View Poll Results: What Are Your Helmet Wearing Habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
52
10.40%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
24
4.80%
I've always worn a helmet
208
41.60%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
126
25.20%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
90
18.00%
Voters: 500. You may not vote on this poll
The Helmet Thread 2
02-25-16, 05:57 PM
#1901
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
I think it's funny because you can easily see if it has cracks or has lost cohesion, and whether the plastic cover is loose. They just want to sell more helmets.
02-25-16, 06:24 PM
#1902
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,272
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4256 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times
in
940 Posts
He wasn't correct about what I said.
You need to think about why you often don't often agree with them.
The unsurprising conclusion is that helmets are not particularly effective in preventing traumatic brain injury, but are more effective with the relatively minor injuries. Whether or not you specifically list skull fractures among the injuries doesn't really impact that conclusion.
Even without "preventing traumatic brain injury", some people might consider reducing the incidence of skull fractures as worthwhile. They might even see that as more worthwhile than preventing "bumps and bruises".
If you fracture your skull, what would doctors recommend you do or not do? Is what they recommend the same thing as they would for "bumps and bruises"?
CarinusMalmari ignored the likely difference. Skye was hiding it. Heck, even you missed it.
One can argue that skull fractures are not the big deal many people might think but I doubt you can argue that they are the same as "bumps and bruises" (what CarinusMalmari basically did) or so inconsequential that you can ignore them and talk about "bumps and bruises" instead(what Skye did).
The "hyperbole" is misleading.
Last edited by njkayaker; 02-25-16 at 06:48 PM.
02-26-16, 03:45 AM
#1903
Senior Member
It would be a good idea if researchers buy back used helmets from cyclists with information about the age of the helmets and any accident and type of injuries involved, to conduct their studies. They could pay just $1 for each, and the research result could be very valuable.
02-26-16, 08:18 AM
#1905
Senior Member
Well, yeah, of course. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that many helmet advocates see this advice as sound and that it makes everyone safer.
02-26-16, 08:55 AM
#1906
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
When we see something that confirms an opinion we already have, we tend to give it more credence than is warranted, while being less critical analytically. If one strongly believes that cycling helmets are making him safer, then needing to replace them for safety's sake confirms that belief so he's not inclined to question it much.It must be effective marketing to tap into that, and I think that certain politicians are masters at it.
02-26-16, 09:15 AM
#1907
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1662 Post(s)
Liked 226 Times
in
131 Posts
Well, it's more like Australia is actively trying to marginalize cyclists out of existence and this draconian fine is just another example of that. Australia's biggest contribution to cycling was demonstrating that Mandatory Helmet Laws are a great way to kill your cycling culture.
Last edited by CarinusMalmari; 02-26-16 at 09:19 AM.
02-26-16, 12:42 PM
#1908
Senior Member
They should fine a cyclist $304 for wearing a helmet incorrectly (too loose, wrong way, damaged helmet...); $1089 for riding without a light in the dark.
02-27-16, 02:17 AM
#1909
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1662 Post(s)
Liked 226 Times
in
131 Posts
OTOH, just like lacerations, bumps and bruises, skull fractures are usually not clinically significant. The phrase "skull fracture" does sound serious, and while they can be serious and while they also can be indicative for more serious injuries, skull fractures themselves usually don't even require medical treatment.
02-28-16, 07:30 AM
#1910
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
Well, it's more like Australia is actively trying to marginalize cyclists out of existence and this draconian fine is just another example of that. Australia's biggest contribution to cycling was demonstrating that Mandatory Helmet Laws are a great way to kill your cycling culture.
BTW as I have posted many times, I am against mandatory helmet laws. However people that dont wear helmets often end up improving the gene pool.
02-29-16, 09:58 AM
#1911
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,272
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4256 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times
in
940 Posts
No, Skyes's misrepresentation was indefensible and you defended it. It's possible that you didn't intend to defend it but that's what you did.This is strawman argument. This wasn't my point and if you weren't such an ideologue, you might have see it.
