risk Management Plans are evaluations and subsequent plans to deal with hazardous events and their credible results. The risk evaluation process and its results are worthless if only the worst case scenario (catastrophic severity of injury) is considered as the only credible outcome, no matter what the probability. The resulting recommendations are even less than worthless when the recommended control (bicycle helmet) is incapable of mitigating the severity of that worst case scenario.
In a previous life, I taught an EMT course. One of my more "special" students one day asked how he should treat a head injury caused by a fall. I explained it to him and then he asked, "What if he fell from a great height?" I explained that to him, and then he asked "Well, what if he fell from an overpass, and then got hit by a car?" So I again went over the likely injuries and how to treat them. Then he asked "And what if he fell from an overpass onto a train track and then was run over by a train?" I made some comment about bending over and kissing one's ass goodbye. He did not really see the humor in that, although it shut him up, which was largely the point by then. I now wish that I had simply recommended the use of a bicycle helmet, as they obviously are suited to even the wildest of worst case scenarios.

I mean, hell, it was on a chart and everything, right?
Six jours is offline  
Old 03-22-14, 12:18 AM
  #7258  
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Six jours
Worst case is being hit by a semi at freeway speeds. So in worst case, using a bicycle helmet as mitigation is laughable.

So what the pro-helmet crowd is actually doing is not "worst case" analysis but rather "particular case" analysis. IOW, "If an accident happens in a very particular way, with not too much energy involved, but not too little either, and really just for certain kinds of blunt (not too acute, now!) impacts, where rotational forces aren't significant, and the face, neck, vital organs, etc. are not involved, a bicycle helmet can help, maybe, not that you'll really be able to prove it one way or another. Therefore, you are an idiot if you don't use one."

I personally find this less than compelling, especially when accompanied by the usual ration of smug helmeteer bull****.

But hey, maybe another study will finally convince me.
Again, you (plural) need to read what I have written. Let me re-quote it:
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
Concerning these ways of thinking, you can state that they don't apply to bicycling, but there are many of us who feel otherwise. What is the worst case injury which could reasonably be expected from a bicycle accident? Heads do hit the pavement, and that is a reasonable outcome from a worst case fall off a bicycle.

If we want to preclude bicycle/auto collisions, then we look at different types of management strategies. These, if you accept the Hierarchy of Controls, would be engineering controls by separation of bicycles from traffic. Those types of engineering controls are very expensive, and are best put into place at the design phase of a project. This is called Prevention through Design (PtD), and is one of the best practices for safety. Administrative controls could also be used, but are less effective. These include training, bike lanes (which cars ignore sometimes), and rules (passing at three feet, for instance). The lowest level of control is PPE, and bike helmets fit here. But in auto/bike collisions, because other types of injuries can be life-threatening in these cases, they may be less effective; however, in leu of other controls, bicycle helmets can help. Someone above described being hit by a car on his back wheel, thrown for 20 feet in the air, and not having a head strike--that is the luck of the draw. He could easily heave been killed by that accident too.
Emphasis added for this rendition.
We both have something in common; we have both taught EMT classes. I was a USAF Pararescueman for almost ten years too. During that time, we would have UTAs (or Unit Training Activities). We would be given a problem, and we needed to penetrate into the accident scene (either by helicopter hoist or parachute), render medical aid, and evacuate the injured. We had trainers who would go around and give us scenarios on-the-spot. One would call himself "Fate," and one would call himself "Luck." We would be treating, and Dave would say, "As Fate would have it, your victim started vomiting..." Or George would say, "As Luck would have it, your victim just stopped breathing..." They would impose these worst-case scenarios into our problems, so that when we really had to render aid, we would be prepared.

This is what I am trying to do here, prepare people for the worst-case scenarios for bicycling. There are many things that can be done, as outlined in the quote above. But wearing a bicycling helmet helps avoid what to me is unnecessary injury potential in the event of a fall, whether it is because of a bicycling mistake, equipment failure, fellow cyclist's bump (happened to my son while racing--threw him into a fence and onto the ground, which broke his helmet), or a car/truck interaction.

When I was in the USAF, we wore helmets all the time except on water missions (where we went into the water). They really do help in numerous situations.

John
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 03-22-14, 12:31 PM
  #7259  
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

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1024 Post(s)
Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
You can "say" anything you like with any numbers that come to mind and you might come up with the right ones. You might even guess a perfect bracket on basketball pool. When your mind is made up before hand what the conclusion AND solution should be, you probably qualify for the Ratliff School of Hazard Analysis Smoke Screens.
I was trying to gauge what you thought was more important/benificial to concentrate on as in "trying to increase safety"...
1; no need to worry, something like 1,000,000+ people ride every month.?
2; 10,000+ fall but nothing happens so no need to worry.?
3; 100 people go to emergency...? Not nessearially a problem?
4; 10 deaths or brain injury sufficient to alter ones life...? 10 deaths out of a 1,000,000 is nothing,(more people die in the shower)?

Last edited by 350htrr; 03-22-14 at 01:47 PM. Reason: spelling
350htrr is offline  
Old 03-22-14, 01:16 PM
  #7260  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,917

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,496 Times in 1,019 Posts
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
That is not how Oregon OSHA and Federal OSHA look at things:


Concerning these ways of thinking, you can state that they don't apply to bicycling, but there are many of us who feel otherwise.
By the way, no more pronouncements from you...if you have documentation to back up your assertions, show them, link to them; otherwise, your input here is useless.

John
Is that so? And if I don't comply with your command to not critique half backed baloney from people "who feel otherwise" about sticking to the subject?

Here is documentation of controls implemented by people "who feel otherwise" just like you, and as relevant (actually more relevant) than your insertion of a OSHA "documentation" smoke screen into the discussion.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
OSHA2.jpg (94.5 KB, 16 views)

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 03-22-14 at 01:19 PM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-22-14, 07:02 PM
  #7261  
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Is that so? And if I don't comply with your command to not critique half backed baloney from people "who feel otherwise" about sticking to the subject?

Here is documentation of controls implemented by people "who feel otherwise" just like you, and as relevant (actually more relevant) than your insertion of a OSHA "documentation" smoke screen into the discussion.
There is no compliance, and no command; simply logic. Some cowboys are now using helmets too.

By the way, the OSHA Cowboy has been around at least since the early 1980s. Posting the OSHA Cowboy shows that you really don't have a serious point of view; you'd rather mock things than discuss them. The OSHA Cowboy is somewhat off the subject too.

John
https://www.thirdage.com/files/origin...-louis-528.jpg

Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 03-22-14 at 07:25 PM.
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 03-22-14, 08:06 PM
  #7262  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,917

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,496 Times in 1,019 Posts
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
There is no compliance, and no command; simply logic. Some cowboys are now using helmets too.

By the way, the OSHA Cowboy has been around at least since the early 1980s. Posting the OSHA Cowboy shows that you really don't have a serious point of view; you'd rather mock things than discuss them. The OSHA Cowboy is somewhat off the subject too.

John
https://www.thirdage.com/files/origin...-louis-528.jpg
Perfect! Off the subject? ha,ha. As if YOUR introduction of OSHA Compliance rules for job sites, and worst case scenarios for Industrial complexes with an almost unlimited capacity for colossal disaster in the discussion of bicycling risk was not weird enough. Now it is helmets for riding Bulls in the rodeo.

I previously decided that discussion with the dingier posters on this thread a waste of time. I think I gave you too much credit.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-22-14, 08:47 PM
  #7263  
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Perfect! Off the subject? ha,ha. As if YOUR introduction of OSHA Compliance rules for job sites, and worst case scenarios for Industrial complexes with an almost unlimited capacity for colossal disaster in the discussion of bicycling risk was not weird enough. Now it is helmets for riding Bulls in the rodeo.

I previously decided that discussion with the dingier posters on this thread a waste of time. I think I gave you too much credit.
You brought up cowboys, not me.

