Beaker wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:48:43 -0800, Cheto quoth:
>
>>I suppose I would submit and buy one. I don't wear one now primarily
>>because 1) they're expensive
>
>
> You can't manage $20? ($13 on sale, even)
ANSI approved helmets are available for under $20. I bought a bunch of
closeout Bell helmets for $1 each, just to have them for guests. Not
high style, but good enough. The cost is not even an issue in the whole
helmet debate.
Here are the types of people in the debate:
1. The people who don't like wearing helmets, but that recognize the
overwhelming evidence that helmets reduce injuries in crashes involving
the head. They are perfectly willing to accept the small extra risk
because instances of such crashes are rare. These people are opposed to MHL.
2. The people who wear helmets because of the safety aspect, but that
also recognize that the reduction in head injuries represents a
statistically very small portion of injuries incurred while bicycling.
These people are likely to be opposed to MHL, because they don't like
telling other people what they should do.
3. The people who don't like wearing helmets, and that try to justify
their behavior by mis-stating the facts on the proven reduction of head
injuries.
These people usually attempt to change the subject into one that
examines all injuries in all areas of life, concluding that there is no
statistical evidence that wearing a helmet has any effect on injuries.
Occasionally (though rarely), they'll claim that they are safer not
wearing a helmet, because if they were wearing one they might not try to
protect their head in a crash.
Often they’ll claim that MHLs reduce the number of cyclists, though of
course there is no evidence to support this contention.
One foolproof method for recognizing these people is that they'll often
launch into side issues, i.e. suggest that people wear helmets while
driving. Often they’ll launch into lengthy diatribes about how everyone
who doesn't agree with them is clueless. These people are strongly
opposed to MHL
4. The people who wear helmets, and want to force everyone else to wear
them as well. These people tend to only look at the head injury
statistics, ignoring the fact that head injuries incurred while
bicycling are very unlikely compared to overall causes of injury in
other areas of life. These people are likely to be in favor of MHL.
Fortunately, I haven't seen any such people in this most recent thread,
even Bill is only pointing out the facts, and doesn't seem in favor of MHLs.
I'm not sure who is more annoying, #3 or #4, but there are lot more
people in the #3 category. In this entire thread I did not see anyone
advocating MHLs. Perhaps the people in #3 believe that anyone that wears
a helmet is in favor of MHLs, but this is not the case.
The bicycle club I was in had a debate raging for years about whether or
not the club should require helmets on rides. A bunch of leaders, myself
included, threatened to not lead any more rides if such a rule was
enacted. Finally the club were forced into requiring helmets because
they couldn't get liability insurance otherwise; the alternative would
have been to disband, and since most people wore helmets anyway, and
many ride leaders required them, it wasn’t a big deal.
