Who has distorted the idea of helmet safety? Everyone posting here has reasonable precaution in mind.
At this point, I don't even know what you're defending. Stupidity I guess.

By all means, don't wear a helmet. No one is saying you're going to die or be maimed but if one day you're typing to us with your nose; I'll be the first to say "You're a moron."

Twisted views, santimonious buffoon and a stupid moron too!

Good to see the great art of debate is alive.

(Way to address the argument too)

You just made that up.

The burden of proof has to be on the side that encourages helmet use- they are arguing that people should go out and buy helmets and wear them and replace them after crashes. So far I have only seen fallacious arguments. (False Burden of Proof, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Common Practice, Anecdotal Evidence) I am trying to gather logical arguments from either side of the debate so that I can make a good decision myself.

Helmets are a huge industry, think about it- potentially ~85,000,000 consumers, all the benefits of fashion changes, built in obsolescence (every crash) and an easy campaign of fear advertising. That industry has to convince me of a need that they can fill.

Trevor
Living is not safe- you will die from it.

Welcome back to my ignore list . I thought you had decided to become a productive member here, but alas, you're still a troll

Nice to see the best way to deal with a different idea is to ignore it.

The industry is exploiting a cultural issue. Areas that are exploited are dominated by the automobile.

A couple of pages for arguments can be found @

https://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/helmet.html

https://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/mhls.htm

https://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/

and a good links page @

https://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/helmurl.html

Not sure if it has been posted prior but here is a link with lots of statistics about helmets and cycling from various sources.

https://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

Riding without a helmet is on the same level as fixers who ride without brakes. It is all about the person making a "statement" about their prowess at cycling or their individuality or anti-establishment or whatever... If you want to crush your skull it’s your business up to the point where your stupidity begins to affect other people in any way. Show proof that you have enough cash in the bank that will cover your injuries and you can ride naked for all I care. However, if you’re dependent on the rest of us to take care of you after you have a fall, I have a problem with you not taking reasonable precautions. Wearing a helmet is not, in my estimation, unreasonable.

Hopefully you understand enough about economics to understand that all costs for goods and services are ultimately paid by the consumers. A lot of the public is under the mistaken belief that the insurance companies pay for care. They don't. The policy holders of the insurance companies pay for care. That's me and the rest of us who have any kind of insurance. So, you do not pay your costs in the hospital alone. That is why the rest of us have some legitimacy in being upset by those of you making a statement at our risk.

My my so many ignore list posts.

Closetbiker, I think you have made a good point. Certainly we'd all be safer if we wore helmets while traveling in cars. So why aren't helmetless car drivers referred to as "*******"?

Little things like, oh I don't know, seat belts, air bags, and side curtains. Those safety devices do a fine job of reducing the risks of injury in the typical crash (75% of all crashes occur within 25 miles of home at speeds of 45 mph or less) I will, under no hesitation, call someone who does not use a practical availiable safety device a moron especially if there is no substitute

Yes, but how well do those things protect you in a rollover (a major cause of head injuries in auto accidents)? Wouldn't wearing a helmet in addition to those things greatly increase our chances of surviving a car accident? Is it not an available safety device? I ride bikes and drive cars. If I had to put money on it, I'd say it's more likely I'll get seriously injured in a car accident. Yet, I wear a helmet while biking (although not all the time) but I have never worn a helmet in a car. Doesn't make much sense.

How about the majority of bicyclists in China? All morons?

https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...m-rollover.htm

Without a proper roll cage a helmet is useless in a roof crush scenario (a common cause of head injuries ian death n a rollover) as there is no helmet that can withstand a vehicle crushing it.
Helmet use is one of the few ways we have of reducing the risk of injury so why not use it.

Yes or no, you'd be more likely to survive a car accident if you were wearing a helmet in addition to the other safety features?

Without question you would be better off with one. The fact that yoiu would be safer in a car with a helmet is immaterial in this discussion as there are other safety devices available in a car that can reduce the risk of injury there are no such options on a bike. A better comparision would be motorcycles; with helmets and without https://www.smartmotorist.com/cyc/cyc.htm

Yeah, my only point is we are talking about degrees of risk here. We would be safer wearing a helmet in a car, but we choose not to and we accept that degree of risk. With regard to bike helmets, I also evaluate degrees of risk. That is why I wear a helmet when mountain biking, but if I'm riding on a flat bike path along the beach or riding through a quiet suburban neighborhood, I don't wear a helmet. It is wise to wear a helmet when rock climbing, but I never have. I rode motorcycles for ten years and I always wore a full face helmet, yet some people probably thought I was a moron for riding one at all. I say I am just taking caculated degrees of risk that I am comfortable with. Yet, with all these risks I have taken, it is statistically more likely that I would buy it in an auto accident. Go figure.

