Views on helmet use once they've got as far as this thread are mainly political in nature, rather than religious.

Only reason helmet threads don't get banished to P&R, or even better, Trollheim, is the lack of humor.

I sure few will be surprised to hear that I think the helmet issue has all to do with advocacy.

Helmet promoters paint cycling as more dangerous than it is, and when they push helmets to counter the danger they portray, they promote one of the most ineffective methods of improving safety for people riding bicycles.

Was responding to the post regarding helmet use being belief based, i.e. religious in nature.

But your response proves both the political and humorless nature of this thread...

Are MHLs more a political or advocacy issue...?

I'd say MHL's encapsulate both issues

Both. Actually, a lot of advocacy subjects are, which is why so many threads always seem to walk the line between A&S and P&R. Hard to separate the two with some issues.

I had to hold back a laugh once when listening to a lobbyist for our helmet law complaining of another provinces helmet law being rescinded as a result of politics.

I wonder just how he thought the law he managed to get passed, got passed?

Can I guess he thought he was above political maneuvering even as he lobbied politicians to pass his law?

I also talked to a politician who had sat on a provincial bi-partisan committe that was struck to decide if proposing a helmet law was a worth-while persuit.

The committe decided against legislation and the politician (who was in favor of such a law) was upset that consultation with the public, that showed an opposition to such a law, was given weight.

Imagine that; a politician who doesn't like or want to follow his constituents wishes. I guess he thought he knew what was good for them, even if they disagreed with them and elected him to represent their interests.

Bzzt, wrong.

MHLs are political in nature, only. Nothing to do with advocacy.

Want me to show you studies of how MHLs decrease ridership...? Since this is the case, MHLs are hardly advocacy; if anything, they are anti-advocacy.

Trick question.

Haha.

of course that's your perspective.

others say,

Advocacy is a political process

Pish-tosh. They are obviously an advocacy issue. The study I posted previously showed that there was a marked decrease in ridership with the implementation of the MHL. That alone makes it an advocacy issue.

I see this thread is rapidly climbing due to the anti helmet trolls. Why they think it is their duty to talk people out of wearing helmets is beyond me.

I still maintain there are two reasons to wear a helmet. One as with most sports there is safety equiptment, and for cycling a helmet is one of ours. Second, do to lawyers and courts, if a cyclist is not wearing a helmet, they will blame the cyclist even tho he is run down from behind.

When riding to the shops, or to visit a friend, or on tour I am not engaging in a sporting activity.

This is very unlikely in this country. At worst, it might have an impact on the damages awarded to the cyclist if the judge is persuaded that a helmet would have limited the injuries. So far, medical experts here have been very reluctant to testify that a helmet would have made a significant difference in any specific case.

Although there have been motions made to reduce or deny damages as a result of a cyclist not wearing a helmet, none have been successful. The reason of course is the protection a helmet can provide is minor in nature, the type of injury that wouldn't qualify for compensation (and if anyone knows of a case that differs, link it)

You'd advocate for something that decreases ridership...? I dunno, I guess I just assumed that on this particular forum, advocacy is assumed to mean pro-bike political stance...

"Anti helmet trolls". Right. Pointing out that the benefit of wearing a helmet is doubtfull makes one a troll. Or is it pointing out that the helmet wearing campaigns make cycling seem dangerous that makes one a troll?

Why link when you can make things up?

When there have been no cases, there can be no links. The statement is not made up, but you cannot supply a link for something that didn't happen. If you can provide a link where an award was removed or reduced due to a cyclist not wearing a helmet, please post it. However, if you cannot find one, I guess you could say that this wasn't made up...

The former isn't really valid. On my old steel bike, I'm no more engaging in a sport than my Dad driving his jalopy down to the store is engaging in NASCAR. One wears a helmet, the other doesn't.

Second, that's your assessment and your choice. Go for it. That doesn't mean everyone else will choose the same thing, that's the point. Based on the lack of this having been an issue in the past, I'm not too concerned.

No? You asked how MHL's are an advocacy issue. I cited a study that shows they decrease ridership. Because they are an advocacy issue doesn't mean it's something I advocate for; I advocate against them... thus making them an issue.

Regardless of if you are for or against them, they are still an issue of advocacy since having a pro or con stance seems to directly effect ridership. Therefore speaking out against MHL's are an advocacy issue. QED.

I voted Used to but stopped. Even though I still put one on for races and when I go out to hit some sweet jumps and when I go riding high speed on snow and ice. So I guess my perfect answer is I used to for every single bike ride but now only do so for certain ones. Hmmm, from about 1974-1987 I never wore a helmet either. So my perfect answer was I started out never wearing one, then wore one for every single bike ride for about 10 years and now only wear one for special occasions.

Sorry haven't read the rest of the thread, I'll do so now, though.

Oh, I did get a "You need a helmet!" from a passing cyclist a couple of weeks ago. Pretty darn funny. I was chuckling inside but kept a straight face and said "I don't think I do." I should have added "You need elbow pads!" ;)

Dude must have put the hammer down to catch me because I kept my same average speed up this long grind of a hill and passed him about a half mile later.

As far as I'm concerned, a helmet isn't uncomfortable, is simple to use, and the potential benefits of wearing one, in my view, outweigh the potential downsides by a fair margin. That's good enough reason for me to wear a helmet. Others may make a different judgement, but that's mine.

Have you ever pulled a "You need a helmet!" ?

the chemist +1

You posted my point exactly. There is virtually no down side of wearing a helmet.

Styrofoam helmet. Bad for the environment. (to paraphrase Randy Quaid in Freaked)

When I wore one for every single ride I'd need a new one every year or two. Now that it's a special occasion item I've had the same one since 2000.

There is virtually no down side to wearing one at the dinner table, walking, running, etc. either...so I don't see how the point is relevant to anything other than as a "duh" moment.

Yes, from someone wearing one backwards.

Oh.... nearly forgot ... and also from a cop in Nova Scotia shortly after they brought in their mandatory helmet law.

And also from some dicks driving a beat-up old car belching smoke.

And from friends.

And from ride-organizers.

And from family.