rydabent

cb hi

Golly your last post is really cute. I would suggest you go admire yourself in front of a mirror for a half hour.

rydabent

pete

Let me get this straight. You say that a fewer number of cyclist make cycling more dangerous. Please post the mechanics of this idea.

rydabent

The anti helmet trolls keep claiming wrongly that I concider cycling dangerous. This simply is not true. If I did I would sell my bikes. When it comes to helmets, I wear one for the same reason I use SPD pedals and clips on my new trike. The clips keep my feet from slipping off the pedals when I hit bumps. If that would happen my foot could be caught by the crossbar and be hurt. My helmet at the very least can prevent road rash, and a certain amount of G force if my head should hit the ground. And as pointed out many times there are several reasonable and logical additional reasons for wearing a helmet. May I suggest to the trolls they just let everyone do what the hell ever they want to do when it comes to helmets!!!!

Again wrongly the trolls claim I am for mandantory helmet laws I AM NOT!!! I really dont care what anyone else does when it comes from helmets. Yet the trolls who claim they dont care, keep trying to convince people that helmets are of no use at all. Why do they care.

I still think the anti helmet trolls were scared by a turtle when they were young.

RazrSkutr

Just out of interest: You wear a helmet. I don't think anyone here that has been arguing that helmets are vastly over-hyped as a safety device wants to stop you wearing it. Why do you keep coming back to the thread? Why are you interested in proffering advice about helmets?

As regards the more general point, I don't agree that simply arguing about civil liberties is the main point. There are plenty of examples of proven safety devices which government mandates in order to improve population health, e.g. seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, vaccines, airbags. If helmets could be shown to have as large a safety benefit as those measures then I'd have no problem with helmet compulsion: but there is no evidence of a reduction in serious injuries with the use of a bicycle helmet. Instead the only proven effect is a reduction in the number of cyclists..

Mmmm. The same way that religious folks can't bear the existence of non-believers (or worse, believers in the Wrong Religion !). I don't think we can spend all our time adjusting our behavior to take account of paranoid looneys that believe in magic.

mconlonx

No they don't.

Some of which are valid, some of which are disputed by others. Do you expect them to not take issue with disputed claims? On this thread? Srsly???

You keep saying this like this is something most, if not all, of the "trolls" (your word) don't agree with.

No they don't. They'll grudgingly admit that helmets can be of some use.

Same reason you do?

buzzman

Oh, oh. I'm getting stuck in the Helmet Endless Loop of Lunacy* thread again! Admittedly it's my own fault. I'll respond once more then I'm out.

Actually, you don't get the analogy. For one thing I used the pronoun I. I am simply talking about what I would do I am not putting words in your mouth I am not telling you what to do.

That said, #1) I do not drive a car to work so your analogy does not apply to me. I don't even own a car. My wife does and I do occasionally drive it and when I do no, I do not wear a helmet. Why? Because to me an automobile functions like a helmet. It is an encasement of steel, plastic, foam and glass. It has front and side air bags as well as seat and shoulder belts. When I drive my wife's car in the rain I do not get wet, if it's snowing I am not freezing, unless it's really, really, windy I do not get blown about nor do I travel at a slower speed because the wind is in my face. If someone were to drop a brick from a 2 story building aimed directly at my head and I were sitting in her car I would not feel the brick because it would hit the roof of her car. If I were sitting on my bicycle I would feel the rain, I would be cold and wet in the snow, I would be slowed by a head wind and that brick would more than likely kill me.

Oh, but then you might argue that bicycles are statistically safe. Well, that's where I would say that "danger is relative" because where I live and work bicycling is more hazardous than driving- as I've explained in this thread: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post13555113. Maybe where you live it's different.

Oh, but cars go so much faster. Well maybe where you live and work they do and sometimes that applies to me to but not right now. Where I live and work (mid- town Manhattan) average traffic speed is 10.6 mph or less. For driving at that speed surrounded by glass, steel and plastic with airbags and seat belts a helmet seems slightly redundant to me. On a bicycle it makes some sense- but that's just me. Please note I did not say you!

When I timber framed my house I did it with a large group of friends. We set safety standards once we began to frame above the 1st floor. Hard Hats or helmets for everyone both in case of dropping things from above or due to falls. Not all of us had hard hats but I have a ton of bike helmets and some brought their own. We all agreed we preferred the bike helmet due to the chin strap, fit and ventilation. So, yeah, if I'm up and down ladders all day I actually do wear a helmet. And yes, since the building was my responsibility I provided helmets for those who did not have them. But that's what I did. I'm not suggesting you do the same thing.

So you do what you want to do and I will do what I want to do and occasionally I will jump in this thread and say so. And please have the courtesy to not put words in my mouth- especially "you drive a car to work"! - talk about a low blow.

GriddleCakes

Cute. For what it's worth, the car sentiment was a question, not a statement; my intent was not to put words in your mouth, but to expand your ladder analogy to another activity where an increased risk of head injury exists. But I agree that this conversation will just go in circles, and unless you or I wish to keep saying the same things over and over again, jumping off of this not-so-merry-go-round is an understandable and reasonable course of action.

CB HI

So you are not only a troll, you are a rude troll.

Six-Shooter

An odd and rather presumptuous question. I participate because I find the matter interesting. I didn't know one needed special credentials--or adherence to a certain dogma or agenda--to participate in discussions here.

As to the last part of your statement, what evidence "proves" that helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists? Based on sources linked in this article, at least, there is no overwhelming evidence that it's some universal truth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

Perhaps what happens in Australia stays in Australia? Plus, a reduction in cyclists may well be greeted with enthusiasm by some: I imagine that more than a few impatient motorists would in fact be glad to have fewer cyclists "getting in their way" on the roads.

As to the earlier point, precisely because of the generally recognized effectiveness and generally accepted legal requirements* for the other transportation safety devices you list, I think it's going to be a hard row to hoe to try to overturn helmet laws solely by trying to convince people that they really don't show any success in preventing injury. You'll be arguing against the "common sense" many people have derived by analogy from those other devices: "Motorcylists wear helmets, so of course cyclists should too, etc." And statistics and studies are often weak tools for argument if your goal is actually to change minds versus merely arguing for argument's sake. You know what they say about lies, damned lies, and statistics.

On top of that, many people are conditioned to accept whatever law comes down the pipe, and if the law is just one more in the manner of existing ones (Seatbelt? Check. Child car seat? Check. Bicycle Helmet? Check.), you probably won't hear much complaining.

That's the type of attitude that would take a rational political stance (repeal of helmet laws in the absence of overwhelming data supporting their efficacy) and undermine it from within: you'd come across as some mean-spirited, disrespectful crank with an axe to grind, pushing a minority view. That sort of language can easily consolidate "opposition" on an issue and back them into a corner, making them fight even harder.

* A number of U.S. states actually weakened their motorcycle helmet laws, changing them from universal requirements to requiring them only for minors. https://www.iihs.org/laws/helmet_history.aspx

rydabent

cb

Rude??

Actually you mocking my post is rude. Also I dont know how long you have followed this thread, but the real trolls are the anti-helmet posters that immediately jump on anyone that has anything positive to say about helmets.

GriddleCakes

Wrong, these aren't trolls, these are people with a different opinion than you. A troll is someone who posts for the sole purpose of getting a negative and emotional response, who seeks to stir up dissent and argument just for the amusement of watching people fight (full discussion and deeper definition can be found here, as well as many other places around the internet; feel free to google it for yourself). The single poster flybys who come into the helmet threads and assert the deeply contentious 'fact' that a helmet saved their life, and that anyone who disagrees is brainless/a moron/an organ donor/a darwin award recipient/has their head up their ass are much more likely to be trolling than the people who regularly defend one side of an ongoing debate.

And it is an ongoing debate, even if you can't understand that. Anecdotes can be made on both sides; people wreck with helmets and don't get hurt, people wreck without helmets and don't get hurt, and people wreck with helmets and do get hurt. Anecdotes prove nothing, and if you've had any scientific education then you'd know that. The actual, scientific data about helmets is weak and contradictory, so people debate, and will continue to do so until more reliable data is gathered that can answer the debate one way or the other. No amount of telling people that they have their heads up their asses is going to change that.

You remind me of the posters on the creationist and white supremacy forums that I used to troll; a sincere belief that they are right, combined with an inability to express their beliefs logically (I still like to think that creationism and racism cannot be defended logically, because they are, at heart, deeply illogical positions; although a few of the white supremacists were actually pretty adept at framing xenophobia in a logical argument). You claim that, having been an engineer, you are therefor trained in logical thought. Engineering is mathematics, not logic; they're related, but not the same. That's like me claiming that, because I've been a short order cook, I'm knowledgeable in French cuisine; or because I've gillnetted salmon, I know how to go crabbing. It would behoove you to take a logic class, and probably a stats class too, if you want to actually contribute to this discussion.

Given your own inability to logically defend points that you've made, your insistence that no one responds to or counters your points despite the fact that many do, plus your tendency to resort to childish name calling, I can see a very strong argument to be made that you are a troll. And I don't know if I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt or not by assuming instead that you are what you say you are, and are just really, really bad at debate. If you are a troll, then whatever, good job, I guess; as a former troll, I applaud you on your dedication to the persona that you've built, and encourage everyone else to not feed the troll. But I assume that you aren't, and will just tell you that through your childish and amateur discourse, you do more harm to the pro-helmet side than all of the helmet skeptics combined.

/end feeding time

closetbiker

yes, he does

I stopped feeding him a while ago, but there always seems to be more like him and it's hard not to point out just how ridiculous "arguments" like his are

rydabent

griddle

Just read your description of a troll, and it fits perfectly the anti helmet group that jump on anyone that says anything positive about helmets.

rydabent

Will any anti helmet troll claim that a helmet is not-----a place for rear view mirrors, a place for a rear blinking lites, a place for a video camera, a place for additional reflective tape, and protection from sunburn? Of these probably the most imporant is a place for a rear view mirror that some people prefer. Accident prevention is better than crash protection. These are some of the additional reasons for wearing a helmet besides some accident protection.

LesterOfPuppets

rydabent's making progress. No Darwin, No my friend the nurse, No how 'bout I hit you in the head with a hammer, No organ donor.

Almost sensible after a year or so.

Monster Pete

Making a reasoned and logical argument does not make someone a troll just because you disagree with them.

Helmets can prevent most minor head injuries, and are also a good place to mount rear-view mirrors, reflective material, lights etc. (But what's this? A bareheaded rider pointing out positive features of wearing a helmet? Surely not!) Oh and I don't think anyone here is anti-helmet. I couldn't care less what you choose to put on your head. If anything, we're anti-'being bound by law to wear a helmet when it isn't required.' You've stated before that this is your position. Since we all agree on being 'pro-choice', is there really anything more to argue about? You make your choice to wear a helmet, we make ours not to, and everyone can be happy.

I think we both know that isn't going to happen: there will always be someone who parrots the 'wear a helmet' mantra without really thinking and throws insults at those who've made a reasoned choice not to.

closetbiker

and sometimes, those arguments come from otherwise responsible persons that hold positions of importance.

Just the other day, an article celebrating the achievement of someone who has done well in managing his brain injury appeared in my morning paper. In it was the claim that 90 per cent of brain injuries are preventable, usually by wearing a helmet.

Of course I emailed the person responsible for the claim and she cited the infamous TRT Seattle study that showed an 88% reduction in brain injury.

Sad that this official who works for Brain Trust Canada gives that study credence yet doesn't give credence to the chairman of the American Academy of Neurology, who in a recent Senate hearing on concussions in sports said, "The simple truth is that no current helmet, mouth guard, headband or other piece of equipment can significantly prevent concussions from occurring."

Also ignored are statements from the helmet companies themselves.

Riddell's (part of the Bell Sports "family") senior vice president of development has publicly stated, "We can't stress enough that no helmet will prevent all concussions. A concussion-proof helmet isn't realistically achievable."

Just how do you deal with someone who can lead others into danger? At what point do you cut off communication/explanation?

mconlonx

That's the "...will grudgingly admit that helmets can be of some use" statement I made regarding pro-bare-headers in response to one of your tirades, above.

If any of them were actually paying attention to what you say anymore, they would rightfully point out that hard-mounting stuff to your helmet can reduce its effectiveness, and may cause or exacerbate injury. Some adhesives on some reflectives purportedly don't play nice with the stuff helmets are made of, either.

Of course, since serious head injury is not at all likely riding a bike, which is an extremely safe activity, chances that your helmet will actually make a difference in an accident is miniscule, so why not load your helmet up with stuff that could, in some situations (accident involving head strike), make it some unknown iota less safe, while keeping you from such situations as a result of turning your helmet into a safety accessory Christmas tree.

mconlonx

Maybe you got extra info in private correspondence, but I fail to see where it is stated in the article you cite that helmets will prevent concussions.

Also, did you ask McGuire if he's using a helmet while running across Canada...?

closetbiker

7th paragraph in...

Magda Kapp, of BrainTrust Canada is quoted in the article and is listed as the communications director on McGuire's site, so I suspected it was her that fed him the information (it was)

No, but I did claim and provide evidence for, that it is motor vehicle collisions which is the cause of the vast majority of brain injury that youth suffer from.

I also said that if the focus of the article was on responsible driving and not on bicycle helmets, far more brain injury could be prevented.

It's not McGuire's, or Kapp's fault that the story took that turn of course, it seems to be what the writer wanted to pursue and after finding a city councillor that works with the Mental Health Commission who said, the city can do more to help prevent brain injury such as by enforcing cyclist helmet use, the story turned in a specific direction.

As it is, because people will get the wrong idea that helmets prevent concussions, concussions will continue to be a problem.

mconlonx

No mention of helmets preventing concussions there, sparky...

However, I can see from the rather poorly written article, how you and others might come away with that assumption.

closetbiker

Right. But the very next line is

getting the connection?

closetbiker

btw, I contacted the city councilor and he admitted he was wrong about helmets preventing concussions and apologized for the comment.

mconlonx

I get the connection; you get the connection; many out there may be misled by the connection, but the jump from non-quoted text in the article to a quote does not at all mean that anyone actually said "Helmet use will prevent concussion."

We're both right

mconlonx

Is he going to have the paper publish a correction...?