Give us a different idea to ignore.

No, but you might be for pointing to an example of a completely different culture and a picture of 100% bicycles that have no auto traffic in it.
They don't require child seats or safety regulations in autos, trains or any other form of mass transit. Does that make it ok for you to point to a developing 3rd world nation as an example of the right way to do things?

I'm just quoting you because it's worth repeating; and needs repeating it seems.

Yes, it does look like they are riding on a bike path in that photo. However, I think it is safe to say that they do share the streets with cars in other parts of the city. Not likely that point A to point B is all bike path. Nevertheless, I agree there are some riding situations in which wearing a helmet is not so crucial.

As for pointing to other nations for the right way to do things: sure I would, to a degree. Having spent time in such places, I can tell you that less rules and regulations is really quite liberating. Obviously, there are many regulations here that make sense, but I feel we have gone beyond overboard in America in many cases. People always talk about how free America is, yet when I leave it I get a real sense of what an illusion that perception is. I'd rather live with a little more risk and a little more freedom.

You can speak your mind without being killed for it. You will not be taken over in your own home by the government. You have safe passage in this country no matter where you go. You enjoy all the benefits of 1st world country living. You live in a free society that allows anyone to succeed and live a decent lifestyle.

YOU ARE FREE. America IS free.

Freedom is not about convience. Don't confuse the two. No one is forcing you to wear a helmet unless deemed by some local legislature- that is called "voted on by the people"- a popular concept in free societies.

READ the posts in this thread.

Yes, we enjoy many freedoms here. But we are not so free in other ways. It can be as simple as crossing the street. Technically, we are not free to jaywalk and we can be fined for doing so. Such a law would be unheard of in many other countries. Just walk down a city street sometime and really focus on all the rules. No parking, no skateboarding, no bikes, no loitering, no trespassing. In California, you are not free to drive without a seatbelt or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. I do these things anyway, but I don't think I should be forced to. I've been detained and questioned by the police for doing nothing more than walking down the street after dark. It's true no one is forcing me to wear a bike helmet...yet. But like I said, when I travel to other countries where these kinds of nitpicky rules and regulations are not so ubiquitous, then I really feel a sense of freedom. And generally I find the people there get along pretty well. But if you insist that I am free, can I light this spliff now?

Still the arguments revolve around fallacies. "If you want to crush your skull it’s your business up to the point where your stupidity begins to affect other people in any way." Wrong cause and effect. Not wearing a helmet will not crush your skull, crashing crushes your skull.

I pay health insurance so that I do not have to maintain a bank account with enough money to cover my health costs. This argument would indicate that all vehicle drivers should maintain large sums of money for the same reason. It is more dangerous to get in a car than cycle without a helmet. How about people who don't exercise or are obese- do they have to maintain their own accounts so "we" don't have to pay?

Come on, how much do we pay in insurance premiums each, how many pay that? That's a crud load of money and the companies turn a profit (required for publicly owned corporations).

Thanks for the sites closetbiker.

It's so sad that people cannot appreciate freedom nor the sacrifices made to have what we do have.
Just because you are in another country and ignorant to the laws and rules they have, you feel more "free". OK, ignorance is bliss.

Murder is against the law. Do you think it shouldn't be? Wearing your seatbelt not manditory- we tried that, didn't work. The reason it is the law is because it is in the best interest of our society at large. It reduces the $ burden on all the taxpayers. How did it become law? YOUR elected officials voted it that way.
You can light your spliff, you have personal freedom of choice. If you don't agree with the law, you can fight it. You won't be shot in the head for lighting up something illegal because we, as a free society, have rules to protect you as an individual. That is a luxury afforded to you in a free society.

Freedom doesn't mean anarchy. Your view is simply naive and immature.

Who says I don't appreciate the freedom we do have? I, in fact, do appreciate it. Does that mean I shouldn't protest when other forms of freedom are infringed upon? My point is we don't have as much freedom as people like to crow about.


You have no basis for drawing this conclusion. How do you know what country I am talking about, what laws they have, and whether I know about them or not?


No. What have I said that indicates I'm in favor of legalizing murder? That's quite a stretch to suggest that someone who opposes jaywalking laws and marijuana laws is in favor of legalized murder.


Mandatory Seat Belt Law
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27315.htm


Yeah, I can light my spiff, and be imprisoned for doing so. Even better, Tommy Chong is doing time right now for selling bongs. Howard Stern is being fined for saying naughty words.


I never called for anarchy. Or did you just decide to ignore this sentence because it doesn't fit your unfair characterization of me? "Obviously, there are many regulations here that make sense."


And yet you are the one making unfounded accusations and resorting to name-calling just because I have a different point of view from yours. Unless you address my actual points, I am done with you.