You are free to used them for that benefit but it isn't really the benefit that people are arguing about here.

In closetbiker's case, that wasn't a benefit that did anything to justify wearing helmets.

Regarding that, didn't you yourself say "There are still folks deluded enough to believe that a bicycle helmet is effective protection against being struck by a motor vehicle. Those of us on planet Earth realize that there is no way to protect against motor vehicles, other than to avoid them entirely."

in the specific case of car-bike collisions, you believe that there is no protection afforded by helmets. In that case, you answer your own challenge to the other fellow.

I don't want any trivial sutures in my scalp. I have $6000 deductable and better things to do than visit Instant Care.

But so far, 45 years cycling and skating without my helmet touching Mother Earth. So i see both sides of the argument. And i like wearing hats, even Styrene hats.

I've seen youtube video of a telephone pole falling on a pedestrian. Still don't wear a hard hat while I walk to the store!

When the wind picks up I walk down the middle of the street, though. Less chance of getting nailed by falling tree branches that way.

Speaking of being really careful and aware, I just met a guy who has a really nice 3-wheel recumbent "tadpole" trike that he only uses on the local bike path that is flat as a pancake and rides around 12 mph. He religiously wears a helmet. He made me realize that there are certain cycling situations where I would likely NOT bother wearing a helmet. (And it kinda made me want a tadpole trike dagnabbit)

I wouldn't mind having a go-fast recumbent. I'd have to get a 1st floor apartment or house with a garage first, though. :)

Well, actually, what you said is what you said, as noted in the post to which you are responding. Being as you not only cannot back up what you said, but even claim that what you said is not actually what you said, I can't imagine any reason to continue trying to converse with you.

No. I believe that a helmet cannot save a life when there are multiple causes of death, which is the norm for high speed bicycle/automobile interactions.

I am not aware of anyone on this forum who does not believe that a helmet can mitigate injury. The debate is about how much mitigation, and what types of injury. Some folks (you, for instance) appear to believe that a bicycle helmet has nearly miraculous protective abilities, including the ability to protect the brain when the cyclist is struck by a car moving at freeway speeds. Others of us (me, for instance, who has personally attended high speed bicycle/automobile interactions in which the cyclist was in several pieces) find that optimistic at best. Hence the thread.

I'd been told rydabent was a bot. Huh.

Hold up there. Would you say that after being struck by a car, in the cases where there is NO fatality let alone multiple causes, that it would still be delusional to expect the helmet to provide effective protection?

Also, where do you get "which is the norm" for high speed interactions? I think that's dubious, but I could admit error if there's anything solid to support that.

Well, for the last thirty years I have encountered innumerable slick spots, blowouts, loose gravel, and dogs. Of those, they have caused me to fall off my bike exactly one (1) time, and I did not hit my head. So those seem like pretty good odds to me.

You are welcome to worry about all those things. Maybe you fall regularly because of them. Maybe you even hit your head. But your experience is not mine, nor anyone else's. It is the height of arrogance to believe that your experience is universal and that therefore your solutions are appropriate for every cyclist.

Context is important here. We were not speaking of the fellow knocked off in a "right hook" or other low-speed incident. We were speaking of the high-speed "hit from behind" scenario, which appears to be becoming more common these days, at least in my neighborhood. "The norm" is nothing more than my personal experience, which is not vast, but is not inconsequential either.

Just for clarification: in my experience, when a cyclist is struck by a car at high speed, there are multiple causes of death. A helmet, in that situation, is superfluous. It is certainly possible, though outside of my personal experience, that a cyclist could be struck by a vehicle at high speed and not suffer life-threatening injury to any part of the body other than the head, and that the life-threatening injury to the head could be mitigated by a bicycle helmet. It is my opinion, based upon my personal experience, that such an incident is so rare that trying to prepare for it is similar to trying to prepare for a meteorite strike. IOW, you are welcome to prepare for it. I don't see the need.

Which is a perfectly valid (among many) reason to wear a bicycle helmet. I fully support your right to wear a helmet, and I'm happy you've put some thought into and made your decision.

Now if only the helmeteers would offer everyone else the same courtesy.

??? You aren't making sense.

I've stated more than once that if a helmet does nothing else except mitigate "minor" injuries, for me, that's enough reason alone to wear one. There are plenty of people here who wear a helmet for this reason and plenty of bare-headers who have no issue with helmeteers who wear a helmet for such reasons.

Since you rarely do, either, I wonder why you question this...

How common is it? If it is common, it wouldn't make any sense to ride in your neighborhood. Given how rare these collisions are, your impression that they are actually becoming "more common" in a specific neighborhood isn't reliable.

This from the person who thinks that safety classes that you said they don't take even when they are free actually do something!:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: As I said, you (or anybdody) are completelely free to where them for that reason. And, I said (more than once) that I don't care whether or not people wear helmets.

Not that your response has anything to do with my reply, but to clarify:

I believe that a new rider who takes a safety class will ride safer than a new rider who merely purchases and uses a helmet. But don't let that stop you from attributing to me things I never said. Seems to be something you are skilled at and like doing.

As is typical, it doesn't really address the point I was making, which is: despite your comment otherwise, this is a benefit over which people argue here.

My understanding is that hit from behind are the least common serious accidents.

I view anything over around 30 mph as high speed, and I would think that all types of collisions should be included in "high speed interactions" between cars and bikes. Particularly I would not dismiss side touches and right and left hooks, since these are much more common that getting run down from behind.

If you're thinking only along the lines of getting run down from behind by a truck at highway speeds then a helmet isn't of much use.

You said it here:

http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-s...l#post16324884

(Yes, "no one" was an exaggeration. Obviously, since a few people pay money for the LAB courses.)

And wearing a helmet doesn't really make people "ride safer" anyway (that isn't what they are supposed to do). And there isn't any reason one can't do both.

No, people don't appear to argue it at all (it seems that people mostly agree they have that benfit). What people are really arguing about is whether they have a benefit beyond that.

Many anti-helmeteers argue that bicyclists never really fall which makee the "minor cuts" benefit moot.

What you say people say and what they actually said are very different in most posts where you reply to something someone else posted. This is no different.

No.

It's a simple quote, easily understood.

Your argument: Helmets are useless in collisions where they are useless, therefore they are useless in all collisions (except for scratches).