closetbiker

you mean if you're unwilling to make an effort to understand those issues from an objective point of view, those half truths are good enough?

mconlonx

Stand by "willing"; there is no such thing as truly "objective"; prove "half-truth"-ness of what you are claiming or go home; "good enough" is generally acceptable by a majority.

Those who wear helmets are as much in the right as you.

closetbiker

I have and many others have put up numerous, legitimate sources on this thread that back up my points.

if there is legitimate study that show helmets provide protection beyond their design specs, head injury on a bicycle is statistically more likely to occur on a bike than off a bike, or that measured numbers of cyclists do not decrease immediately after MHLs are passed, I'm sure there are many who would be willing to look at them

RazrSkutr

Everything is an argument. There are no "incontrovertible facts" or "proofs" except in the minds of the religious.

Absolutely not, as long as s/he shuts up about it and doesn't try and argue that everyone else has to drink homeopathic AIDS vaccinces.

Are you wearing your toilet helmet since our last conversation? If not, why not? I think that you anti-toilet helmet types might be better off making your argument on the basis of individual choice rather than the improbability of banging your head in the can.

No, the only people that apparently consider themselves to have a "duty" are the pretentious busybodies that are not content with exercizing their choice to wear a helmet, but instead feel it necessary to broadcast their lack of thought to the world.

RazrSkutr

Absolutely. But you see, here you are oppressing him with science. In reality his fervent opinion is worth as much as a statistic. That's democracy after all.

Six-Shooter

I take it the smileys mean you do not wish or are not able to address those points, but would rather take the cheap, ineffective, and counterproductive route of mockery?

No, hypocrisy would be someone saying, "Everyone should wear bike helmets," and then not wearing one himself. I haven't told anyone to wear one. Hypocrisy would be someone saying, "I'm pro choice about helmets and don't care about what others do with them," and then trying to convince people that helmet use is "illogical" and "hypocritical."

Six-Shooter

And that's part of why I noted earlier that statistics and studies can be poor or misused tools for argument. E.g., A single, questionable study on cycling numbers in Australia is supposed to be taken at face value as gospel, universal truth? And then we're to casually assume a reduction is cyclists would necessarily be some unmitigated evil?

Then corvuscorvax posts statistics that are instantly dismissed as "half truths," instead of being delved into and discussed, because they don't seem to support a certain viewpoint or haven't been filtered through a particular author's interpretative methods or biases? Certainly if there's any real desire to investigate the issues objectively, one can't simply shrug things off like that.

Neither in science nor in the world of everyday debate can you just say, "Here's a few articles. I'm right. Done."

Six-Shooter

You're whittling down a many-sided issue into terms that suit you. For instance, who has argued that helmets "provide protection beyond their design specs"? That sounds like something of a straw man. I haven't seen anyone saying, "You should wear a helmet because if you're hit by a semi going 60, you won't get hurt!"

mconlonx

Me, too!

Show me where I ever said that helmets provide more protection than designed for, head injury statistics saying otherwise, or assertions to the contrary regarding MHLs. Please.

So, do you mean to say that, having read all the data and assimilated real life, empirical, first hand observation and experience, your decision to ride bare-headed is more correct, more "right," than someone who's gone through the exact same process and come to the decision that they will wear a helmet?

closetbiker

No. It means your replies are ones that can make me both laugh, and cry.

You may want to look up the meanings of hypocrisy (provided) and objectivity as well as many of the provided sources that counter those examples of half truths.

closetbiker

I'm not accusing you of such a thing. I was responding to Six-Shooters silly post to Monster Pete:


Of course not. What I'm saying is the evidence of helmet efficacy is unclear at best.On a personal level, they seem to make sense, but at an aggregate level, far less so.

There has to be far more going on here than meets the eye, because if it was as seemingly simply as many claim it is, measured results would be far more clear.

mconlonx

No, actually I'm looking at the same stats and studies you are, giving experience and first hand knowlede it's due, and merely coming to a different conclusion than you and your ilk. Nothing fervent about it... especially compared to the fanatic, extremist tone you're taking here.

mconlonx

Well that's not the way you're coming across here...

People won't pay for studies based on breaking widely held preconceptions, especially where there's an established "magic pill" solution.

Say, did you ever post your letter to the editor rebuttal to that column where you called out those people on their faulty stats recently?

RazrSkutr

What does that mean?

You post a lot, but most of it is uninformative bickering. Please state clearly which statistics you find compelling and why.