Last edited by njkayaker; 02-29-16 at 10:03 AM.
02-29-16, 10:07 AM
#1912
Senior Member
03-01-16, 09:08 AM
#1913
Senior Member
03-18-16, 06:19 AM
#1914
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 86
Bikes: Norco Indie 4 2015
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I've always been under the belief that wearing a helmet outta protect your head somehow.
I mean, worst case scenario is death, but lets say you do survive: brain damage has to be surely one of the worst ways to be affected in an accident?!
Even (God forbid for us all) if someone was to lose the ability to move their body, if they could think straight and possibly talk / and communicate still with their family and friends surely that's a much better existence?
I'd say a helmet must help when it comes to your head hitting the ground or a car, as it takes some of them impact even if it is fatal. Why wear none at all?
They're quite cheap where I live at £19.99 ($28), so why not?! And to be honest, if you guys let your kids cycle, do you make them wear helmets at least? :-/
I mean, worst case scenario is death, but lets say you do survive: brain damage has to be surely one of the worst ways to be affected in an accident?!
Even (God forbid for us all) if someone was to lose the ability to move their body, if they could think straight and possibly talk / and communicate still with their family and friends surely that's a much better existence?
I'd say a helmet must help when it comes to your head hitting the ground or a car, as it takes some of them impact even if it is fatal. Why wear none at all?
They're quite cheap where I live at £19.99 ($28), so why not?! And to be honest, if you guys let your kids cycle, do you make them wear helmets at least? :-/
03-18-16, 11:53 AM
#1915
Senior Member
I've always been under the belief that wearing a helmet outta protect your head somehow.
wet
I mean, worst case scenario is death, but lets say you do survive: brain damage has to be surely one of the worst ways to be affected in an accident?!
Even (God forbid for us all) if someone was to lose the ability to move their body, if they could think straight and possibly talk / and communicate still with their family and friends surely that's a much better existence?
I'd say a helmet must help when it comes to your head hitting the ground or a car, as it takes some of them impact even if it is fatal. Why wear none at all?
They're quite cheap where I live at £19.99 ($28), so why not?! And to be honest, if you guys let your kids cycle, do you make them wear helmets at least? :-/
wet
I mean, worst case scenario is death, but lets say you do survive: brain damage has to be surely one of the worst ways to be affected in an accident?!
Even (God forbid for us all) if someone was to lose the ability to move their body, if they could think straight and possibly talk / and communicate still with their family and friends surely that's a much better existence?
I'd say a helmet must help when it comes to your head hitting the ground or a car, as it takes some of them impact even if it is fatal. Why wear none at all?
They're quite cheap where I live at £19.99 ($28), so why not?! And to be honest, if you guys let your kids cycle, do you make them wear helmets at least? :-/
1. Why stop at a bike helmet? Why not a full face motorcycle helmet? Surely that offers more protection and more protection is better. They aren't that expensive compared to hospital bills you might incur if just wear a bike helmet.
2. Why only wear a helmet while riding a bike? There are so many other circumstances where you are at risk of falling and hitting your head (in the bathroom with wet fee, going up or down stairs, wet leaves/ice on the sidewalk etc.)
3. If a bike helmet offers just the right amount of protection for you and you feel not at risk otherwise, why can't you understand that my cycling cap offers enough protection for my head while on my bike because I don't feel at any more risk for a head injury on my bike than off?
03-18-16, 04:25 PM
#1916
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 86
Bikes: Norco Indie 4 2015
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
"1. Why stop at a bike helmet? Why not a full face motorcycle helmet? Surely that offers more protection and more protection is better. They aren't that expensive compared to hospital bills you might incur if just wear a bike helmet."
