Are we supposed to discuss guns, too? in connection with helmets? Are you quite, QUITE, sure that's what you want?

Because, you see, the idea of "better having one and not need it than vice versa" is, to put it mildly, disputable. In both cases :P

That's really sad.

Anything to get this thread booted to P&R. Or Trollheim, where it belongs...

A good, clear statement of the intent of "mconlonx".

I confess that I sometimes leave my helmet at home, whenever I feel like it's becoming too much a habit. Every once in awhile, at least, it's helpful to remind myself that helmets are not required legally, and not all that helpful. If we let it become too ingrained by automatically putting one on every time we go out, you start to feel like you have to, you start to feel unsafe or uncomfortable without it. I find that a good ride or two usually clears that right up!

Agreed, so far as it goes. But it's worth pointing out that a great majority of folks go through life without carrying a gun, and precious few ever regret it.

Also interesting to note that I know very few people who've been in a situation where a gun would have helped, but nearly every CCW holder I know tells of at least one instance where "a gun saved my life".

Hmm...

It's not necessarily reasonable that it's better to have one and not need it. Have you ever analyzed it analytically in a probabilistic context? The way you wrote this I suspect you have.

I can't put a monetary value on someone's life, but reading your post it occurred to me that the value cancels out in the math. Either carry or wear, the same calculation can apply if we simplify it to probability of fatality vs survival, times probability of the situation arising, times estimated life expectancy in hours, times the hourly "value" of that period. Compared to the (one minus above probability) of wearing(carrying) when not utilized, times hours wearing a helmet (or carrying), times a percentage factor of which life was degraded (have to be subjective on that), times the same hourly "value" .

Subtract the two terms to derive the expected value of the action, divide by "value" (it's no longer in the equation), do the arithmetic, and is it greater or less than zero? I'm not doing the math since I think it's a poisson distribution and I'm a little rusty not to mention lazy, but I'll bet it comes down in favor of "not".

having been shot and shot at (separate occasion) I can tell unequivocally a helmet would have been useless. and I still see no reason to arm myself.

Nah: you a hater.

I didn't even mention a surefire subject that would get this either booted direct to Trollheim, do not pass go, do not collect $200, or be completely edited out and receive a stern warning from a mod.

Threads have been booted to Trollheim for less than what goes on here, for sure.

But whatevs. Mad props to mods for letting this thread go on like it has.

As a math problem it never even gets off the ground, because we don't have accurate numbers to start with.

Beyond that, I'll simply say that while I can see the upsides and downsides to wearing helmets and/or guns, I'm happy to leave the decision up to the individual. He/she is far more capable of deciding the worth of either for him/herself than I ever will be. By the same token, I resent other people who believe they are better equipped than I am to make that decision for me.

Why? Actuaries for life expectancy, and the likelihood of a fatal shooting should be fairly accurate IMO. Fatal accidents due to head injury are difficult to find, granted, but you can get in the ballbark. I don't understand why this keeps it from getting off the ground.

There was a related math problem recently in Australia, a little simpler because they only concerned themselves with actual costs. Cost of helmets vs cost of medical procedures. Their surprising result was that it cost more overall to require helmets than they saved in medical costs.

researching motorcycle gear has made me appreciate that road biking gear is not even really up to par if a person were to crash at a speed of 25mph or more.

"If you watch the following video, you are going to see half a dozen motorcycle riders crash at high speed, and then stand up and walk away without injury (after two of the wrecks, there is an emphatic gesture that some might find offensive)" How are these riders able to survive and avoid injury? They are wearing protective racing suits that eliminate abrasion injuries and cushion the falls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=_08p-414uGY

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/...-away-from-it/

I wear a helmet all the time. When I get a motorcycle, I plan to wear a full face helmet, boots, and body armor. Not going to read 78 pages, but arguing against using a helmet on long rides for aesthetic reasons is no argument at all. It's an issue not even worth arguing to people about. Let darwin send the message instead. As for the helmet itself, I forget it's even on. I never even really thought about not using it. As natural as wearing shoes or glasses to keep the insects out of them.

In reality though going down on a road bike at 20mph with typical gear could do more damage than a motorcycle going 40-50 if they go AGATT. But hey that's life, I'm not wearing knee and elbow pads when I ride road bike, but maybe I should.

now we have to start wearing glasses to keep bugs out of our shoes. this safety stuff is getting to be a bigger hassle than I ever thought it could be.

i always wear a helmet. mainly because i promised my wife of 15 years.

but, i would go without a helmet before i'd go without eye protection. one piece of gravel in the eye, kicked up by a passing car, and i thought i'd lost the eye.

that said, i used to ride a motorcycle with a full face/tshirt/shorts. thinking in my group was that at least the full face would leave something for you to be identified by.... :)

No, it isn't. That's the problem. If you wore a motorcycle helmet on a bike, it might actually do some good.
Perhaps if you had read some of the 78 pages you would have discovered that that's not the argument. The argument is that bike helmets don't help. Pretty much all of the statistical data supports this - most notably in Australia, where mandatory helmet laws, with good compliance, did not have a statistical effect on injury. But did lead to a significant decline in cycling.

The reason that helmets don't help is because in designing a helmet light enough for people to wear, manufacturers designed a helmet that would not help in a crash.

Another idiot with the Darwin argument. Darwin was a scientist. Science shows that helmets don't save lives. Science shows that helmets reduce cycling.
You should wear a motorcycle helmet.

Ever since I was give a helmet, thank you mconlonx, I would feel silly with out it now. And now when I see people riding with out them I think "shame on you".

You should wear a helmet. Matter of fact, the link I posted that you, mconlonx, replied to, is a must read for anyone thinking of riding with out one.

Especially in the shower.

You are joking, surely?

(Sorry, but I am a bit slow sometimes)

Seriously, I am not.

Why would you ask that?

I suspect he's just amazed that an adult human would, in all seriousness, think those thoughts and write those things.

No, that's exactly what I was talking about earlier. You all probably thought I was being facetious but I was not.

He said "Ever since ... I would feel silly with out it now. And now when I see people riding with out them I think shame on you." and I can understand completely and sympathize. I found myself thinking exactly the same thing recently, when I saw a cyclist pulling up to a cop at a speed trap, sans helmet - and let me tell you it was shocking. I realized then I had gone far too long wearing a helmet just to get along, more for appearance than anything else and even more embarrassingly I realized how long term habit and consistency can alter our perceptions themselves. It's a trap anyone can fall into.

As I said, the solution is a couple of good rides leaving the helmet at home. The psychological disturbance lines itself right out.

I still think the best thing about a helmet is they get noticed, motorist that see you probably won't be testing your helmet any time soon. I've fallen plenty on my own and rarely scratched my helmet. when riding through tree limbs or on sketchy ground a helmet is a good idea. helmets may save your life, but not because you hit your head, because you were never hit.

One of the very few new points that have been brought up is glasses for eye protection. They too like helmets are normal safety equiptment for cyclist.

Not around here, they ain't.

When cardrivers see s cyclist wearing a helmet, they keep less distance. So the chance of getting hit (and testing your helmet) is bigger.
See http://www.bhsi.org/walkerstudy.htm