You'll note I don't say it's a desirable thing that society usually works that way.

It's perfectly sensible, and it's not designed to argue for helmet use, but rather to argue against the idea that you shouldn't wear a helmet while bicycling just because you don't do so in all other potentially dangerous activities.

Is it consistent or logical to protect yourself--or at least attempt to do so--part of the time but not all of the time? Probably not. Is it foolish or undesirable to do so? Probably not. Is it wiser or more preferable to take some safety precautions or none?

It IS nonsensical. You are trying to tell me to change my life-long behavior because you think it is warranted. Geesh, if you want to wear a helmet, please do, but leave me alone with your fear-mongering, m'kay? Thank you.

Where are you getting all that from?

I never told you or anyone else to change any behavior and never engaged in fear-mongering. Indeed, I haven't even expressed any sort of fixed, universal stance on these issues, merely discussed and asked questions about them and described my own personal practice.

chip



Boo!!!!!!

chip

Fear mongers???? Actually we of the 65% in the survey are just being safety aware.

Which helmets prevent concussions?

(Changed the above to make a point).

Q-Ray bracelets, homeopathic medecines, jockstraps, kevlar vests, shin pads, mega-doses of vitamins, miraculous medals, etc ... All of these things are easily available, are strongly supported by the testimony of their users (on the basis of multiple different belief systems) to be efficacious. Why would you not use them? Have you studied actuarial tables to determine that the injuries they prevent are less likely than the injuries for which you wear your helmet?


I don't wear a helmet at home, or on a bicycle, because I judge the likelihood of injury to my head in both situations to be incredibly low. *I* try to address accidents that seem more likely to occur. I don't worry about being hit by lightning (more common than you'd think) or being murdered by psychopathic home invaders. I do worry about my physical fitness and I am very careful to look both ways when crossing the street.


It could certainly help with wasting energy on avoiding asteroid strikes to the house when I should have been testing the fire extinguishers.

That's too general a phrasing. Of course taking a precautionary measure is a good idea in a general sense. But, there are two probabilities to consider: 1) the probability that the incident will actually occur (cf meteor strikes, probability of banging head on bike, or probability of banging head at home); 2) the probability that the said measure will actually alleviate the effects of the accidents.

You can find information on both of these fairly easily.

Helmet use in hockey, football and other contact sports is increasingly being called into question as it changes the behavior of the participants, inciting into behaviors which increase the likelihood of the very head injuries for which the helmets seem to make no difference: concussions. I do actually find it bizarre that this situation exists. It seems counter-rational to me.

What, you didn't like my rydabent impression?

Humans aren't Vulcans.



I've posted for a long time saying that helmet use has more to do with psychology than practicality. After a number of years of low sales Bell learned this too, so they cranked up their campaign to raise a fear of cycling and then courage for the head. Profit motivates.

Then answer the question: even if you don't wear a helmet while dancing, why don't you at least wear one while tying your shoes? Is it because you're a fool or is it just that you're illogical?

He's illogical, like most of us are at least sometimes. And IMO that's all right when it comes to helmets. After all it's not a matter of life or death

closet

I do not fear cycling. In fact the only fear I read about is what you anti helmet types try to lay on us.

BTW logic dictates the higher you are on your bike the more you need a helmet for safety. On my bent I am much lower and safer since I cant be thrown over the handle bars. On my new trike there is probably isnt much need for a helmet at all. However I still wear my helmet for protection from the sun. Have you nay sayers noticed that there is no pain connected with a helmet?

Bzzt. Helmet use is based on politics at this point.

so you're saying decisions made by collective groups of people have nothing to do with an influence that uses psychology on that collective group of people?

If it doesn't, how does that explain the first 15 years after the modern helmet was available? Why wasn't it until the 90's that helmet use became an issue? Why hasn't helmet caught on in Europe and Asia?

Wow, how much are you going to presume, assume, or jump to a conclusion about? Almost as bad as Digital Cowboy...

No, what I mean is that first sentence is a pretty good definition of politics, and the second can be explained by politics.

Politics, pure and simple: both sides will scream 'till they're red in the face that their side is correct as a group, when in fact, both sides can be correct on an individual basis.

I get it. Basically, you were being redundant.

No, I was looking at it from a different POV. Since that's at the base of differences people have here, not redundant at all, merely another view.

I have said as much before, but if repetition is what you consider redundancy in this thread, you got a whole heap of redundancy going on yourself all through this thread and the last one. Probably the one before that, too.

Why make this personal? Why act rudely?

To answer the question:

I don't dance, so I couldn't tell you. I don't wear a helmet while tying shoes since I've never fallen while tying shoes, never seen or heard of anyone fall and hit their head while tying their shoes (I'm sure there's a YouTube video ), and am at a pleasant 0mph and sitting or kneeling when tying my shoes; therefore I have no expectation whatsoever of hitting my head, or indeed of suffering any injury.

Now, on a bicycle I'm off the ground and moving at a fair clip over concrete, often with motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians nearby--people whose actions I cannot control or predict with invariable accuracy. I know from statistics and experience that you can indeed fall off a bike, hit your head, get hit by a car, etc. I know from experience a helmet can mitigate or prevent some head injury. Ergo, I wear one. A bonus is that I don't in any way mind wearing a helmet: there is no discomfort or exorbitant cost involved. My government does not force me to wear one, so I have no issue there, either.

Precisely It's ironic that I'm apparently classed as illogical for pointing out that people routinely take some manner of safety measures in certain activities but not others, and arguing that's not inherently bad or some sort of mental defect or character flaw. It's merely people seeking some added protection some of the time. Would it be better if they wore helmets 24/7 or never wore one for anything? A view that insists on a rigid, universal dichotomy isn't always helpful or practical.

The problem is that people feel compelled to see issues as arguments between fixed, opposing sides. They break out the old Procrustean Bed and force everything into a simplified opposition, and then get backed into the corner of defending an abstraction. Extremists inherently have a problem understanding that notion: that the world isn't a blanket "A or B, never a middle ground, never both A and B at the same time."

Not if it means misrepresenting me I'm not telling you others to wear a helmet or saying the government should force you to. I think you would probably be wise to wear one, but your life is not mine to worry about or attempt to control.

When you started your post with a "Bzzt", that usually gives the impression a mistake is made, particularly when you done the same thing in the past (you did, right?)

How is this is a different point of view, if politics and psychological influence on groups of people making decisions for others run hand in hand?

I pointed out it's the point of argument that's illogical. Maybe if the flaw in it's reasoning is understood, the argument can change.

I think we've had this same disagreement before, in which case, we're both being redundant. Is that reason to call me out specifically as being redundant, where you're rehashing the same point I am?

It's really not a different POV, but it's certainly a nuance--you see it still as a personal, individual psychological thing; I see it as bigger than that, which trips over into either group psychology or, as I see it, politics.

Where you don't have an issue with individual decisions to wear a helmet or not, more as an issue on a meta- level, I can't help but think this has way more to do with group psychology, i.e. politics, than it does with individuals.

If aiming your own words back at you offends you, then maybe you should think about how you've been using your words.

So in other words, you use knowledge and experience to help you judge when you should and should not don protective gear. Hmm...