Yes, a motorcycle helmet would offer marginal improvement over a bike helmet, but the most important step up is the comparison between no helmet vs. a bike helmet - much more safe, and at a fairly low cost. One could take it further to a motorcycle helmet, but again the cost would probably be high(er).
"2. Why only wear a helmet while riding a bike? There are so many other circumstances where you are at risk of falling and hitting your head (in the bathroom with wet fee, going up or down stairs, wet leaves/ice on the sidewalk etc.)"
Also, one could wear a helmet during more of the time, but it is particularly important whilst riding a bike - unlike walking, where yes you can fall but you have your arms to avoid direct head impact in many cases - on a bike, you can suddenly be struck by another pedestrian or vehicle, and you're also moving at around 3 times or more the speed. This adds to the impact from a fall, plus you're mangled through a bike! The added force justify a helmet during the bike ride in my opinion, but of course we are all entitled to our own :-)
"3. If a bike helmet offers just the right amount of protection for you and you feel not at risk otherwise, why can't you understand that my cycling cap offers enough protection for my head while on my bike because I don't feel at any more risk for a head injury on my bike than off?"
It is important to understand that there is risk whether we feel it or not, and the same for walking as you mentioned before. It is a personal choice about how much you are personally willing to do for yourself (and whether you believe it'll help). I think people are fine saying "Oh you Should wear a helmet!" as they can surely suggest it, but you still aren't forced too, just like you can say "No, don't wear helmets!" and the receiver of both statements makes up their own mind
Hope that's enough!
03-20-16, 07:14 AM
#1917
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
That's his whole point! He thinks that it is enough, and objectively he's probably right in his situation. There is a dividing line, when riding bikes or doing anything else, where the level of risk does or does not warrant taking extra precautions. Depending on which side of that line you're on.
Some people pretend there is no such line, or acknowledge it but believe that it doesn't matter. They are simply wrong. Anyone who reasons that safety equipment is necessary in cycling just because something could happen, without consideration of how unlikely it is, has reasoned wrong. On the flip side, anyone who argues that it's no use at all, without regard to the different kinds of cycling, is just as wrong. It all depends on what the risks are.
Some people pretend there is no such line, or acknowledge it but believe that it doesn't matter. They are simply wrong. Anyone who reasons that safety equipment is necessary in cycling just because something could happen, without consideration of how unlikely it is, has reasoned wrong. On the flip side, anyone who argues that it's no use at all, without regard to the different kinds of cycling, is just as wrong. It all depends on what the risks are.
03-20-16, 07:21 AM
#1918
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 339
Bikes: Motobecane Century Pro Ti Disc
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That's his whole point! He thinks that it is enough, and objectively he's probably right in his situation. There is a dividing line, when riding bikes or doing anything else, where the level of risk does or does not warrant taking extra precautions. Depending on which side of that line you're on.
Some people pretend there is no such line, or acknowledge it but believe that it doesn't matter. They are simply wrong. Anyone who reasons that safety equipment is necessary in cycling just because something could happen, without consideration of how unlikely it is, has reasoned wrong. On the flip side, anyone who argues that it's no use at all, without regard to the different kinds of cycling, is just as wrong. It all depends on what the risks are.
Some people pretend there is no such line, or acknowledge it but believe that it doesn't matter. They are simply wrong. Anyone who reasons that safety equipment is necessary in cycling just because something could happen, without consideration of how unlikely it is, has reasoned wrong. On the flip side, anyone who argues that it's no use at all, without regard to the different kinds of cycling, is just as wrong. It all depends on what the risks are.
that is so funny and so true at the same time.
03-25-16, 06:23 AM
#1921
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I recently just got a bike, however, I never needed a helmet when I was younger. Considering getting one now it's just that the ones I want costs at least £30 and I just don't have enough for it. Would I be okay for a while without one?
04-02-16, 05:44 PM
#1923
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
04-02-16, 06:30 PM
#1924
Senior Member
04-02-16, 06:55 PM
#1925
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts