THANK GAWD!

How has it have nothing to do equal rights in traffic if motorists receive head injuries at the same rates as cyclists and yet only cyclists should be expected to wear helmets? Both would benefit, but only one is singled out.

Now you're talkin'!

Okay, yeah, to what point do we police one another's conduct/behavior for "the common good"? Where's the line between looking out for one another and giving up our freedom and privacy? One person's "basic right" is another person's "convenience". I remember reading about a waiter being fired years ago for being reluctant to serve a glass of wine to a pregnant woman.

I'm not helping much here. These are questions it's gonna take years, maybe generations, and cooler heads (no "helmet in hot weather" cracks here, please), to answer. But to be honest, Trevor, one could argue that diet and exercise are as much "on the block" as helmet or seat belt use. There are plenty of others; smoking, alcohol consumption, truly high-risk sports, etc.

Not exactly, crashing without a helmet is more likely to crush your skull would be more to the point.

No, but just like smokers they have to pay a higher premium because of their higher risk to the insurance company. People who drive poorly and get tickets also pay a premium.

And you have a problem with this because ???? You would rather that insurance companies were non-profit or.... I know, lets let the Federal Government handle it all for us. Then no matter what we do we are going to be taken care of. No one will have to be accountable for any action that they take because the Government will take care of us... Talk about a load of crap. Pointing the finger at how profitable insurance companies may, or may not be, has nothing to do with anything in this discussion. The point is we have to pay what they charge or we don't get insurance.

If you want to look at excess profitability, just look back at The Snell Foundation and the affiliated companies who for years have duped hapless motorcyclist, racecar drives, downhill skiers, mountain climbers, boxers, karate students, lumberjacks, and construction workers (just to name a few) that helmets offered them any measure of protection. Talk about the class action lawsuit opportunity of a lifetime. How silly we’ve all been to think that any type of shock absorbent material that is designed to dissipate energy upon contact could limit the effect or even make injury more likely. Someone needs to let the NFL and NHL know about how ridiculous and unnecessary those brain buckets are….

The bottom line is that those who have made up their mind not to wear a helmet won't, no matter what rational information is put forth to the contrary. The real pity is for those young or new riders who aren't into making the "let me be free to do as I wish" statement may be influenced to do the same without the benefit of good council. As for me, it is obvious that some of the participants here won't be swayed now or ever. I will however wish you luck and try to convince anyone I see out riding without a helmet that it really isn't a wise idea. Besides, I look too cool in my color matching helmet and jersey riding along in a 30 mph paceline.

I have no problem with insurance companies, I have problems with people who say that policy holders pay for accidents like its some kind of news. I have a problem with people justifying restricting behaviors because of increasing premiums for all on such a minute section of life as not wearing your helmet. Go after a real threat to safety and your insurance premiums. We should be arguing as to how to increase ridership, or just exercise in general, if those are our concerns because that would save many more lives and much more money than helmet use.

I guess what I'm really trying to point out is how ridiculous the helmet arguments are that I have heard. "Well, you should always wear a helmet because its safer" That is bad logic. I am interested in positive arguments advocating the use of helmets based on logic. Use real arguments, rather than fear of a slight risk, to convince me that I should purchase a helmet or show me that there is a real risk. Cost-benefit style. I realize that helmets are cheap, but the fear campaign to increase their use damages the sport. It makes cycling seem much more dangerous than it is.

Besides, I look too cool in my color matching helmet and jersey riding along in a 30 mph paceline.
>>Finally a personal advocation of helmets I can buy- Style

Trevor learn to use quote tags so that the person you're quoting is identified. Highlighting quotes using blue writing is going to make people think you're quoting me as I typically post everything in blue

sorry 'bout that. Point noted.

No problem

Thank you everyone for your responses to my post about helmets. I think I understand now.

people make their own choices in life. mine on this one is to keep my noggin intact training or not.hot or not its up there all the time im riding .yup used to have a fish net too.lol good ol days when i thought i was invinsible<--sp?ah who cares.

Can a society really be called free when the majority can impose whatever it wants on others? Democracy is not equal to freedom, and a dictatorship by majority rule is not only possible but likely in the absense of constraints.
Ultimately, it is an individual choice. People choose to wear a helmet or not based on a personal cost-benefit analysis. In my case, the answer is: usually, a helmet is warranted. Sometimes, I choose to leave it at home. My head, my decision.
For the person who pointed out that insurance holders pay for coverage-not quite. Insurance companies make money off of investments. The premiums provide the investment capital, and claims are paid from a pool of operating income. Even if you were correct about the workings of the insurance industry, your reasoning opens the door to some disturbing possibilities. I personally don't want the government or the insurance company to come to my home like OSHA without a jockstrap, performing actuarial analysis on the personal minutiea of my life.

I should have kept reading. Here, in all its glory, is an example of Prussian nannyism. Racer-X, of course, knows what's best for all of us. If we immature peons fail to recognize his genius, then we are being immature and naive.
You won't be shot in the head for lighting something illegal-no, but you'll be imprisoned and your assets will be subject to forfieture.
Hitler was an elected official. Let me be clear-I AM NOT COMPARING RACER-X OR CONGRESS TO HITLER. I am, however, saying that the fact that people are "democratically" elected doesn't have any bearing on whether the laws they pass are moral and just or not.
The final question is this: by what right do you tell me what personal risks I may take?
The "cost to society" argument is a dead end for the reasons I stated in the previous post, and because companies always have the right to decline coverage for helmetless accidents. The public financing argument is also a non-starter. Nothing says that medical care must be financed by tax money, especially when foolish risk taking necessitated that care.
I've had my say, and don't doubt that you will too, Racer. I am, however, done here, so flame away.

These arguments are non-starters / dead-ends only in a society such as you describe (i.e. one where there is no pooled risk), which simply doesn't exist.