John
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 03-23-14, 12:37 AM
  #7264  
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,784

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26077 Post(s)
Liked 9,991 Times in 6,940 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

I previously decided that discussion with the dingier posters on this thread a waste of time.
........ .... I think I pee'd myself a little bit.
__________________
3alarmer is online now  
Old 03-24-14, 06:56 AM
  #7265  
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,852

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3259 Post(s)
Liked 1,035 Times in 620 Posts
It Monday. I still believe the ave cyclist is safer if they wear a helmet. It time for the usual anti helmet types to post their personal insults towards me. Have at it boyz make yourselves look silly!!!

Last edited by rydabent; 03-24-14 at 05:23 PM.
rydabent is offline  
Old 03-24-14, 07:32 PM
  #7266  
Senior Member
 
ZmanKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 799

Bikes: 1999 Giant TCR 2T 2009 Giant Cypress DX 2015 Giant Anyroad 1

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
It Monday. I still believe the ave cyclist is safer if they wear a helmet. It time for the usual anti helmet types to post their personal insults towards me. Have at it boyz make yourselves look silly!!!
Sillier than a 70+ year old man using "boyz"?
ZmanKC is offline  
Old 03-25-14, 07:15 AM
  #7267  
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,852

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3259 Post(s)
Liked 1,035 Times in 620 Posts
zman

At 75 most others here are boyz when compared to me.
rydabent is offline  
Old 03-25-14, 09:03 AM
  #7268  
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332

Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
I wear a helmet when cycling because the law says I have to, but probably wouldn't if it wasn't mandatory. I understand wearing a helmet is about mitigating risk, not eliminating it. I also know from my personal experiences riding motorcycles a helmet can provide useful protection if you go down, and always wear one by choice.

That said, I can't see any reason or logic in the arguments against wearing a helmet other than simply not wanting to.
kickstart is offline  
Old 03-25-14, 09:13 AM
  #7269  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,365

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

Mentioned: 138 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5605 Post(s)
Liked 2,232 Times in 1,251 Posts
Originally Posted by kickstart
I wear a helmet when cycling because the law says I have to, but probably wouldn't if it wasn't mandatory. ....

That said, I can't see any reason or logic in the arguments against wearing a helmet other than simply not wanting to.
OK, I credit you as a logical, intelligent person aware of the implications of your choices. Therefore (discounting the law) I suspect your reasons, like mine, are more than simply "I don't want to" and involve an assessment that the risk of head injury when bicycling is low enough not to warrant needing a helmet. Said risk assessment is made in the context of other risks you manage daily.

BTW- I know that many here would put folks who pass on helmets on the spot and ask us to justify not wearing one. IMO- this turns logic on it's head, because not having a helmet is the status quo, so the burden is for helmet advocates to demonstrate the risk level, and the reduction that helmets offer. For my part, I don't concern myself with the 2nd part because I don't feel the first hurdle has been cleared.

OTOH- this is a strictly personal decision based on an assessment of my own risk levels. When folks ask if they should wear a helmet, my standard answer is that if they're asking, then they don't know, so they should wear a helmet until they decide that they're safe enough without one.
__________________
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 03-25-14, 11:04 AM
  #7270  
Senior Member
 
curbtender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Posts: 8,613

Bikes: Miyata 618 GT, Marinoni, Kestral 200 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina, Miyata team Ti, Santa Cruz Highball

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1562 Post(s)
Liked 2,394 Times in 1,145 Posts
That's funny, nobody here really has to prove anything, just posting personal choices. I'm thinking the anti-helmet crusaders just want to keep that right. I'm ok with that.

Last edited by curbtender; 03-25-14 at 03:02 PM.
curbtender is online now  
Old 03-25-14, 11:12 AM
  #7271  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,365

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

Mentioned: 138 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5605 Post(s)
Liked 2,232 Times in 1,251 Posts
Originally Posted by curbtender
That's funny, nobody here really has to prove anything, just posting personal choices. I'm thing the anti-helmet crusaders just want to keep that right. I'm ok with that.
With maybe an exception here and there, I don't think the term anti-helmet applies to anyone. Those dubbed anti-helmet, simply aren't pro helmet, or not pro helmet enough.

For that reason I consider the concept of anti-helmet a nonsense way to try to put people on the defensive here. It's akin to call those who aren't 100% anti-abortion pro abortion.
__________________
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 03-25-14, 01:09 PM
  #7272  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7147 Post(s)
Liked 133 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by kickstart
I wear a helmet when cycling because the law says I have to, but probably wouldn't if it wasn't mandatory. I understand wearing a helmet is about mitigating risk, not eliminating it. I also know from my personal experiences riding motorcycles a helmet can provide useful protection if you go down, and always wear one by choice.

That said, I can't see any reason or logic in the arguments against wearing a helmet other than simply not wanting to.
I wear a helmet when cycling even though there's no law saying I have to. I have a very good understanding of the protective capabilities of bicycle helmets. I know from my personal experiences riding and crashing motorcycles that a motorcycle helmet can provide useful protection if you crash. Also, that there is no correlation between the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets and bicycle helmets.

There's a big difference between cycling and motorcycling, between bicycle helmets and motorcycle helmets. I don't compare the protective qualities of one against the other because it would be ludicrous. I wore a bicycle helmet out of habit because I came from a motorcycling background, but was soon here disabused of the notion that bicycle helmets provided even a fraction of the protection a MC helmet does.

Still, what meager protection a bicycle helmet might afford in the rare case that I crash on a bicycle, and in the rarer case that said crash involves a headstrike, is worth it to me.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 03-25-14, 01:11 PM
  #7273  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7147 Post(s)
Liked 133 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by FBinNY
Those dubbed anti-helmet, simply aren't pro helmet, or not pro helmet enough.
I've been called anti-helmet even though I wear a helmet nearly every time I ride...

"Do as I do, not as I say."
mconlonx is offline  
Old 03-25-14, 03:47 PM
  #7274  
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

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by FBinNY
...
BTW- I know that many here would put folks who pass on helmets on the spot and ask us to justify not wearing one. IMO- this turns logic on it's head, because not having a helmet is the status quo, so the burden is for helmet advocates to demonstrate the risk level, and the reduction that helmets offer. For my part, I don't concern myself with the 2nd part because I don't feel the first hurdle has been cleared.
...
Please name two "folks" here who ask you to justify not wearing a helmet. I ask for two because you mention "many here" and I can only think of one here.

Originally Posted by FBinNY
...
OTOH- this is a strictly personal decision based on an assessment of my own risk levels. When folks ask if they should wear a helmet, my standard answer is that if they're asking, then they don't know, so they should wear a helmet until they decide that they're safe enough without one.
I think that most of us helmeteers have no issue with anyone making the helmet decision for themselves. We do object to the Bare-Head Brigade occasionally telling inquiring noobs that they are better off without a helmet. It is rare. This statement shows you not to be one of "those."

Originally Posted by FBinNY
With maybe an exception here and there, I don't think the term anti-helmet applies to anyone. Those dubbed anti-helmet, simply aren't pro helmet, or not pro helmet enough.

For that reason I consider the concept of anti-helmet a nonsense way to try to put people on the defensive here. It's akin to call those who aren't 100% anti-abortion pro abortion.
I don't disagree with this statement. However, I think your characterization of what the pro-helmet posters demand or think of you is based on a similar delusion, just from the other side.
MMACH 5 is offline  
Old 03-25-14, 03:57 PM
  #7275  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,365

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

Mentioned: 138 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5605 Post(s)
Liked 2,232 Times in 1,251 Posts
Originally Posted by MMACH 5
Please name two "folks" here who ask you to justify not wearing a helmet. I ask for two because you mention "many here" and I can only think of one here.
I may be wrong here, and may be projecting the constant (more than once per day in season) harangues from cyclists met on the road onto this thread. But without scrolling back, I'm fairly confident that more than one posters here has characterized "anti-helmet" posts very negatively.
__________________
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  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

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