FBinNY 

What I find interesting is the nonsense from folks like you who are 100% pro helmet and claim to be 100% opposed to mandatory helmet laws.

Here's a rational for those who wish to retain their rights not to wear helmets. It's not about whether helmets save lives or not, but whether helmet laws make sense.

Yet, here you are screaming, "BS" "anti-helmet" or just bloody murder.

We know you're pro helmet, and consider anything not 100% pro helmet to be anti-helmet. So why don't you cut the nonsense, be honest, and admit you're actually in favor of mandatory helmet laws. Because if you were really opposed you these laws you wouldn't be so busy shooting down arguments against them.

As for your claim that it belongs in the helmet thread, I expect it will be moved there, which would be sad. This isn't about helmets, but about helmet laws, and moving it to the helmet thread is the surest way to ensure that there's no open debate about MHLs.

It would be like insisting that all debate about teaching evolution be conducted in churches.

To the Mods, maybe we need a separate MHL thread so we can discuss this serious issue without all the acrimony we gt in the helmet thread.

JosephG

My town is mostly 25-40mph roads (40-65km/h), which is a slow moving small town. Ride is in the street, aside from park paths, riding the (small, one foot wide, maybe two) shoulder. If it were a different kind of ride, where its basically all pedestrian pathway? Eh, I wouldn't feel the same desire to wear a helmet, and I'm a safety oriented guy. I probably still would though, it really doesn't bother me to wear one.

The cities by me (and some of the larger towns) have some great bike likes, but its still connected to the roadway without any divider other than the white line. So a helmet is still a pretty solid idea to me there.

As far as the bus goes, a helmet would help if you got clipped by a bus not run over by one

JosephG

My disagreement with helmet law is more because of my political leanings than my solid belief that helmets add a level of safety for me. Just because I think its wrong to legislate doesn't mean I don't think its a good idea to wear a helmet.

FBinNY 

That's fine, but the issue is that so many who wear helmets yet, like you, are opposed to helmet laws (for whatever reason) do all they can to stifle debate on the issue. In the absence of reasonable, open debate, helmet laws get proposed and sometimes passed because somebody thought it was a good idea and nobody said (or could) say otherwise.

This country was founded on the principle of free and open exchange of ideas. Regardless of their political leanings, those who oppose debate on MHLs are for all practical purposes in favor of them. In fact the current climate has the legislative process turned on t's had.

Instead of proponents of MHLs having to make their case, it's opponents who are placed on th defensive and forced to make the case against.

JosephG

I don't think I could speak up against helmet laws by taking the opposite position I have (that I think helmets are helpful), but I can (and have) call my representative to tell them why I don't think new nanny regulation based on some-kid-acted-stupid-and-got-hurt is a good idea. I think it has less to do with informed opinions and more to do with a politician feeling like they can say "I made you safer! Think of the children!" to drum up votes.

achoo

"[J]ustify their fear of the world"????



What'd I say about making up laughable crap? You JUST did exactly that. Do you really think people wear helmets because they're "afraid of the world?

That's not just laughable, that's downright arrogant. You really think YOU know why other people do what they do?

And what'd I say about not having the balls to go without a helmet simply because you don't want to wear one? Instead of just saying you don't wear your helmet because you don't want to, you went OFF and ranted about other people trying "justify their fear of the world", then made all kinds of claims about how safe your cycling is - even when you're "wasted". (Yeah, sure, that's safe...)

Q.E.D.

achoo

There's a huge difference in the "anti-MHL" group and the "helmets don't protect you" group.

The first group is more than correct, IMO: no one has the right to force you to wear a helmet. It's your head.

The second group? There's no "debating" the most fervent advocates there. If you go and actually READ the scientific papers they claim support their position, you'll literally be laughing your ass off after going through three or four. Go look a couple of years ago in this very thread. I spent some time doing just that - actually reading the papers the "helmets don't protect you" proponents claimed supported them. After about 10 or 15 or so, the pattern was clear: the claims made about the papers supporting the position that helmets offer no protection were, to be kind, exaggerated. Hell, they were downright false in most cases.

I've reached the point I don't bother to debate the "helmets provide no protection" crowd. It's literally like I imagine debating a Flat Earther would be.

