View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
178
10.66%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
94
5.63%
I've always worn a helmet
648
38.80%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
408
24.43%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
342
20.48%
Voters: 1670. You may not vote on this poll
The helmet thread
#1101
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
trick
Yup-----------get bent has a nice ring to it doesnt it??
But even now as I have mentioned I still use a helmet on my tadpole trike. Flying low, riding safe, having fun. Paying no attention to the nay sayers in the world.
Yup-----------get bent has a nice ring to it doesnt it??
But even now as I have mentioned I still use a helmet on my tadpole trike. Flying low, riding safe, having fun. Paying no attention to the nay sayers in the world.
#1102
Senior Member
To that end, and to your former point, without even looking, I'll bet I can find 10 posters that have denigrated others for their choice to not wear a helmet, for each poster you can find that have have denigrated others for their choice to wear a helmet.
Game?
#1103
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think the point of this thread is educational, rather than confrontational, but there certainly are those who don't want to explore the topic in greater detail.
To that end, and to your former point, without even looking, I'll bet I can find 10 posters that have denigrated others for their choice to not wear a helmet, for each poster you can find that have have denigrated others for their choice to wear a helmet.
Game?
To that end, and to your former point, without even looking, I'll bet I can find 10 posters that have denigrated others for their choice to not wear a helmet, for each poster you can find that have have denigrated others for their choice to wear a helmet.
Game?
Anyway, though I think that a large majority of the helmet wearers either haven't for a moment reflected on why they do it, ot if they have, have swallowed the greul propaganda - I also think that the helmet "skeptics" tend to put too much value in research that seem to support them. IMO, it's pretty safe to say that for every paper supporting helmet use, there's one that goes counter to it. It's definitely not clear cut like in the case of the Amsterdam model.
#1104
Senior Member
And since it is true that research results are far from clear, you'd think the ones denigrating people on bikes for not wearing helmets would understand their position is far from certain as well - that is, if they understood what research shows and not just what some of the research shows.
Last edited by closetbiker; 01-17-12 at 04:18 PM.
#1105
Cycle Year Round
And since it is true that research results are far from clear, you'd think the ones denigrating people on bikes for not wearing helmets would understand their position is far from certain as well - that is, if they understood what research shows and not just what some of the research shows.
And too many of them are willing to force their answer on others.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
#1107
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
Not exactly. A person could be genuinely interested in/supportive of, say, freedom-of-speech issues and simply not care about gun rights, or vice versa. Not actively supporting one type of personal freedom does not mean your support of another one is false or hypocritical. Now, if someone went around saying he supports all civil liberties, personal freedoms, the Constitution, etc. and then only supported one right while ignoring or actively fighting against others, that would be hypocritical and dishonest. (The ACLU itself actually adopts such an exclusionary, some would say contradictory, stance regarding gun rights: https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_p...cond-amendment but that's getting into a whole other issue.)
Strawman. For all practical purposes, there is no such thing as an anti-helmet nanny. The lines are drawn between pro-helmet and pro-choice.
#1108
Senior Member
And then they get e-mugged by the bare-head brigade.
This topic has devolved to politics, pure and simple.
#1110
Senior Member
And since it is true that research results are far from clear, you'd think the ones denigrating people on bikes for wearing helmets would understand their position is far from certain - that is, if they understood what research shows and not just what some of the research shows.
That was way too easy. And equally true.
#1111
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If a person claims to be a proponent of personal rights, then to avoid hypocrisy he needs to be in favor of all personal rights. If he is in favor of only certain personal rights, then to avoid hypocrisy he needs to say so. This is why the ACLU is a hypocritical organization.
Btw, "hypocrisy" has been misused in this thread. What it means is
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2: an act or instance of hypocrisy
2: an act or instance of hypocrisy
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
So, e.g., claiming that you don't care whether someone wears a helmet but actually trying to convince him that it's not worth wearing one is hypocritical: you adopt the stance of open-mindedness or indifference but try to actively influence a viewpoint/behavior you say you don't care about.
Conversely, claiming that every cyclist should wear a helmet but not wearing one yourself is hypocritical: you espouse a practice you don't practice yourself.
(The "you"s in those examples are of course generic.)
As for the ACLU's arbitrary, selective stance on civil liberties, that's grist better saved for another mill
Strawman. For all practical purposes, there is no such thing as an anti-helmet nanny. The lines are drawn between pro-helmet and pro-choice.
Last edited by Six-Shooter; 01-18-12 at 07:27 AM.
#1112
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No one can eliminate risk entirely, risk is present in everything in anything anyone does. The trick is to understand risk and manage it. Can a helmet help? Sure, in some instances, and in circumstances that are within it's capabilities. Instances that include activities that are most often not considered risky but have higher incidences of head injury than cycling
That's why it's kind of funny where you see these posts saying things like, "You wear a helmet on your bike, so why don't you wear one in the shower?" Because people employ shower-specific safety devices there, such as anti-slip mats or rails for elderly or disabled people.
Ok. Red flag. If you come across this reference, you're dealing with a source that hasn't done it's homework. Even the authors of this claim has said it's wrong.
