+1
I just always wear it...and gloves. I just don't see it an an invasion of personal liberty, it just makes common safety sense.
YMMV

The Vox Populi right there, folks.

Independence died with JFK.

Ye gads man, are you mad? With no socks, you can rust out the steel toe caps.

Richard

A frequently heard, but profoundly silly and extremely authoritarian argument. Incidentally, I have spent most of my life in the health industry, and you are absolutely wrong.

In the first place, your argument is essentially that anyone who indulges in risk-taking behaviour that might cause them injury and impose an unnecessary burden on the health system should be stopped, so that we don't have to pay for them through our taxes. OK. But as you will know, by far the greatest portion of healthcare expenditure goes on long-term degenerative diseases - cancers, cardiovascular disease and so on. Very many of these diseases are lifestyle related. Eating too much, especially too much of the wrong things, puts one at very high risk of many of these diseases. Are we going to stop caring for anyone who has failed to protect themselves against obesity? Or anyone who has ever indulged in the undoubtedly risky activity of smoking? Maybe the children of fat people should be taken into care for their own protection so their diet can be controlled?

You'll say these are fanciful comparisons, but the only reason you could think that is if you vastly overestimate the dangers associated with cycling. A smoker is much, much more likely to die of their habit than a cyclist. Severe head injuries to cyclists are very rare - the incidence is about the same, per mile travelled, as for pedestrians. By your logic, therefore, there is a "social good" that would justify our insisting on pedestrians donning helmets before they were allowed to cross the street. And the biggest cause of severe head injury to cyclists is the same as for pedestrians - namely, being hit by a car. Even the helmet manufacturers don't pretend that cycle helmets are designed to offer protection against the extreme forces encountered in such accidents. And, in fact, the only countries in which reliable statistics are available - Australia and New Zealand - have been unable to demonstrate any reduction in the prevalence of head injuries to cyclists since they introduced mandatory helmet laws a decade ago.

So, insisting on helmets does not appear, on the basis of experience elsewhere, to make cyclists safer. head injuries to cyclists, helmeted or unhelmeted, are very rare. If you're worried about how your tax dollar is spent on healthcare, this is the least of your problems. And, of course, cyclists, being fitter than average, are in fact less likely to consume healthcare resources than the rest of the general population. All things considered, you don't have a case.

I work in a related field, the pharma industry. I constantly wonder what we are going to do with all the people we save from themselves. Im just sayin'...

I don't think that was his argument at all. He didn't say a word about stopping anyone from doing anything or forcing them to do anything.

This is not (or shouldn't be) about requiring anyone to do anything. It is about what things you should consider when making your own individual choice.

Individual rights have been trampled under that mantra for quite some time. Have taxes decreased where helmet laws have been enacted? Smoking bans? Gun control? Seat belt laws? Mandatory child car seats? I could go on but almost no one ever really changes their mind once a position has been taken. We only marshall evidence that supports our emotional first impressions and ignore or belittle that which disputes them. Eventually, we call our opponents stupid, or cruel, or ignorant. We think, "How could any thinking person disagree with my facts?"

BFN should have a feature that automatically deletes any thread or post with the word h***** in it.

Every h***** thread I have read for the past 12 years has had the same arguments, pro and con and otherwise, and, to my knowledge, not one person of the thousands who have read these posts has changed their mind.

Nearly every dictator in history has risen to power on free speech and working for the common good. Both are usually banned shortly after the coup....

"Give 'em books to read - and they chew the covers off."

Forget the original subject. How is it that any suggestion that doing something is a good idea turns into accusations of trying to force people to do that thing?

Reading comprehension fail on your part, I'm afraid.

He said that suggesting that one had a right not to wear a helmet was "silly" and that there was a wider "social good" - namely his misapprehension that he'd pay less taxes - that easily took precedence over that "silly right". That is a clear argument against freedom of choice. Try reading it again.

You're mistaken. My own view on helmets was formed by exactly such a discussion, and it prompting me to read some of the evidence for myself.

Okay

Now my knowledge base has increased. Thank you. I will revise my statement for more accuracy with my new found knowledge:

Every h***** thread I have read for the past 12 years has had the same arguments, pro and con and otherwise, and, to my knowledge, only one person of the thousands who have read these posts has changed their mind.

You suggested that his point was that people taking risks "should be stopped". That may be what he meant and it may not. You are filling in the gaps with conclusions of your own. It would have been fine to ask him if that was what he meant, but to go off on a rant based on the assumption that he meant something he didn't say is pretty weak.

A rousing Amen Brother to this!


Besides, my wife benefited from a helmetless rider who donated for her bone graft.

Denver.

Please. You can't stop the MADNESS? I would have thought if anybody could you could.

At least an automatic move to A&S where the nut folks grow...

A silver lining to every cloud.

Well, I am one who has taken up wearing a helmet, precisely because of all these threads. After hearing all the fuss, I wanted to see what it was about for myself.
See, I am from the old school, where one decides for oneself what to choose. Usually this is done by examination, research and experimentation.
So what better way than to try out a few helmets? People like me are a dying breed, I suspect.

I say this because, as I've watched the New Age helmet lore build, I see how readily people have just accepted what they are told about cycling helmets... without question.
Fear for ones supposed safety and the stigma of not conforming to the group mind has become very persuasive, indeed.
I suppose it helps that celebrities like Oprah and Barney the Dinosaur endorse helmets, too.

Huh? I've seen quite a few changed minds. The latest SSFG edition got one part-timer to decide to wear more often (of course that was before debate really got fired up).

Sometimes I like to think that folks that walk into a helmet thread and get really vociferous and debate for a few pages, then stop all of the sudden have stopped posting because they've changed their minds and are too embarrassed to say so on the board

That's better, I suppose, than thinking they may have bounced their unprotected head off a car, curb, tree or pavement and are now unable to type a sentence.

Or bounced their styro-protected head off same and are now unable to type a sentence, for that matter. The probabilities are not that far removed in the grand scheme of things.

True dat...

True. There are many possibilities. I can only speak from my own experience. My cracked and deformed helmet rests behind me and here I am typing.

Same here. A couple of months ago I went over the bars without a helmet on, and...

Good. Glad you weren't hurt. I don't think I would have fared as well with my head striking the car or the pavement or whatever combination it was that led to my helmet doing its job and sacrificing its integrity to preserve mine. But who knows?