I just occasionally point out that the "helmets provide no protection" crowd just doesn't have the capacity to do without a possible safety measure without resorting to claiming it's not a safety measure.

And then watch the fun.

Jeez, they should just grow a pair and say they don't want to wear a helmet.

FBinNY 

The difference isn't as great as you posit. I don't doubt that there's a "helmets don't protect you" crowd, but I don't think it's that large. And I agree that the argument that helmets of little or no protection is ludicrous. OTOH there is legitimate debate about the extent of the protection offered, and about the real risks of head injury while bicycling compared to other everyday activities.

And there's the rub.

Fervent helmet believers shout down any debate, and simply won't accept any discussion on the issue, except for 100% support of the notion that bicyclists should wear helmets. Then they claim to be opposed to MHLs.

The fact is that there's a tremendous spectrum between the proposition that helmets can prevent or mitigate TBI in the event of a head strike (accepted proposition) and that they make enough of a difference to justify 100% use when bicycling, either through persuasion or legislation.

That's were legitimate discussion of helmets should focus. This is not a black and white issue, and one can accept the proposition that helmets offer some benefit while still choosing to not wear one. Unfortunately, the nature of the debate, or more pointedly the lack of any honest discussion means that the pro helmet, anti MHL crowd will get what they really want but won't admit --- MHLs.

JoeyBike

They don't see me long enough to make assumptions.

JoeyBike

Well...I fit into the category that does not exist.

I wear a helmet religiously - I do not want helmet laws. I have Libertarian sensibilities about such things. Even though I have also never abused drugs, I don't think the government should legislate what adults smoke, snort, or shoot into their veins unless it causes someone else harm directly (like DUI). I don't think the government should decree what sort of appliances adults should buy, use, or collect including guns, baseball bats, machetes, chainsaws, golf clubs, or Samurai swords.

I wear a helmet. I hereby, once and for all, defend everyone's decision to not wear one. I do not think you are any less intelligent than me for making your choice. It is obvious that you believe you will never hit your head, or that a helmet is a waste of time and money even if you did hit your head wearing one. I want to be free to choose things in my life and that freedom comes with the responsibly to zealously defend your right of free choice - so long as it does not directly hurt someone else. I don't buy the lame excuse that head injuries are wasting hospital beds. This is what hospitals are for - treating trauma and disease, much of it inflicted on ourselves from smoking, drinking too much, eating the wrong foods, overdosing on drugs, sedentary lifestyles, exposure to contaminants at home and work, falling off of ladders, and cracking our skulls a number of ways. I just don't want it to be me in the E.R. getting my scalp stitched up when I could be out riding my bicycle, on my skateboard, whatever - because once in a while I do fall off.

I can't be the only one here who feels this way.

Dave Cutter

You're welcome! My comment: "If a person doesn't think their brain is worth protecting... they probably know best." Isn't a new phrase... or one that takes ether side of the issue. I have no special knowledge as to who should wear a helmet... or when they might need one.

My wife and I are mutually dependent on each others health and assistance..... as are most couples. She insists that the inconvenience of my helmet wearing provides HER with a benefit. I only wear a helmet out of love and mutual respect for her. If I didn't have someone in my life who needed me to be here.... risk taking would be a non-issue.

rydabent

FB

Yes I think intelligent people wear a helmet when biking. No I dont think cycling is particuarly dangerous if you obey the rules of the road, and be vigilant. And yes I am against MHLs. Like another person posted it is mainly on political grounds. It is suposed to be a free country but some people seem to want to control others by rules, regulations and laws. We already have far to many law, rules and regulations. If some want to ride without a helmet its fine by me, I just dont think they should crusade against helmets. I feel crusading against helmets is a disservice to the young and new cyclist that probably need helmets the most.

rydabent

Being against MLHs is just plain logical. Helmet laws would be a can of worms for the police that have far far better things to do than cuff little Susie and run her in for not wearing a helmet.

FBinNY 

But that's exactly the point. You don't think people should publicly espouse opinions different than your. Totalitarian governments use the identical argument to shut down opposition press, lest it inflames the public.

I do agree that newbies probably need helmets the most, but don't think that exposure to a well balanced debate will hurt them. More likely, discussions on the benefits of helmets, and most important the limitations of those benefits will help them the most. Unfortunately the safety discussion these days is boiled down to a simplistic "wear a helmet to be safe, not wearing one is too dangerous" without regard to how to ride safely and manage the real risks of bicycling.

For the record, I'm not anti helmet (though I don't wear one), but I object to being put on the defensive about it. My standard answer if people ask whether they should wear a helmet is "if you have to ask, you should wear a helmet", but I also remind them that wearing a helmet is only a small part of staying safe.

FBinNY 

It's a bigger category than you might think. You make decisions but don't think any less of pole who make different ones. We're alike that way. You don't lecture me about helmets, I don't criticize how you ride.

It's a good attitude, and I salute you for it.

rekmeyata

More blah blah blah that makes absolutely no sense and has been covered over and over. funny thing is Cops wear bulletproof vests yet only out of 700,000 cops only 48 get shot at, not hit, just shot at, but even at 48 that's only a tiny fraction of 1% of the cops getting shot at. So why bother wearing a vest since all they do is make you hot and weigh you down? Some of you come up with the greatest examples for not wearing a helmet. Since the average person only gets into 1.7 auto accidents in their lifetime and the huge majority of these are minor why wear a seatbelt? they should also disarm their airbags.

howsteepisit

That might explain why most of the cops I see are not wearing a vest. Just like not wearing a helmet unless the specific activity is more risky than normal.

daihard 

This is pretty much what I believe today. Very well put in my humble opinion.

The county I live in has a mandatory helmet law. When I ride fast for fitness/training, I wear a helmet to protect myself. When I ride for commuting, I wear a helmet because I ride in traffic all the way. When I ride for recreation or errands, I wear a helmet to not be ticketed.

elcruxio

again talking about things you know nothing about I see. Bulletproof vests have other benefits than just being bulletproof. The whole bulletproofiness is really just a last resort. It also helps you in a fight as it protects from knife/needle stabs, hits, kicks and is a great cushion if you have to actually throw someone down and wrestle. Having worked in a profession where wearing a vest was mandatory I have some experience on the matter.

And again with the car safety devices! Do you not understand minor accidents with cars are actually surprisingly common? Airbags and seatbelts help so much that a person might walk off an accident at 40km/h. If you didn't have any of the stuff you would most likely be pretty badly hurt. Car safety devices are very, very effective at a wide range of accidents (people should still wear helmets while driving though)

to bind that to bike helmets. bike helmets are not very effective for a wide range of accidents. tgey are low to moderately effective in one type of accident and that is the linear head strike. Not that common.

CarinusMalmari

In the US of A where helmet promotion is pretty much Gospel, 70% of people IIRC say they want to ride a bicycle but say they are afraid to do so. In the Netherlands where bicycle helmet promotion is unheard of, hardly anyone seems to be afraid of cycling and everyone cycles. correlation doesn't mean causation, but the more successful a bicycle culture is, the more uncommon helmets seem to be. This is btw only true for utility cycling, Dutchies will generally don a helmet when they engage in risky types of cycling like mountain biking or racing. Be it that those activities are seen as completely different from regular cycling. It's a "driving a car" vs "Formule 1" kind of thing from a Dutch POV, with a completely different approach on safety issues.

CarinusMalmari

OMG we have a genuine "But what about the Children?!?" appeal LOL.

Well, let me play you a song of my people then. Proceed with care, because you might experience an aneurysms rupturing increase in blood pressure or something:

CarinusMalmari

It's funny, because from my POV it's the helmet-mongers that compensate for their lack of convincing arguments for wearing Magical Foam Hats by flooding these discussions with convincing but otherwise nonsensical bull****. I once wrote a bit on 5 common fallacies your ilk bore the rest of us with:

1) Dogmatic believe in effectiveness of helmets.
While I’m the first to admit that a bicycle helmet is probably better than nothing in case of an accident, they’re simply not all that effective. If you can’t tell by just looking at one, the inconclusive research and the understanding of how they work are good hints. Helmets should be viewed as an optional safety measure that somewhat increases your safety but nothing much more than that. They shouldn't be promoted as the most important piece of cycling gear and as something you can’t do without. Also, if you want something that’s really effective, consider wearing a full face motorcycle helmet for cycling.

2) Fear Mongering
Cycling is all kinds of good, and while there’s nothing really wrong with arguing helmets will make things a bit safer, the horror stories about comatose vegetables and brain splattered tarmac are not representative for cycling, nor do they prove a whole lot about cycling helmets. In fact the only thing those stories seem to be particularly good for is to discourage cycling.

3) Anecdotal “Evidence”
The anecdotes about how a cycling helmet saved someone’s life/health or how lives were lost for want of a helmet have two major problems. First of all, anecdotes in general don’t prove anything, and secondly these “anecdotes” usually aren't even really anecdotes, but mere speculations about anecdotes. Without exactly repeating the accident and adding or removing a helmet, it’s usually hard if not impossible to say what would have happened and how exactly (the lack of) a cycling helmet would have influenced things.

4) Shaming people who don’t wear helmets.
A common coercion technique that’s only really good for proving the Shamer is a rude meddling **** who has a compulsive desire to aggressively coerce others to share their delusions about the magical properties of polystyrene. They should be verbally abused until they get through their thick skulls they should stop with their obnoxious bull**** and shut the **** up.

5) Denial of disadvantages.
There are good reasons to not wear a helmet. Besides the obvious, (helmets are uncomfortable, inconvenient, mess up your hair etc.) there’s a lot of things that aren't directly related to protection of the skull. Most notably that helmets seem to discourage cycling, which is of course a huge drawback. Your typical Cycling Helmet Advocate will ignore these things or simply lie about them.

And the extra bonus: One-liners. If you express your opinion about cycling helmets is mostly or wholly through one-liners, there’s a very good chance you simply lack the knowledge and/or capacity to have a meaningful discussion about cycling helmets.

In case it isn't clear. This isn't a rant against cycling helmets it’s about the bull**** Bicycle Helmet Advocates use to convince or coerce others to wear a helmet. Also note you’re not necessarily an BHA if you simply choose to wear a helmet and/or think helmets are a good idea. It’s when you try to make your beliefs about cycling helmets someone else’s problem.

JosephG

And in the US you are on the road, in the Netherlands you ride alongside pedestrians.

What makes you think helmets seem to be the issue here? And where are you getting this 70% number from?

JoeyBike

Yesterday's ride made me remember another point regarding why i pick up a helmet instead of a regular hat.

I have already mentioned here that I am a hat wearer by nature. My helmet is just a hat that keeps my head cool, holds my rear view mirror, and stays on my head even on the most windy days thanks to a strap. And it MIGHT keep me from getting stitches in my grape 'cause I tend to fall off about once a year although, I have never hit my head...yet.

Yesterday I realized that I use two helmets - one for summer and one for winter. Countless people have asked me how I keep my head warm in the winter. That's easy - I wear a wool or fleece beanie under an insulated, wind-proof ice chest. I choose a helmet with no vents, or adjustable vents/plugs/liner so I can close off all of the vents if I want. So basically I DO have a Styrofoam ice chest on my head holding in all of my skull heat.

During the hottest part of the summer I have a helmet that is mostly vents. It weighs about as much as a baseball cap. The key to this working is a sunscreen product called Kinesis. I keep my hair really short, spray the Kinesis into my hands and cover hair and exposed scalp completely - just like applying shampoo without trying to lather it. The stuff dries fast and is very slightly oily. Give it 5 minutes to dry and towel the excess off. This lasts 5 hours, does not sweat into my eyes, and is completely invisible. Without this product I guess I would be wearing a regular cycling cap. A bud of mine wears a regular cycling cap under his summer helmet. Sounds hot but I have never tried it myself.

So this is the addition to my previous posts: My two helmets are used for temperature management during extreme weather.

elcruxio

I once tried a helmet when it was winter here. Did not do the same mistake twice. The portion covered by the helmet was fine but the part right under it sucked all the wind and froze in seconds. A frozen forehead is not a cool thing. So nowdays in the winter I use 2-3 buffs and a fleece lined thick merino wool beanie.