Helmets can help up to a certain degree, but the trouble is most people think they help more than can (as evidenced by the debate that led to BCs all ages MHL, in which MLAs claimed that helmet use is the single most important measure to prevent deaths to cyclists) and cycling is more dangerous than it is (by those who quote injury and fatality data out of context)
#1113
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Northeastern NJ - NYC Metro Area
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
See above: if it were really and truly "pro-choice," there would be no denigration of helmet wearers here, no attempts to convince them that any of their views are wrong, etc. The anti-helmet contingent would just let them do and say what they want and not get their feathers ruffled by it. They would have done their own thinking or research on the issue, come to their own conclusions, and leave it at that, instead of trying to get others to come to the same conclusions.
#1114
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 1,049
Bikes: 2000-something 3 speed commuter, 1990-something Raleigh Scorpion
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I think it's better described as 'pro-informed choice', whereby the bare-headed clan aren't bothered by other people wearing a helmet, but want people to be aware of the limitations of a bicycle helmet, and make their choice based on that. What we want to avoid is people blindly strapping on a helmet purely on the grounds that 'cycling is dangerous' and/or 'a helmet makes you safe'. We also want to avoid helmet laws based on these misconceptions.
#1115
Senior Member
Do you have a link to that?
It should also be known that the 85% figure only applied to children on bicycles under 5 years old. The reduction figure for children 10 to 14 years show a reduction of just 23%.
The 23% figure isn't often used but is equally valid, which really isn't all that valid at all because the study has been widely discredited as because of it's flaws. The study didn't represent a realistic cross section of cyclists, it just showed the results between 2 groups of dissimilar children. It was also developed after Snell and Bell produced their industry standard and funded with the express purpose of promotion for sales. Its designed purpose was to show helmets are effective, and that's what was produced.
Still, because it involves children who only have had simple falls from their bikes, which is what the helmets are made for, it can show for some people who do not collide with motor vehicles and have simple falls at low speeds, helmets can reduce some head injuries to a certain degree.
I take your point but am leery of that "most," which is why I asked if there's good data for how many people actually believe such things. Before ever researching the issue, I for one never assumed a helmet was some magical protection against any and all injury.
I suppose in the world wide view of cycling, helmets are small potatoes. Helmet wearers are the tiny minority, but in the areas where they are used most, those who believe in them are vocal about their beliefs
Last edited by closetbiker; 01-18-12 at 12:56 PM.
#1116
Senior Member
Instead, what happened was the OP chastised a helmet-optional group as being dumber than children, a few others joined in claiming the lidless would end up as vegetables, so those who felt differently gave their reasons why they thought such generalizations were wrong.
Last edited by closetbiker; 01-18-12 at 09:39 PM.
#1117
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
Yes, I saw the first explanation and explained why it was inaccurate. Simply repeating it is a waste of time.
And rather than having me explain how silly your "pro-choice" argument is, I'd just have you apply it to the abortion debate and see for yourself.
And rather than having me explain how silly your "pro-choice" argument is, I'd just have you apply it to the abortion debate and see for yourself.
#1119
Senior Member
Originally Posted by rydabent
As I have posted before on the other treads that have gotten closed down, the public loves cyclist that ride without helemts. The make great organ donors!!!!!!!
#1121
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
See above: if it were really and truly "pro-choice," there would be no denigration of helmet wearers here, no attempts to convince them that any of their views are wrong, etc. The anti-helmet contingent would just let them do and say what they want and not get their feathers ruffled by it. They would have done their own thinking or research on the issue, come to their own conclusions, and leave it at that, instead of trying to get others to come to the same conclusions.
Please apply some basic logic to this issue.
#1122
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Northeastern NJ - NYC Metro Area
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Weird reasoning. Leaves out that a large segment of helmet bearers are also helmet law advocates (at least here on these pages). Helmet skeptics fight helmet laws. Ergo will helmet skeptics have to try to convince some helmet bearers that helmet laws are bad, because helmets are not what helmet law advocates believe them to be.
Please apply some basic logic to this issue.
Please apply some basic logic to this issue.
I wonder what a "helmet law" poll's results would look like...
#1123
Senior Member
Weird reasoning. Leaves out that a large segment of helmet bearers are also helmet law advocates (at least here on these pages). Helmet skeptics fight helmet laws. Ergo will helmet skeptics have to try to convince some helmet bearers that helmet laws are bad, because helmets are not what helmet law advocates believe them to be.
Please apply some basic logic to this issue.
Please apply some basic logic to this issue.
Seems like most helmeteers are pro-choice and either helmet law ambivalent at worst, or nearly as adamantly anti-helmet law as the bare-head brigade.
#1124
Senior Member
From what I've gathered over the years I've participated in this thread is that very few would favor helmet laws, even those who are adamantly, pro-helmet. That doesn't play out in real life however. There are always many that want to force others to do things "for their own good"
#1125
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
More "Spring Airheads" insults, this time in the Cleveland Plain dealer.
Put a lid on it: Bicyclists with big brains who want to keep them intact, also known as those who wear helmets, are most prevalent in Shaker heights (79%), Orange (71%), Cleveland Heights (70%) and University Heights (70%).
Numbskulls without helmets are more likely to be seen riding their bikes in Willowick (9%), Lorain (10%), Brook Park (14%) and Parma Heights (16%). They might be hard-headed, but when skull meets curb, no one's head is hard enough.
Numbskulls without helmets are more likely to be seen riding their bikes in Willowick (9%), Lorain (10%), Brook Park (14%) and Parma Heights (16%). They might be hard-headed, but when skull meets curb, no one's head is hard enough.