(Psst! I think that's his point...)

No, serious, he cray-cray.

Statistics prove that helmets reduce the chance of serious head trauma. That is true. I'm completely satisfied with the data.

Statistics prove that helmets don't reduce risk enough to be worth insisting on let alone requiring while in many ordinary activities such as cycling. Same statistics, same data.

wearing a helmet makes you a roadie, and cagers hate roadies, voila, gone is any form of magical safety

They can hate all they want as long as they don't hit me. Or take unnecessary risks of hitting me.

I know that you're being ironic, but I've abandoned the idea of trying to manipulate drivers with whatever facade I present. The dangerous ones are all on the fringe somehow so they're all set off by something different.

When I do wear a helmet it's not from fear of collisions with vehicles. It's hitting the rock or curb, or something else that I couldn't anticipate or avoid.

Datz Right. Any Real Smart Cowboy™ knows to wear protective equipment, "just in case," ya know what I mean, eh?

http://healthyworker.files.wordpress...sha_cowboy.jpg

Of course you know that unless you are riding a bike when employed by a employer subject to OSHA oversight, OSHA had no authority nor standing in recreational cycling. ( I know you do realize that, but thats not the first time I have seen OSHA brought up as to the necessity of bicycle helmet wearing).

That was an old anti-OSHA cartoon that had nothing to do with cowboys or helmets. A simple parody and nothing else.

Meanwhile, to my knowledge OSHA has not taken a position either way regarding bicycle helmets(in commercial/employment situations. Some localities, such as NYC, have written licensing, signage and/or helmet rules for commercial cycling, such as delivery bikes and messengers. I don't know about elsewhere, but in NYC it had little to do with promoting workplace/rider safety and more to do with to issues of "crazy outlaw cyclists" making streets and sidewalks unsafe for pedestrians.

Oh, I know what the cartoon was/is Frank.

Yes I am well aware of OSHA's authority. The parody is on the super nanny mindset of not just some imaginary nuthouse OSHA overlords, but of the numerous "just to be safe ninnies/nannies" who express views presumably based on the same hyper risk adverse, risk analysis ignorant mindset.

That was just by way of an opening. The thrust of my post is that OSHA has no rule mandating helmet use for bicycles in the workplace. (as you pointed out, OSHA has no authority beyond the workplace).

But OSHA does have a general applicability clause that allows them to enforce standards that are not explicit. Neither here nor there, I am in almost total agreement with both you and iliketobike 99% of the time.

I'll drop this one now, as my intent was clearly not effectively communicated, not was it aimed at iliketobike.

Good. We wouldn't want OSHA to shut down Google. :)

http://www.cyclelicio.us/wp-content/...ke-500x375.jpg

Wow, talk about a pure lack of comprehension, you really take the cake on that.

Re the OSHA cowboy. This is what will become of cycling if the nanny state loonies get involved. They of course are for MHLs. Among the reasons for cyclist to wear helmets is the fact it wards off nanny state b'crats. If a good percentage of intelligent cyclist wear helmets, the overbearing, controlling b'crats will look else where.

addressed to that argument ~

http://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/pics/cake.jpg

Here, take the cake. Or as we say in the UK, take the biscuit.

http://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/pics/biscuit.jpg

Once again, intelligence is correlated with helmet-wearing. Perhaps it's true; I don't wear one, and I make no claims to enhanced mental ability. On the other hand...

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=394453

905If you think that, apparently it doesnt in England.

I started a thread just to ask why all the helmet threads were closed...and my thread was closed after just 9 posts. It didn't even last 24 hours. Are people so scared of the subject that you can't even ask why they are scared**********?

I was actually chastised by another poster because I am not a frequent poster on the site. As much as I would like to stay online and talk about bicycles all the time, I am a full-time musician and writer, and I travel a lot. I don't always have access to a computer or Wi-Fi, and when I do, I am usually having to take care of business. Are all my threads going to be closed because I can't post every few days?

My understanding is that the more cyclists wear helmets, the greater the likelihood the powers that be would consider passing a law. I haven't found a source to back this up, but I remember reading it somewhere (lame, I know).

See also this, which I can't remember if I've linked to before.

As to the argument which had me visiting the bakery, it struck me that to wear a helmet to keep from having to wear a helmet is a curious way of promoting helmet use. It reminds me of museums (like the great British Museum in London) that are free, but ask for donations to keep them free. In that case I can forgive the logic, as it is like a culture tax which you're free to pay, or not, as the philanthropic spirit moves you. Applied to helmets, I'm not so pleased, as while I don't care what other people wear, any pressure to push helmets on people is pressure I want to resist.

Discounting the personal criticism, you were given reasons why these threads are invariably closed, both by myself and others including a moderator. After that there was no reason to keep it open.

Feel free to talk about helmets here, but don't whine about discussions elsewhere being closed.

We don't all like various forum policies, but it's not our forum. Such is life in the big city.

BTW- it's not that anybody is afraid of the subject, just scroll through the 300+ pages here and see the diversity and strength of opinions on every aspect of helmets. Feel free to add your voice about helmets, or fear of discussing them, but don't add to the noise and rancor elsewhere on the forum.

Just for kicks I think I'm going to start a thread in "Commuters" entitled "Helmet Thread". Here's what I will post:

Yes, fishing monofilament would be the best because it has some softness and give to it for impact resistance and yet stronger than normal cotton or nylon threat which would hold the the cover together better under impact duress.

Use Spider Wire fishing line. It is a Co-Polymer line that is almost indestructible.

I think my question was mis-understood. I was not necessarily complaining about rapidly closing threads involving helmets, but merely the underlying factors involved. Let me clarify my query. Why is the subject of helmets so viciously polarizing...so much so that merely asking a question about it generates a firestorm? In the US, at least, most states do not have any mandatory helmet laws, so it is not a requirement in most locales, except maybe for some sanctioned events. As far as I know, there is not even a great push for any helmet laws. At present, it is purely a personal choice. If you want to wear one, feel free. If you don't, well, that's OK as well. So why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the mere mention of helmets? I think it is an interesting psychological phenomena.

That was what I meant.......

I have to admit, I was a little miffed at my thread being closed after just 9 responses, in less than 24 hours. I thought that was a bit extreme, but it just goes back to the question itself. What is it about helmets that generates so much ferocity?

I don't know the answer, other than that questions of personal liberty are always hot topics (which is a good thing IMO), but I think those who run and moderate the forum keep it contained to one thread precisely because they recognise that it's a contentious subject which can quickly set fire to any thread it touches. I would guess that they also regard more than one thread to be almost pointless, and likely to engulf the Advocacy & Safety forum with countless brushfires.

http://www.notanothercyclingforum.ne...elmetfires.jpg