wineboyrider
1 MW
Drinking?! Yes, please!
Remember Adolf was a tee totaler. lol.
Remember Adolf was a tee totaler. lol.
Joseph C. said:I think you can differentiate the risks. They are willing to risk their lives working in hazardous conditions. Why they do so is neither here nor there. That is totally different though from being murdered.
You don't drink?
neptronix said:So like i said, wearing a helmet is smart. If you don't wear one where one could save your life.. that's just darwin's chainsaw of justice
TonyReynolds said:I don't know if I can add much more than what's been said except to relate my own experience.
An analogy: On my motorcycle I wear protective gear mainly because of other people on the roads. Whether it's on a bike or a motorcycle, it's the drivers of cars that I'm primarily worried about, not riding in and of itself. If it was just me, it'd be different, but it's not. There are people in cars and trucks with their attention compromised by fatigue, cell phones or a myriad of other things they have no business doing while driving...
I can understand someone wanting the freedom to decide whether they want to wear protection or not, calculating the risk for themselves. I started riding a motorcycle again 3 years ago after a 28 year hiatus. When I rode in college in the 70's, we wore t-shirts, shorts and a helmet and no gloves. I'd never ride like that today; with age I've grown more cautious. I'm nearly 55, the same age as the man that was injured. I've been told by many friends that it's too dangerous, why would I do it? But it's to me it's partly calculated risk and partly training and experience. Risk can be managed, but it never goes away. My gear makes me feel prepared, but doesn't give me a false sense of security. Ultimately the best piece of gear is what I have between my ears.
I see all kinds of riders on the highways. Some wear the gear and some wear t-shirts and tattoos. Part of it's cultural: the dual-sport riders (like me) generally wear ATGATT. The Harley riders don't. My opinion is that they take a greater risk in doing so, but that's their choice. The ABATE people debate the efficacy of motorcycle helmets in much the same way we've been doing here. Forums are full of posts debating whether leather or cordura is more effective than denim, ad nauseum, the same as other equipment.
To me it all comes down to common sense. What makes sense for me may no make sense for someone else. I don't necessarily like useless laws or big government creatine laws to protect us from ourselves. There's really no answer to this, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Forgive the ramble.
Ride safe.
neptronix said:Joseph C. said:I think you can differentiate the risks. They are willing to risk their lives working in hazardous conditions. Why they do so is neither here nor there. That is totally different though from being murdered.
You don't drink?
I don't know where being murdered comes into the equation here. Do you mean killing yourself by doing something stupid? that's suicide.
I do drink, only on special occasions though and in public settings. So, a few times a year.
wineboyrider said:Drinking?! Yes, please!
Remember Adolf was a tee totaler. lol.
Joseph C. said:Drug-related murders. I sure those leaving close to Mexico know exactly what I'm talking about. I'd legalise cannabis, alcohol (there are states where you would be put in prison for drinking) and mushrooms/natural hallucinogenics but no way would I do the same for heroin or cocaine.
John in CR said:nuevomexicano said:John in CR said:Do you realize who gets killed or seriously injured the most in daylight riding? It's kids, so you guys need to redirect your focus from helmets to teaching kids the rules of the road and safe riding techniques, and whatever you do don't put helmets at the top of that list, because it truly doesn't belong there.
Do you have a cite for this? I ask because I've heard other people cite that night riding is involved in the majority of accidents (equally unsubstantiated as your claim).
John in CR said:The push for helmets has proven to return no measurable benefit, so helmet pushers just give it up and focus your efforts on worthwhile pursuits.
Again, as I asked before, does anyone actually have a study that says helmets have no measurable benefit or even a negative benefit? For instance, an '09 IIHS study recorded that, "Less than two percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. The most serious injuries among a majority of those killed are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent. " There's a bunch more studies out there, many with even stronger language, on the BHSI website.
Too much unsubstantiated opinion is being thrown around here for this to be much more than blowing hot air and patting oneself on the back.
Not unsubstantiated, do your own research. Australians had to pay their taxpayer money twice for studies trying to come up with the answer supporting helmets with statistics and came up nil, and other studies concluded similarly, with only those paid to get the answer desired coming up in favor of helmets. Flaws in those have been demonstrated to be just statistical manipulations, like what you quoted. There's no question that there's a benefit IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT, however, it doesn't equate to marked improvement in public safety. There are quite a few factors that combine to a result that wearing a helmet increases the odds of crashing. Major examples are "safety equipment" making you feel safer, so you naturally ride less safely, and cars driving closer to helmeted riders than those without helmets.
Here's a good start if you have any interest in no longer being part of the ridiculous fearmongering about bikes being unsafe. http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
However, during the mid-80's, there was a shift in the message going out. Many of these newer riders did not learn that they had an equal right to use the road. And cycling magazines and brochures no longer explained how to behave in traffic but started preaching, "Wear a helmet at all times!" This new message did not teach the newcomers how to avoid accidents, and it emphasized how dangerous cycling was. At the same time, mountain bikes were introduced, making sidewalk riding more practical and making useful road speeds more difficult due to their heavy tires.
Starson said:There are worse things in life than getting your head ripped off due to a helmet... You can practice safe, defensive driving/riding till the cows come home, but you can't totally account for chance (Murphy's Law) and idiots on the road. If helmets reduce head injuries by up to 85% (not death), then it is to avoid catastophic, tolal, life-changing injury... So my point is that most people think in terms of helmets protecting from death, which they may or may not do. However, what they really do is help protect the grey cells to lessen the extent of a head injury, up to and including death. The less injured the better.
Gary
John in CR said:Gary and Tony,
You'll get no argument from me that helmet improve survivability in the event of a crash on a bicycle. While I'm sure there are cases where the helmet physically caused greater injury, those numbers have to be so small as to be statistically insignificant. Since helmet use is so common now on bicycles, but weren't before, that statistics should be readily available showing the safety payoff like there are for seatbelts and airbags. Since the numbers don't support the increase in overall safety that helmet wearers assume, the logical conclusion is that wearing a helmet must increase the chances of being in a serious accident.
John
Chalo said:Whenever anyone says "I would never do XXX without wearing a helmet", they are subtracting against whatever small protection that helmet offers. (And the protection is small; basically mitigating a fall from a standing position at zero mph.) Therefore, whenever someone says "I'd never ride in traffic without a helmet" or "I'd never do aerial stunts without a helmet" or "I'd never ride drunk without a helmet", they're saying they'll more than offset the helmet's protection if they're wearing one; that they'll partake in greater relative risk because they have a helmet on.
That's why the increase in bike helmet use in the USA from approximately 0% to approximately 50% has not been matched by any reduction in head injuries or fatalities per capita. There are too many people with belief in the helmet's magical powers who will do things while wearing a helmet that they'd never do bareheaded, and those things put them at more risk than the helmet can offset,
A helmet only works for you, if you believe it's doing nothing for you.
¡Behold my cat helmet! ¡He does nothing for me!
Chalo
Chalo said:Whenever anyone says "I would never do XXX without wearing a helmet", they are subtracting against whatever small protection that helmet offers. (And the protection is small; basically mitigating a fall from a standing position at zero mph.) Therefore, whenever someone says "I'd never ride in traffic without a helmet" or "I'd never do aerial stunts without a helmet" or "I'd never ride drunk without a helmet", they're saying they'll more than offset the helmet's protection if they're wearing one; that they'll partake in greater relative risk because they have a helmet on.
That's why the increase in bike helmet use in the USA from approximately 0% to approximately 50% has not been matched by any reduction in head injuries or fatalities per capita. There are too many people with belief in the helmet's magical powers who will do things while wearing a helmet that they'd never do bareheaded, and those things put them at more risk than the helmet can offset,
A helmet only works for you, if you believe it's doing nothing for you.
¡Behold my cat helmet! ¡He does nothing for me!
Chalo
AussieJester said:I fail to see what/why there is always a big drama over wearing a helmet, KiM