Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you local to the Roswell area, that you might know what's normal for a local club? Are you supposing that someone's opinion about helmets is the issue? What do drivers have to do with it? Am I asking for permission?

To be clear, I will not associate with a club whose members routinely confront other cyclists in the streets regarding their legal and reasonable personal decisions. If that is actually the case with this club or the sponsoring shop, I will apprise other cyclists of the fact and I think it's worthwhile that cyclists who have similar views (to the guy who confronted me) and who read this list understand that people may react in that same manner, more frequently than they may expect.

You can be confronted by people who don't even cycle. Is being confronted more associated with cycling clubs? I have no idea!

You had one unreasonable confrontation. How does that one event extrapolate to being "routine"?

I'm a member of a club and don't do it. The confrontation doesn't appear to be routine in my club. (I've heard people grumble privately but confrontations don't seem routine by any stretch.)

Obviously you don't judge by a single interaction. That's why I wrote

and "depending on what the community relations director has to say", which you should have seen since you quoted it. Why are you bothering me with insinuations of stupidity, which would be seen as clearly inappropriate to anyone who's read either of those posts?

But, maybe "if" you joined... You could spread the word, bike helmets aren't necessarily as good at protecting as most people think... ;)

Two problems with that.

First of all I suspect that wphamilton is a bit like me in that he doesn't have a "position" for or against helmets, and not interested in convincing anybody of anything on that score. If he's like me, he just wants to ride his bike, and let others ride theirs.

The second issue, (for me) is the idea of joining something in order to effect change from within. Even granting that someone might have a position on the issue, that's a thankless uphill battle, and more likely to have you branded as an (insert your adjectival noun here).

As I said earlier, few among those who opt to go bare headed, are anti-helmet in any way, we simply don't believe that helmets are warranted, and are content to let others decide for themselves.

Yea, I understand... But, I used to be one of those that thought helmets "should" be worn "because they/it could save your life" but over the few years I changed to " a helmet could save you some injury" and if you understand the limitations it can still be worth it, Just by being on this thread for the last few years...

You probably should have waited until you heard from the community director before publically insinuating that confrontations might be "routine" based on a single interaction.

Anyway, I'm only talking about this one thing you said. I don't really know why you said it (I'm not insinuating the cause you are presuming).

Any car built from about 1982 is a helmet and it is hard get more than an 80g head hit in one.

There was a time a couple of decades ago when motorcyclists were fighting against helmet laws here in California and often stated that if they had to wear helmets then car drivers should too. That argument quietly disappeared when they, mostly the MMA (Modified Motorcycle Association), learned that cars were helmets.

BTW: Brain tissue has the consistency of barely-set scrambled eggs.

All those TV dramas showing a medical examiner lifting a brain out of a skull is pure BS. First the doctor has to sever the capillaries between skull and brain, work a net around and under the brain then lift the brain-filled net enough to allow severing the spinal chord. Then the brain-in-a-bag can be removed.

It is a wonder any of us ever reach adulthood!

Joe

Just a guess: I bet head injuries via passenger auto/SUV/light truck brain injury far surpass those due to motorcycle or bicycle causes...

Possibly but it's not relevant. The raw numbers would simply reflect the vastly greater number of drivers, vs cyclists. What matters is the rate, ie. head injuries per mile or driver/rider.

I think what matters most is where and how you ride...

That's a separate question, my post was strictly addressing the possibly greater numbers of head injuries in cars.

Otherwise, I agree with you. I can't count how many times I've posted that statistics aren't destiny. Regardless of the averages, injuries aren't uniformly spread among cyclists (or any other class), with most having few or none, and some having multiple injuries. When friends tell me that their helmet "saved their life" for the 3rd time, I ask them to ponder why they're having so many serious crashes (racing excluded).

Whether you opt to wear a helmet or not, use some common sense and ride smart.

Incredible!

Why suspect when this very thread from 10-15-14 until now says clearly otherwise?

If people can't convince each other after 20 months at it, daily, there is something else going on.

Perhaps blood can flow from rocks more easily.

Perhaps it's not about helmets anymore, but stroking some thing pleasurably.

As I said to start with, this thread makes the Flat Earth Society appear credible.

I think you need basic knowledge of risk calculation to understand my posts here. FBinNY I think does, most people don't. I've never written a post, here or elsewhere, advocating for or against helmet use. The usual suspects here tend to make assumptions when they don't understand the significance of some fact or analysis.

I don't know what's incredible.

I said "I suspect" because I didn't know his position (and still don't). I was only referencing Mr. Hamilton's recent posts about getting "witnessed" recently, and didn't go back to see what he felt about helmets per se. This recent back and forth was not pro or anti helmets in general, but only about the proselytizing that some of the non-wearers get subjected to from time to time.

As for the 20 months of "debate" on the thread, I'm not surprised that nobody's opinion is changed, and for my part, I limit myself to the side issues of unsolicited proselytizing, and proposals re mandatory use. As for whether a helmet should be worn, and the amount of protection they offer, I leave that to those who care enough, who certainly have enough information to make their own decisions.