What's fanatic or extremist about asking for some reasonable proof that helmets save lives or prevent concussions?

The last couple of pages from yourself and the other person that wears a helmet (Six Shooter) have just been relativist blather, unbacked by anything approaching a serious argument. And neither of you have explained why you are so keen on posting about helmets.

closetbiker

you mean, that's your take on my stance. Frankly, I've posted that the issue is unclear so many times on this thread, that my keyboard is falling apart


One of the problems is corporations fund "studies" that paint their products in a favorable light.

That paper doesn't print letters very often and I doubt they'd print a response calling into question a portion of the story when the story was a feel good article celebrating an impressive feat of sacrifice by a challenged individual for the good of others.

I talked to the parties involved and I hope they have a clearer understanding of a helmets abilities, but I'd be willing to bet the prime offender will still hold her opinion based on some "evidence" that was funded with a purpose to increase sales

rando

Well, I continue to believe that Bike riding isn't dangerous enough to warrant safety equipment; I'm not against helmets, or urging people not to wear them; but I AM saying that people should know what helmets can and can't do, and decide for themselves what's "safe" for them. to me, strapping on a helmet every time you get on a bike is just silly; to others, it's protection. the straw men people keep throwing around about people "hating" helmets and urging people not to wear them is just bogus. I haven't seen anybody write that, ever.

Notso_fastLane

I ride bicycles and motorcycles. I would never go out, even on a short ride, without a helmet (and on the motorcycle, full gear, even on short rides). However, I fully support others' freedom to not wear a helmet, or bike naked for all I care. I realize that this potentially raises my insurance rates, and I fully accept the extra cost for their freedom. As such, I reserve the right to assume they are not very bright.

Seriously, I'm all about not protecting people from themselves (helmet laws, seatbelt laws, etc.). Sure, drunk driving laws and most traffic laws protect us from others, but if you want to not protect yourself, I don't think the government should be forcing us to do so. The flip side of this is that we all need to accept that some things will be more expensive due to these choices.

tony_merlino

So, after all this talk, I finally did have an accident over the weekend, where a helmet would have been really useful to avoid a painful bump on the head accompanied by roadrash. Unfortunately, I wasn't wearing one since I was walking at the time. (I was in Home Depot, and someone had left some concrete reinforcement mesh laying flat on the ground, in an aisle where it wasn't supposed to be, and I was looking for something on the shelf rather than down at my feet, my foot got stuck in the mesh, and the rest is very embarrassing history...)

This doesn't prove anything at all, but I thought it was funny... I did wish I had been wearing my helmet, though!

closetbiker

I work on aircraft and bumping heads on overhead bins and various compartment doors is commonplace.

I'm sure if we all wore helmets, many helmets would crush or break apart. "Proof" to some that the helmet had saved the wearer from some type of "serious" injury.

tony_merlino

Serious, shmerious! I didn't like hitting my head on the concrete, didn't like the bump and scrape, and didn't like having to explain it afterwards. Though I'm still not going to make a practice of wearing a helmet to Home Depot, it might have been nice to have had one on...

closetbiker

I'm sure by wearing it on trips to Home Depot, it will save your life (or head from serious injury) one day.... You just never know...

tony_merlino

You may have just convinced me. Dorkiness is as dorkiness does, as they say.

closetbiker

just don't undo that chin strap when in the store...

mconlonx

It means I trust my perception of experience and balance that against the various studies posted here when making a decision to wear a helmet.

You post your share of uninformative bickering. I find most of the links posted here compelling, but I'll probably not comment on every single one for your edification and inevitable, witty "tl;dr" comment. Post a link -- I'll let you know what I think about it and how it plays into my decision to wear a helmet.

Original comment: Your language is extremist. And disingenuous. As in you clearly didn't ask about saved lives or concussions in what I was responding to. And now you're going to have to find where I ever, EVER said that helmets save lives or prevent concussions.

It's a political issue: relatavist blather is all either side has at this point. Six Jours was unclear about what I'm up to here and I answered him. Maybe if you followed along a bit closer, you'd have read it?

mconlonx

No, I mean that's my observation, not my take on your stance. Nothing wrong with your stance, but you do come across like you're saying that those who forego helmets are more correct, more reasoned in their decision to do so, than those who wear them. I believe that's a large part of what Rydabent's barely coherent ranting is all about, and I'm guessing there's others who feel the same way.

Then outside of BF A&S, what are you doing to get your point across and into action at the local, municipal, provincial, and national levels? If you got something useful going on, others who share your views might profit from some inspiration.