Hmm... I am not sure what happened - I wasn't trying to quote your post. Oh well!lava said:Not sure why my reply inspired your post, but okay... I totally agree, by the way. I always wear a helmet too.
Cheers!
Hmm... I am not sure what happened - I wasn't trying to quote your post. Oh well!lava said:Not sure why my reply inspired your post, but okay... I totally agree, by the way. I always wear a helmet too.
That's why your name is Randomus!Randomus said:Hmm... I am not sure what happened - I wasn't trying to quote your post. Oh well!
Cheers!
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html is the first in depth look at motorcycle helmets in decades, and caused quite a bit of controversy among bikers. Most of us are polarized on the helmet issue too, and many were amazed to find that the article saying that cheaper helmets protected you better - and that a bicycle style helmet may offer enough protection while riding. After 16 years of riding, it feels strange to me to be missing the comforting feel of my full face helmet when I'm pedaling my single track exercise machine - but I'm not going to pedal without it.framism said:I've stumbled upon a website that helmets examines the value of helmets. Want to know the proportion of wearers to non-wearers. Vote away!
Peb0 said:In my opinion the options need to be vague enough for people to put their own definition but specific enough to derive some meaning.
1) Always
2) Mosttimes
3) Sometimes
4) Never
I think everyone can generally associate themselves with one of these groups, even if it's for different reasons
It's not an easy task to reconcile year old beliefs with alternative views! I find this quote from the article quite amusing:nomotornozen said:http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html is the first in depth look at motorcycle helmets in decades, and caused quite a bit of controversy among bikers. Most of us are polarized on the helmet issue too, and many were amazed to find that the article saying that cheaper helmets protected you better - and that a bicycle style helmet may offer enough protection while riding.
Echoes of the pharmeceutical industry, perhaps?The Snell Foundation has also been less than kind to some renowned head- injury scientists for trying to find, and give our readers, the truth.
That's exactly what I thought! The relentless pursuit of short term profits at the expense of the public.framism said:It's not an easy task to reconcile year old beliefs with alternative views! I find this quote from the article quite amusing:
Echoes of the pharmeceutical industry, perhaps?
There are two ways to reply.The "reply" button at the right of your screen quotes the post.The "post a reply" button on the left doesn't.Randomus said:Hmm... I am not sure what happened - I wasn't trying to quote your post. Oh well!
Cheers!
My experience pretty much mirrors yours and my answer is the same.Peb0 said:No. Choosing not to choose is a choice, when done deliberately.
I can neither answer 1 nor 2 exclusively and as such choosing one over the other does not properly reflect my true answer...
which is... "depends".
When I pop to the corner store, I do not wear my helmet.
When I go on a trail ride, I do wear my helmet.
I have experienced situations where my helmet has helped prevent a potentially more harmful incident (though I think I've never been in a life changing or threatening situation), but likewise have also had the aerodynamic holes help a branch to try and skewer my head, that otherwise would have brushed harmlesslly through my hair.
Pebo
Im going to say the same on this one. Ive seen some pretty bad crashes that could have been alot worse, sans helmet.dhk said:Thought this debate ended many years ago. By now, many of us have crashed with helmets on, or witnessed crashes and picked up broken helmets of fellow cyclists. Doesn't take a genius to understand that a cracked helmet has absorbed a lot of energy and lessened the blow to the head.
All the club rides, century rides and races around here require helmets as a condition of entry. The only people I see riding without them here are recreational duffers out on the bikepath. In fact, one of them, a man in his 50's, died from a head injury earlier this spring when he crashed his hybrid bike just a few blocks from home on his way to the bikepath. He probably thought he didn't need a helmet since he wasn't riding in traffic...but of course his faulty thinking cost him his life.
I actually had a situation like this one happen about a month ago. I was out riding, in warm weather on a steep section of road, and I removed my helmet, and never bothered to put it back on. I stopped at a stoplight a few miles later, and I heard the child in the car that pulled up next to me say "Look mom, that guy isnt wearing a helmet, why do I have to wear one when I ride?". I took note, and replaced my helmet immediately.stevebaby said:I do wonder when I see small children riding without helmets.Adults can decide for themselves but it's a different story for kids who may not have the same skills as adults.I feel a bit guilty when I ,bareheaded,ride past a bunch of kids without helmets.Am I setting a bad example for them?
Does anyone know why that is, helmets as condition of entry? I assume it is something to do with promoting helmet use.dhk said:All the club rides, century rides and races around here require helmets as a condition of entry. The only people I see riding without them here are recreational duffers out on the bikepath. In fact, one of them, a man in his 50's, died from a head injury earlier this spring when he crashed his hybrid bike just a few blocks from home on his way to the bikepath. He probably thought he didn't need a helmet since he wasn't riding in traffic...but of course his faulty thinking cost him his life.
If helmet wearing is unlikely to affect the amount you cycle, you may like to consider the following. Interpretation of the data can be controversial, but examination of the wider evidence from places where helmet use has become significant suggests that the following are reasonable conclusions:
* If worn correctly, a cycle helmet may afford some protection against minor, largely superficial, injuries to the head.
* A helmet is unlikely to offer protection against more serious or life-threatening injuries.
* You are more likely to hit your head in a crash if you wear a helmet.
You may be more likely to crash in the first place, particularly if a helmet makes you feel better protected.
* A helmet may increase the very small risk of the most serious brain injuries that lead to death and chronic intellectual disability.
* The likelihood of serious head injury when cycling is extremely small, and hugely outweighed by the health benefits of cycling.
In all cases you should regard learning to cycle skilfully as your most effective defence against injury of any kind.
Sorry, but these vaguely-worded generalizations sound totally ignorant to me. We all know that helmets provide a degree of protection against any head injury. The fact that this protection works well in "minor accidents" , but isn't sufficient in a worst-case accident, eg, when hitting a tree or car head-on at 50 mph, certainly doesn't mean it's not worth wearing a helmet.framism said:Does anyone know why that is, helmets as condition of entry? I assume it is something to do with promoting helmet use.
Was his choice not to wear a helmet what cost him his life? Perhaps, perhaps not. Check this quote from a page titled "What is the balance of advantage?":
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.