So you haven't contacted Bell with this pretty obvious dichotomy that might affect their bottom line...

:thumb:

However, you also denigrate anyone who disagrees with your belief in wearing a helmet, and lie by saying anyone who doesn't want to use a helmet is against anyone else who wants to use a helmet

I believe the argument here is that a motorcycle helmet would definitely help in the kinds of accidents where a bicycle helmet would not. But many helmet proponents think a bicycle helmet will help in situations beyond their specific design parameters. I.e. in most collisions involving a car and bicycle, a moto helmet might be of benefit, but a bike helmet will be of minimum or no benefit.

But you're not going to wear a full-face motorcycle helmet on a bike, now, are you?

I also have motorcycle experience, wear a bicycle helmet based on that experience, but do not in any way think a bike helmet will protect my head the way a moto helmet would. I'm happy to trade off ultimate protection where serious head injuries are concerned with comfort and ventilation, while acknowledging a bike helmet will only help with less than "serious" injury scenarios.

False.
I have yet to hear any helmet proponents espouse that rhetoric. I've heard the anti-helmet crowd say things along those lines.

Can you point out just who is against, helmets here, or is it just that you think that anyone who thinks it's all right to not use one, is against anyone else using one?

I once drove through Oregon without seeing any elk. So I guess by your logic there aren't any elk in Oregon.

Meanwhile, there was a post from a guy just a little while ago, telling us that he wears his bicycle helmet to protect him against drunk drivers. I'm pretty sure that getting run over by a car falls outside the protective capabilities of a few ounces of Styrofoam.

Read back through here a bit -- any time someone comes on here saying I fell and a helmet saved my life! they are engaging in baseless speculation, confering protective abilities on helmets which they were not designed for. Unfortunately, the bare-head brigade is generally correct when they point out that there are many, many helmet wearers who think a helmet will protect them in situations beyond what they are designed for.

I'm a pro-helmeteer; it certainly bugs me that the bare-headers are more in the right on this issue.

Do we have any data for that?

Re: Portland, an interesting article:

"Portland's Bicycle Transportation Alliance shifts gears on helmet laws after poll shows high usage"
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting...nsportati.html

and a follow-up:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting...allianc_1.html

Good graphic of someone with a firm understanding of the benefits of helmet wearing too:
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=234394

It is an interesting policy shift and one I think, that gives tacit approval to a helmet law.

One can wonder if this shift may indeed be greasing the skids for such a law because although an attempt to pass an adult law in Oregon was rescinded 3 summers ago, politicians continued to conduct bicycle safety meetings with helmets on the agendas.

Oddly enough even with this policy shift the BTA will still not support mandatory use of helmets for rental, or publicly shared bicycles which I find not only contradictory, but hypocritical. As the article states, at the heart of this non-opposition is the BTAs belief that "helmets save lives". If they do, surely there should be no difference to the life that will be saved if the bike that is used is owned publicly, or privately.

One of my favorite bloggers, Dave Moulton wrote about the policy shift and said, "This is a bad thing for all cyclists"

You're certainly welcome to review the 47 pages of helmet debate in this thread and find all the places where people have overstated the protective capacity of helmets, then extrapolate out to the population at large...

Here's a smattering from the last seven pages. Actually a bit hard to parse among the usual sausage fencing by the same half-dozen or so posters... me included.

This is a pretty reasonable stance, I think. I probably err more on the side of bare-headed than you do, but the lines of thinking are similar.

Those quotes don't all directly indicate a belief that a helmet can do more than it was designed for. In part because of their actual verbiage: mentioning the risk of encountering drunk drivers, for example, doesn't say "a helmet will save my head from a direct hit from a car" since a drunk driver might force you off the road and you might fall off your bike and hit your head on the ground without being impacted by the car.

More importantly, here's what two standards actually say about what helmets are designed to do:

According to US CPSC Testing Standards, helmets are devices to protect against cycling head injuries:

Helmets are tested to ensure

and helmets must be labeled with

-- http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/regsumbicyclehelmets.pdf

Similarly, the Snell Foundation standard B-90A doesn't appear to describe the precise type of head injuries/injury situations a helmet is designed to mitigate, but it does speak of minimizing the chances of death:

It does, however, specify how to test helmets and sets a number of G's a helmet must endure in impacts: 300.

-- http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b90astd

Based on those standards, at least, "what helmets are really designed to do" seems somewhat hard to discuss in terms of precise head injuries/scenarios. That alone calls into question the notion that lots of cyclists believe helmets can do more than they're designed to. Conversely, it seems to undermine those who try to downplay helmets' intended function, given that at least one standard approaches a helmet as a device designed to minimize risk of death; clearly they are intended to do more than protect against just minor road rash. It sounds like the three things helmets are not designed to do is protect parts of the body other than the head, protect the head in all other activities, and provide universally effective proof against all head injury.

FWIW: An interesting article on helmet standards' evolution and testing http://www.smf.org/docs/articles/hel...velopment.html The concluding section on helmet effectiveness is particularly interesting vis-a-vis some of the discussion here.

fully agree. :) Paying attention is, IMO, the most important safety device :)

Now if we could just get automobile drivers to pay attention...

Another poster pointed out that a cyclist would be better protected if using a motorcycle helmet. That is true. Way in the past I pointed out that the best cycling helmet I ever had was a Bell Tourlite. It had a hard Lexan shell that was something over 1/16th of an inch thick. It was not that heavy as far as I was concerned. I would buy another in a minute if they would become available again.

yet if one wants to look at those quotes honestly, most all of them represent a popular notion which is, if a helmeted cyclist is hit by a car, that helmet can prevent a serious injury or save a life, even if such a collision is far beyond a helmets limitations.

Even the BHSI says, the car is The Problem in cyclists' deaths and most of the cases where a helmet's limits are exceeded involve crashes with cars, but few look at the issue honestly. Instead, they prefer to believe a helmet can help during the circumstances that cause serious injury and death even if those circumstances involve forces that are beyond the capacity of a helmet.

(another common misconception is that helmets prevent concussion, the mildest and most common form of the most severe type of brain injury, DAI)

I wear a helmet, no execptions. My reasoning is that around 15 or so years ago, taking a gentle ride on my mountain bike, I lost control and fell off. Nothing in particular caused the crash. To this day, I still can't remember how I got home, but on checking the helmet (a cheap £30 jobby) I noticed a dent an inch wide and a half inch deep. Had it not been for the helmet, that dent would have been in my head and I seriously doubt I'd be here typing this.

Had it ever occured to you that the foam in a helmet comprsses quite easily? Even in falls that cause little to no injury?

Actually, CB, I figure anyone who can go on a "gentle ride" and "fall off for no particular reason" should probably wear as much protective gear as possible - or find another hobby.

Unnecessary

There's no way of putting it without hurting your feelings. If I was in the habit of just randomly falling off my bicycle and landing on my head, I would certainly find some other sport.

fair enough. I probably should have worded it better and said "can't remember what caused the crash" but I take your point. I wouldn't jump from a plane without knowing how to open the parachute :)