As far as I'm concerned, I care about the same whether anyone wears a helmet as I would about whether they ride a red or black bicycle, or about as close to zero as possible.

Low hanging fruit -- if head injuries are such a concern, get drivers and passengers of cars/SUVs/light trucks to wear helmets, since they form a majority by far of TBI sufferers, where those involved in motor vehicle accidents are concerned.

Flipside is that I don't for a minute believe that most of those advocating mandatory helmet use for bicyclists and motorcyclists have their best interests at heart.

Again, if they are so concerned about the "cost to society" of those rare few who don't wear helmets and end up with TBIs, well those in more protected forms of motor vehicles make up the bulk of road users who's injuries are paid for by others, and should be at the top of the list for mandatory helmet use, using the same argument.

I just don't buy that it can be easily dismissed with "Well a car is a helmet."

Because of these threads, my opinion has changed.

Before helmet thread:
I'll wear a helmet, because it will keep me safer, protect me in case of an accident, and quite possibly save my life. I don't care what anyone else does.

After helmet thread:
I'll wear a helmet, because in the very rare event I crash and it involves a head strike, it very well may keep me from needing a ride to the emergency room for stitches or to clean up road rash on my scalp. I don't care what anyone else does.

Point is, it has been instrumental for me in framing the question of helmet use and developing a more realistic expectation of what a helmet might be good for, where safety and injury prevention is concerned. It's also given me quite a bit of insight into the irrationality of those who demand helmets be worn and those who think less of others who ride without helmets.

It hasn't ultimately changed my opinion -- I'll do what I do; you do what you do -- but it's now backed by facts and reasonable consideration from all sides of this debate.

It doesn't matter to me, since it's not my argument (on either side). An individual decision whether to wear a helmet or not is a personal choice made (hopefully) in the context of a risk assessment and expected reduction from the helmet. These are their own considerations and side issues of how many die in cars aren't relevant to that narrow context.

The comparative risk, social cost, and related arguments are only relevant in the context of regulated helmet use, and I'll cross that bridge if/when I come to it.

It's said that the helmet debate is like religion, and in many ways it is. For me, however, it's more like a debate between fundamentalists of different faiths, while I'm an atheist observing from the sidelines, and living in a country with religious freedom.

I get it. You don't care.

Why write so much in a "Helmet" thread, though, would be a question, if I cared at all to ask it. The forum is chock-full of great threads, some even involve red and black bicycles.

Not trying to kill any joy, please carry on, guys, it's a joy to watch...

Anyone who needs 20 months to settle the helmet question, helmet or not, needs his head examined.

I see you don't care enough to ask, even though you did, so I'll answer only in case someone else cares.

I don't post here about whether helmets should be worn or not. I only post about the related side issues, which I do care about, such as the unsolicited "advice" many of receive on the road.

I also post occasionally because it's important to remind people that there is some debate about the risks of our sport, and the extent to which helmet use reduces them.

So, while I don't care whether anyone wears a helmet or not, I do care about the debate because of the potential of mandatory use legislation. In that context I believe that only those who choose to ride without a helmet have a real stake, and am not confident of any real support form those who say "though I choose to wear a helmet, I don't support must use laws".

Thank you for your polite replies.

What makes the choice to wear or not wear a helmet while cycling a relatively minor matter is simply the great rarity of traumatic brain injuries. They are rare and cyclists have spent many lives-worth of riding their bikes without TBIs.

But, choosing not to wear one is a bit like playing the lottery -- in reverse.

Joe

We are talking to protect our body most important zone! the head.
So , I've always worn a helmet

And what makes it even more minor of an issue, is the fact that bicycle helmets do a very lousy job at preventing TBI since they do next to nothing to counter the rotational forces that are mostly responsible for those.

Riding a bicycle is like playing the lottery in reverse, the helmet is more comparable with a negative saldo of a couple of hundreds/thousands on you bank account. It can really make a difference if you win the smaller prices, but it's going to mean **** all if you win the jackpot.

The great majority of TBIs are due to falls onto hard relatively flat surfaces.

A helmet's purpose is to minimize the peak loading on the brain of its wearer in such a fall. The lower the peak acceleration, the less likely there will be a TBI.

Brain injury mechanisms are multiple: from direct damage (bullet, skull crack or depressed fracture), coup/contrecoup damage, shearing of brain tissue, bleeding inside the skull and multiple biological consequences of the initial mechanical damage.

It is not a simple subject.

When I was researching and writing about helmet performance, both bicycle and motorcycle, 300g peak loading was generally considered a threshold for brain injury. 350g would almost guarantee measurable damage and 400 would generally put one in the ground.

We now know that much lower "g" loadings will, if repeated often enough (soccer, football, boxing, etcetera) cause permanent, debilitating and deadly damage to one's brain. Still, the 300g number isn't bad if, that is, --- it only happens one time.

Joe

SEE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injury
TBI: Get the Facts | Concussion | Traumatic Brain Injury | CDC Injury Center
Mechanism of TBI
Pathophysiology of traumatic brain injury
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...le&maxtoshow=&
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf