# helmets?



## Raphy (Jul 6, 2008)

am i like the only one in the bay area who does not wear a helmet? 
all the pics i see on the forums everyone is wearing a helmet, lol, all u non helmet wearing folks holla here


----------



## grrrah (Mar 26, 2004)

Agreed! You don't need one if you don't have anything to protect.


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

Wait for it...

5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

"A helmet saved my life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


----------



## velocipus (Apr 27, 2005)

where do you store your gloves when you're not riding?


----------



## Quercus agrifolia (Jan 30, 2005)

Yes. Yes you are.


----------



## lukey (Mar 7, 2008)

*Here's a pic from this morning's ride...*

...which ended up at the Emergency room.










The red circle shows where the helmet was cracked right through. It's being held by my buddy whose helmet it is, but I cropped him out of the shot. We got hit by a car on our morning ride. That helmet is what broke his fall. Literally. He's at home eating Advil right now, but will probably be ok, because of that chunk of styrofoam.

I'd recommend one.

Cheers.


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

lukey said:


> ...which ended up at the Emergency room.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_ I knew my crystal ball was right!_


----------



## EBrider (Aug 3, 2004)

When I used to road ride in the 80's, almost no one wore helmets because with the technology then they were pretty much useless unless you wore one the size of a motorcycle helmet. People crashed all the time without dying. So I'm not sure why it is that now everyone would be dead without a helmet. I happen to wear one if I am on a ride because the discomfort to benefit ratio is fairly good, but don't wear one if I'm riding to the bar.


----------



## Bikinfoolferlife (Feb 3, 2004)

First few years I started mountain biking, wore a baseball cap, and before that when I had hair on top, nothing at all. Rode many bikes for many years never a thought of a helmet, only took a bad spill once when I was a teenager that taught me wearing gloves is a very good thing. 

My buddy who got me on a mountain bike 20 some odd years ago wore one and kept telling me I should get one. On a ride one day my buddy had a shirt or jacket he had tied near his handlebars get tangled up in his brake and he went from just starting up after a lunch stop to being launched over the bars on directly on his head in the rocks. He was fine thankfully because he was wearing his helmet; I bought a helmet the next day, that was a sight you don't forget. They've saved me from serious knocks several times. 

Hope you have good medical coverage or lots of money if you do get a serious head injury....if you survive.


----------



## velocipus (Apr 27, 2005)

*How did you know???*



Pete Fagerlin said:


> _ I knew my crystal ball was right!_


I gotta git me one of them crystal ball thingies


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

velocipus said:


> I gotta git me one of them crystal ball thingies


*Past Performance Does Predict Future Results*


----------



## Christopher (Oct 16, 2008)

Raphy said:


> am i like the only one in the bay area who does not wear a helmet?
> all the pics i see on the forums everyone is wearing a helmet, lol, all u non helmet wearing folks _*drool*_ here


There, I fixed it for you.

I bet you don't wear a seatbelt because you "want to be thrown clear in an accident". Those airbags hurt.


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

ChrisClark said:


> There, I fixed it for you.
> 
> I bet you don't wear a seatbelt because you "want to be thrown clear in an accident". Those airbags hurt.


Hmmm...since you advocate wearing a helmet while riding to avoid "drooling," do you also advocate wearing a helmet while driving to avoid "drooling"?


----------



## chucko58 (Aug 4, 2006)

Here is a massive thread at bikeforums.net about this topic. Go post there, please.

Me? I always wear a helmet.


----------



## Christopher (Oct 16, 2008)

Pete Fagerlin said:


> Hmmm...since you advocate wearing a helmet while riding to avoid "drooling," do you also advocate wearing a helmet while driving to avoid "drooling"?


 huh?? :crazy:

That's non-sensicle

Only when I was driving my race car.


----------



## lukey (Mar 7, 2008)

EBrider said:


> When I used to road ride in the 80's, almost no one wore helmets because with the technology then they were pretty much useless unless you wore one the size of a motorcycle helmet. People crashed all the time without dying. So I'm not sure why it is that now everyone would be dead without a helmet. I happen to wear one if I am on a ride because the discomfort to benefit ratio is fairly good, but don't wear one if I'm riding to the bar.


I'm not trying to spread propaganda. I don't think it's clear that helmets save all that many lives. If something hits your head hard enough to kill you without a helmet on, you probably are going to have a tough time regardless. That situation doesn't happen that much.

However, it's my own opinion they probably do prevent lots of more minor head injuries.

I live in Ontario, and they made helmets mandatory for young people under the age of 18. This was something like 5-10 years ago. There was a big study done on the statistical effects of this program, and you're right, it made almost no difference. Statistically.

Worse, it prevented a lot of kids from riding (about 50% less on bikes now).

Of the kids still riding therefore there were fewer total crashes, and the helmets that were in effect obviously came into play a lot less. The total number of accidents dropped. Expressed as a percentage change, there was an almost insignificant decline the risk for kids. So the headlines became about the total numbers, which made the program look like a win. But minus the noise about cycling's decline, I think that helmets were saving at most 5-10 injuries a year in a jurisdiction of around 10,000,000 people. Kids still died on bikes, and head injuries were still happening, but helmets made a small, small difference.

And you're right about the 80's too...it turns out that in adult's crashes, there are few fatal head injuries anyhow, helmets or no. Or to put it another way, when fatalities are a result, helmets aren't necessarily the deciding factor.

Of course...here are my own anecdotal stories on the subject. I happen to know a bunch of people who have gotten concussions and knocked themselves out in bike crashes. Ie., they hit their head in a fall. None of those people wearing helmets had any lasting injuries. That is, I personally know of no helmet-wearing people who had a permanent brain injury.

However, among the un-helmeted riders I know, two people had permanent effects (disability and brain damage) from crashes. A third guy knocked himself out, and while unconscious, was moved/had his position shifted by a riding partner and suffered permanent paraplegia from a neck injury he sustained at the same time.

So I dunno...even if a helmet won't save your whole entire life...it's not always about saving your whole entire life...how about saving your _quality_ of life as well? My outlook is about what I'll regret: pretty much, I won't regret having one on.

I don't want to come across as taking this all too seriously, but did you know that on the subject of riding to the bar...I believe that about 40% of bike fatalities happen to be people cycling home from the bar (in the dark)! Probably the worst time NOT to be wearing one. Scold, scold. You're way more likely to be involved in a car collision in the dark than in the day, and way more likely to die from whatever does happen. Of course, I have no idea what the streets are like where you live.

Anyhow, cheers to all, and happy trails, stay safe out there.


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

ChrisClark said:


> huh?? :crazy:
> 
> That's non-sensicle
> 
> Only when I was driving my race car.


No, not nonsensical in the least.

If you're going to advocate always riding with a helmet to avoid "drooling" then to be consistent you should also advocate always driving (and walking, showering, etc.) while wearing a helmet to avoid "drooling."

After all, you're more likely to end up "drooling" while driving, walking, showering, etc. than you are likely to end up "drooling" while riding.

Helmet use, it's not as simplistic as many folks think it is...


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

Great! I don't need to bring my helmet thread back to life. 

I can report it right here that I received my helmet(less) citation in the mail yesterday and the amount on it is $122.25. 

Ali


----------



## EBrider (Aug 3, 2004)

lukey said:


> I'm not trying to spread propaganda. I don't think it's clear that helmets save all that many lives. If something hits your head hard enough to kill you without a helmet on, you probably are going to have a tough time regardless. That situation doesn't happen that much.
> 
> However, it's my own opinion they probably do prevent lots of more minor head injuries.
> 
> ...


Forgot to mention (probably from all those concussion) that the only guy I knew that died from head injuries during my racing days was wearing a helmet. It was 80's technology though, made of leather like an NFL helmet from the 1920's. It is amazing that 50% of the people on this board would be dead right now if it weren't for helmets.

For the record, the bar is down the hill. I always get a ride home from a drunk friend.


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

I may go the rest of my life without any bike accident, but I would rather be safe than bet on being lucky.


----------



## j3blur (Dec 11, 2007)

Make sure your organ donor card is filled-out so you can at least give the gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## cohenfive (Jan 12, 2004)

grrrah said:


> Agreed! You don't need one if you don't have anything to protect.


this sums it up for me....all the debating aside, it's just a stupid risk reward to not wear a helmet if you ask me...


----------



## ZEKEDAWG (Aug 13, 2007)

those aren't excuses, but an adults's reason for choosing not to wear a helmet, big difference.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

I should start a thread on whether it's appropriate to ride with or without a jockstrap. I'm sure Baycat would chime in.


----------



## lawndale (Jul 9, 2008)

helmets save lifes end of disscussion


----------



## Buzz Cut (Jan 16, 2007)

just for kicks, We rarely end up flying out a helmet wearing Mt Biker that crashed up here on the ridge. Air Ambulance is $18,000 vs ground Ambulance <$1,000 The only exception I can remember in the last 6 years was a MTBR poster that had a GPS mount do him in. and of the helmet wearing folks, about half went off being driven to home or ER by friends.

Me? I wear a helmet 100% of the time


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

lawndale said:


> helmets save lifes[sic] end of disscussion[sic]


Why?

(this should be really, really good)


----------



## d-bug (Mar 18, 2005)

I wear one 'cause they make me look hot and chicks dig it.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

lawndale said:


> helmets save lifes end of disscussion


Actually, not always. There was an interesting study that demonstrated that introducing a mandatory helmet law discouraged cycling leading to cars paying less attention to bicycles in an urban area, increasing frequency of collisions. IN any case head injuries had been a tiny fractions.

But this is an argument about mandatory helmet laws, which I personally strongly oppose, not against wearing helmet. Yes, there is a distinction.

Cycling is not an exceedingly dangerous activity, and paying to much attention to helmets and unlikely injuries discourages people from riding. Most will be better off getting exercise even without a helmet.

I almost always wear a helmet, but do take it off during long fireroad climbs. It is perfectly safe.


----------



## snowjnky (Oct 7, 2005)

:thumbsup: My pitbull wears his helmet when following me, while I skid down magic carpet:thumbsup:


----------



## NorKal (Jan 13, 2005)

EBrider said:


> When I used to road ride in the 80's, almost no one wore helmets because with the technology then they were pretty much useless unless you wore one the size of a motorcycle helmet. People crashed all the time without dying. So I'm not sure why it is that now everyone would be dead without a helmet.


Because there's more cars and more biker sharing the road now you idiot.


----------



## NorKal (Jan 13, 2005)

lukey said:


> I'm not trying to spread propaganda. I don't think it's clear that helmets save all that many lives. If something hits your head hard enough to kill you without a helmet on, you probably are going to have a tough time regardless. That situation doesn't happen that much.
> 
> However, it's my own opinion they probably do prevent lots of more minor head injuries.
> 
> ...


So why are helmets becoming so commonplace among snowboarders and skiers recently? Snowboarding has been popular for at least 20 years and skiing many, many decades more than that but people are just now realizing that hitting stationary objects (like trees in the snow or the concrete on the roads) hurts a lot when your bare head hits it! Head injuries are no laughing matter. IMO you're asking for trouble not wearing a helmet biking on the street or in the dirt. How many pro dirtbikers do you see NOT wearing helmets? How many pro mountain bikers do you see NOT wearing helmets? Because this is America the free maybe it should be up to the individual to decide but who in their right mind wouldn't wear a helmet in this day and age?


----------



## PlasticBike (Sep 27, 2008)

I tend to wear a helmet, just as I tend to wear gloves and padded shorts. I'm under no illusions about the fact that a 20 foot fall off the edge of a trail onto my head is not going to be seriously mitigated by 2" of foam, nor do I believe that my gloves (as nice as the stuff Fox is selling is) would do a whole lot to stop my palms from getting tore up if I wiped out doing ski runs at Mammoth or Northstar, and yes, after a LONG ride on the hardtail my (I think I'm supposed to say "butt" on this forum, right?) hurts, fancy-shorts or no.

But all of these things make me more comfortable and confident when riding my bike, in the same way that having nice components and great shoes does. It makes the experience a little more enjoyable for me, and the fact that I have the right to take off the brain bucket any time I please makes it that much easier to continue using it.


----------



## Entrenador (Oct 8, 2004)

I don't wear a helmet because I like to stick it to the man. _Scientists_, with all their sciencey stuff, can't tell me what to do. Besides, I'd hate for people to think that I'm some scaredy cat, spandex wearin' wuss when I'm not.... I ain't! I don't roll like that...

FWIW, I also have a poster in my garage of a really hawt, oily chick (fakies and all) in camo panties holding an AR-50 between her legs. Giggity...


----------



## EBrider (Aug 3, 2004)

Khemical said:


> Because there's more cars and more biker sharing the road now you idiot.


Apparently sarcasm is lost on you. The point is that just because you fall and scrape your helmet doesn't mean you would have died if you weren't wearing it. Idiot.


----------



## morganfletcher (Jul 22, 2005)

I put a huge dent in my helmet three weeks ago, messed up my elbow too, fell down some stairs trying to ride them on my cyclocross bike, on my night time commute home. It was a poor choice to ride them, but if that helmet wasn't on my head my head would have the dent in it. I stopped pretty hard.

So um, flame on.

Morgan


----------



## EBrider (Aug 3, 2004)

Khemical said:


> So why are helmets becoming so commonplace among snowboarders and skiers recently? Snowboarding has been popular for at least 20 years and skiing many, many decades more than that but people are just now realizing that hitting stationary objects (like trees in the snow or the concrete on the roads) hurts a lot when your bare head hits it! Head injuries are no laughing matter. IMO you're asking for trouble not wearing a helmet biking on the street or in the dirt. How many pro dirtbikers do you see NOT wearing helmets? How many pro mountain bikers do you see NOT wearing helmets? Because this is America the free maybe it should be up to the individual to decide but who in their right mind wouldn't wear a helmet in this day and age?


The horses are out of the barn. Why wear a helmet after you already have brain damage? Sorry, it won't improve your IQ.


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

Raphy said:


> am i like the only one in the bay area who does not wear a helmet?
> all the pics i see on the forums everyone is wearing a helmet, lol, all u non helmet wearing folks holla here


Don't worry, there are many people on here who will be glad to tell you how you should lead your life.

george


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

I wear a helmet on my balls.


----------



## feetsnofail (Sep 25, 2006)

helmets? meh!


----------



## geekbox32 (Jul 18, 2007)

I rarely post here but i feel compelled to do so.
Last thanksgiving( '07) i had a crash in Pacifica. Without the helmet i was was wearing i wouldn't be here right now. I don't remember what happened at all. I was heli'ed out and was unconscious at Standford ICU for a week. I spent about 2 weeks, 24/7, in rehab relearning how to walk, general motor skills, and relearning how to remember stuff. I was pretty screwed up for a few months after i returned from the hospital. My memory was horrid and my body required more than 12 hours of sleep during those months. I do not remember my stay at Standford and my memory of rehab is shaky at best. I am lucky that i didn't have an lingering effects from the accident and able to still live a normal life. The helmet had split in four separate places but it did its job and saved my life. I still have it as a reminder of how dangerous my love for mtb'ing is.
-geekbox


----------



## w00t! (Apr 28, 2008)

What kind of troll thread is this?


----------



## GloryRider (Nov 12, 2008)

I have only one thing to say to all those pussies not waring a helmet... ride harder and tell me you dont need a helmet. I believe that if you have ever trown yourself down the mountain as hard as you can then you would have a completely different thought prosses on this whole helmet issue.
PEOPLE THAT DONT WEAR HELMETS OBVIOUSLY DONT RIDE HARD ENOUGH
when i see someone on the mountain not wearing a helmet is only for a second as i pass them on the inside because i have no fear wearing all my gear(shin pads, gloves, Full Face, long sleeve included for the road rash). 

Let me put it to you one more time... its not that i believe that the helmet saves my life often or ever, but the shear fact that i know i can take as many falls in a day and go home with minor bumps and bruises is the reason everyone on the mountain believes IT IS COOL TO WEAR A HELMET!
fall down and get up, then finish the decent.


----------



## MrCrash (Apr 29, 2004)

Looks like people are getting really worked up over a guy who hasn''t bothered with a single follow-up post. Which was probably why he started the thread in the first place...


----------



## Jorgemonkey (Mar 10, 2004)

Here is my proposal for helmet usage (flamesuit on)

Make helmet use optional and let landowners and your insurance companies dictate usage. For example, if you're not wearing a helmet and crash on the trail, the landowner isn't responsible for your injuries (They shouldn't be anyways). Let the insurance companies write that if you're not wearing a helmet and you crash, then they won't cover your expenses and you're on your own. If you are wearing your helmet, then you should be entitled to the coverage you're paying for.


----------



## rufusdesign (Sep 19, 2008)

This isn't my worst one but it is the only one that I have a pic of right now. The pic does no justice to the helmet damage. The gouges go all the way through the helmet into the foam. There are rocks embedded in the shell and there is a huge crack on the chin area by the strap rivet. 
2008 US Open of MTB at Diablo. Coming down to the large right hand berm with the small jump before the berms section. Knocked a half a boulder into my front wheel and blew it out , I was going at least 25mph around that berm and I cased a 4 foot deep water bar putting my head and face right into the hard packed rock filled ground. Came up with a mild concussion from it but that was it. If I didn't have a helmet in that type of situation I would have easily had a broken jaw, no teeth, broken cheekbone, cracked skull, (again) and a bunch of torn up skin. The guy who saw everything honestly thought that I was dead.

Helmets have saved my life in many situations, especially during DH racing and it has definitely keep my way of life the one that I have been living.

To say that you are too much of a man, to cool, not comfortable, etc is F'ING stupid and downright selfish. Try thinking about your family and friends that have to help you live your life when you are in a disabled state, think of the paramedics and rescue workers that have to help you, and think about yourself.

Seriously, it is not that hard to wear some sort of head protection during any type of riding. If you notice it that much and it annoys you to the point that you don't want to wear it, you definitely have the wrong type of helmet that is not correct for your head and you need to get a new one that fits and works as required to keep you safe and comfortable.


----------



## rufusdesign (Sep 19, 2008)

jorgemonkey said:


> Here is my proposal for helmet usage (flamesuit on)
> 
> Make helmet use optional and let landowners and your insurance companies dictate usage. For example, if you're not wearing a helmet and crash on the trail, the landowner isn't responsible for your injuries (They shouldn't be anyways). Let the insurance companies write that if you're not wearing a helmet and you crash, then they won't cover your expenses and you're on your own. If you are wearing your helmet, then you should be entitled to the coverage you're paying for.


I totally agree with that but there will always be some sort of loophole for the injured rider to go through to successfully sue. Pathetic.


----------



## strom (Nov 17, 2006)

That is a slippery slope. If you let something like that get started the next step is the insurance companies will ask if there was a bump involved or if you were going more than 5 miles per hour. They will also require that you have to wear every piece of padding known to man.


----------



## wg (Dec 20, 2003)

I dig post ride helmet hair


----------



## Buzz Cut (Jan 16, 2007)

wg said:


> I dig post ride helmet hair


us bald guys get helmet scalp


----------



## socobiker (May 2, 2007)

where do you put the stickers, on your forehead?

just wear a damn helmet already


----------



## Biker_Scout_Sparky (Sep 5, 2005)

*i might as well chime in too*

blah, blah, blah, helmets save lives blah, blah, we've all heard that reason before, it should be a given that in a crash where you hit your head, having a helmet on significantly improves chances of survival, we all have heard this before.

What about that errant low hanging branch that you didn't see until it whacked you in the noggin at 10+ miles an hour?
Without a helmet, you would suddenly have a moment of blinding pain, you would have to stop riding (assuming you didn't crash as a result of being in pain) and sit on the edge of the trail waiting for your head to stop hurting enough to get back on the bike. Then your gunshy for the rest of the ride because of it.
WITH a helmet, you would just continue riding.


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

morganfletcher said:


> I put a huge dent in my helmet three weeks ago... It was a poor choice to ride them, but if that helmet wasn't on my head my head would have the dent in it.


I can use my thumbs to put a dent in the EPS foam that your helmet is made of.

Does it follow then that I could put a dent in your head with my thumbs?


----------



## wg (Dec 20, 2003)

wg said:


> I dig post ride helmet hair


Update.... went for a ride today and noticed a crack inside the brain bucket. Look outside and there is a big 'ol dent. I'm fairly certain its from a low hanging branch a few weeks ago that took me off my bike. I thought the helmet was OK at the time but guess I didn't examine it too closely. Without the helmet I know I'd be a babbling fool. Oh wait.....  :crazy:

Time to shop for a new E2. Anyone got any deals going on them? I like the fit.


----------



## snowjnky (Oct 7, 2005)

rufusdesign said:


> This isn't my worst one but it is the only one that I have a pic of right now. The pic does no justice to the helmet damage. The gouges go all the way through the helmet into the foam. There are rocks embedded in the shell and there is a huge crack on the chin area by the strap rivet.
> 2008 US Open of MTB at Diablo. Coming down to the large right hand berm with the small jump before the berms section. Knocked a half a boulder into my front wheel and blew it out , I was going at least 25mph around that berm and I cased a 4 foot deep water bar putting my head and face right into the hard packed rock filled ground. Came up with a mild concussion from it but that was it. If I didn't have a helmet in that type of situation I would have easily had a broken jaw, no teeth, broken cheekbone, cracked skull, (again) and a bunch of torn up skin. The guy who saw everything honestly thought that I was dead.
> 
> Helmets have saved my life in many situations, especially during DH racing and it has definitely keep my way of life the one that I have been living.
> ...


rufusdesign might not have a lot of posts but he sure makes them good when he shows up


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

lukey said:


> There was a big study done on the statistical effects of this program, and you're right, it made almost no difference. Statistically.
> 
> Worse, it prevented a lot of kids from riding (about 50% less on bikes now).


That's the worst part of it. I have seen similar numbers reported elsewhere where nanny state took over.

Imagine how many of those kids will grow up to be overweight, sedentary, diabetic and die from a heart attack.

I bet the negative effects of scaring kids away from bikes will outweigh any possible saved head due to the helmet law.

I do insist my kids will wear a helmet, teaching by example. But I would not want them to be scared from riding a bicycle.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

I don't wear a helmet when I ride my beach cruiser or single speed to the bars.

I also don't wear a helmet when I pedal/push my DH bike to the top of a hill.

I wear a helmet during sex though, just because it makes me look more awesome-er.


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

Curmy said:


> That's the worst part of it. I have seen similar numbers reported elsewhere where nanny state took over.
> 
> Imagine how many of those kids will grow up to be overweight, sedentary, diabetic and die from a heart attack.
> 
> ...


This.

Helmet zealots keep people off bikes. Helmet zealots keep people in front of the tv.

george


----------



## nachomc (Apr 26, 2006)

I wear a helmet. I've hit my head pretty hard two times and both times my helmets needed replacement. It's much easier to replace a smashed helmet than a smashed head.


----------



## nachomc (Apr 26, 2006)




----------



## snowjnky (Oct 7, 2005)

george_da_trog said:


> This.
> 
> Helmet zealots keep people off bikes. Helmet zealots keep people in front of the tv.
> 
> george


I am not sure what fallacy in reasoning this is; please help:
FALSE DILEMMA, APPEALING TO EXTREMES,FAULTY SIGN or BIFURCATION; or maybe none...I can't tell. Someone help!


----------



## Melt (May 24, 2004)

i dont wear one on grewleing acents cause my head stays cooler without it 

and sometimes i forget it ... but most of the time i wear it


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

snowjnky said:


> I am not sure what fallacy in reasoning this is; please help:
> FALSE DILEMMA, APPEALING TO EXTREMES,FAULTY SIGN or BIFURCATION; or maybe none...I can't tell. Someone help!


There is no fallacy. It is a fact. Mandatory helmet laws led to a steep decline in ridership. If it does not fit your believe system it does not make it false.

This issue is orthogonal to the fact that wearing a helmet reduces a risk of serious injury. It does.


----------



## Loll (May 2, 2006)

If you ever go big...esp. doubles or drops, you really really prob. at least want a helmet for the first run.

If you are married, and there is someone that cares about you enough, you really should wear a helmet.

If you have a job that requires you to conduct make or break meetings with clients on Monday morning, you really should wear a helmet.

With all that said, my last serious injury sustained at Mile out in Pacifica, I had a full face helmet on, but a branch jam thru the only opening in the helmet, 1 inch below my eye, and left a cut on my left face that required 15 stitches. The helmet did not get 1 scratch.

You make the call, be responsible for personal injury and absolutely do not file a law suit if someone get hurt b/c of this helmet/no helmet thing.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Curmy said:


> There is no fallacy. It is a fact. Mandatory helmet laws led to a steep decline in ridership. If it does not fit your believe system it does not make it false.


Correlation does not mean causation. So, do we know for sure that the helmet laws are the direct cause for the decrease in riding? Or could it attributed to other factors like 1) kids playing more videogames than ever, 2) parents being afraid of letting their kids ride in the street (with or without helmet)?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

zorg said:


> Correlation does not mean causation. So, do we know for sure that the helmet laws are the direct cause for the decrease in riding? Or could it attributed to other factors like 1) kids playing more videogames than ever, 2) parents being afraid of letting their kids ride in the street (with or without helmet)?


I do not have a link of the top of my head, but I have seen a study comparing introduction of a mandatory law in one of two similar municipalities. There had been no other apparent reason to affect ridership. Seems like a reasonable, controlled experiment establishing a causation. Obviously, most peer reviewed medical studies had been about decrease in traumatic injuries in people wearing helmets and about increase in helmet use among people due to helmet laws. But there is an obvious selection effect present when you combine this with ridership data and health costs of sedentary lifestyle.

Your point 2) is related to the fact that biking is being presented as a extremely dangerous activity, that it is not, and helmet laws play a role in that. I grew up in a large city and a country where kids had not been forced to wear helmets, and I have observed an almost total lack of chaos, death and destruction around me.

I understand the dilemma, as not all parents can be trusted to teach it themselves. But then I am not fond of most drug and gun laws either.

P.S. Here is another interesting write up http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3563671.stm. Or this one from the same people (British Medical Association) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7197/1505/a



> International evidence shows that the compulsory use of helmets results in a fall in the number of cyclists. The Australian state of Victoria made the use of helmets compulsory in 1990, and in the following year deaths and head injuries among cyclists fell between 37%and 51%However, 40%fewer adults and 60%fewer children continued to cycle after the introduction of the laws.


P.P.S.


> In fact, a much greater number of lives would be saved if pedestrians and car occupants were encouraged to wear helmets.


I think nobody should be allowed out the house without a full-face, goggles and a spine protector. And they should be certified to use it.


----------



## jeng (Aug 12, 2005)

Me thinks ya'll just got Trolled, hard! :skep:


----------



## w00t! (Apr 28, 2008)

Safetey glasses requirements are solely responsible for a decreased interest in wood shop and metal shop amongst high school students. True story. 

Just say "NO" to safety glasses!


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Curmy said:


> I do not have a link of the top of my head, but I have seen a study comparing introduction of a mandatory law in one of two similar municipalities. There had been no other apparent reason to affect ridership. Seems like a reasonable, controlled experiment establishing a causation. Obviously, most peer reviewed medical studies had been about decrease in traumatic injuries in people wearing helmets and about increase in helmet use among people due to helmet laws. But there is an obvious selection effect present when you combine this with ridership data and health costs of sedentary lifestyle.
> 
> Your point 2) is related to the fact that biking is being presented as a extremely dangerous activity, that it is not, and helmet laws play a role in that. I grew up in a large city and a country where kids had not been forced to wear helmets, and I have observed an almost total lack of chaos, death and destruction around me.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link. Very interesting and totally counter intuitive. For the record, I doubt that I'll let my 2 young kids ride to school when they get older. I'd be too worried about car collisions (I'm a dad, I don't claim to be rational when it comes to my kids). On the other hand, I try to ride each week-end with my kids in the local park (and they wear helmets).


----------



## moschika (Jan 12, 2004)

i always wear a helmet while off-road. the day after t-day was a perfect reminder of why - concussion, memory loss, headaches for about a week and if my sore body is an indication of how hard i hit, then you bet. i'll be wearing my helmet every single time. i would actually go back home if i was at the trailhead with no helmet. the only cool thing was i got to see my skull and brain from the CT scan they did to make sure i didn't have bleeding on the brain.

on the road, i admit i'm only about 90%. it'll probably be closer to 99% after my recent crash though.


----------



## Jorgemonkey (Mar 10, 2004)

Melt said:


> i dont wear one on grewleing acents cause my head stays cooler without it


DO you mean _grueling ascents_? How's that college education at Chico working out for ya


----------



## snowjnky (Oct 7, 2005)

Curmy said:


> There is no fallacy. It is a fact. Mandatory helmet laws led to a steep decline in ridership. If it does not fit your believe system it does not make it false.
> 
> This issue is orthogonal to the fact that wearing a helmet reduces a risk of serious injury. It does.


Thanks 
I was wondering...Now I know all I have to do is find one report on the internet to verify facts. 
When I am on MTBR I am not riding. MTBR makes me fat.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

zorg said:


> Thanks for the link. Very interesting and totally counter intuitive. For the record, I doubt that I'll let my 2 young kids ride to school when they get older. I'd be too worried about car collisions (I'm a dad, I don't claim to be rational when it comes to my kids). On the other hand, I try to ride each week-end with my kids in the local park (and they wear helmets).


Oh, no question about it. My daughter does not get on the bike without one. But I do teach her by example, and I do not scare her away from activities. Works much better this way.

Government driven social engineering enforced by a threat of punishment more often then not has unintended consequences. Distributing free helmets - and making hem attractive to children - good idea. Fining and scaring the bejesus out of gullible parents - not so good.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

snowjnky said:


> Thanks
> I was wondering...Now I know all I have to do is find one report on the internet to verify facts.


It is sufficient to find one report from a respectable organization, for example from the British Medical Association that I have cited above. Your sarcasm is misplaced.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

Curmy said:


> It is sufficient to find one report from a respectable organization, for example from the British Medical Association that I have cited above. Your sarcasm is misplaced.


Curmy,

Scientific method usually requires that you and someone else be able to replicate a study with similar results. I don't think that was sarcasm; more like irony. Your mileage may vary.

HC


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

HarryCallahan said:


> Curmy,
> 
> Scientific method usually requires that you and someone else be able to replicate a study with similar results. I don't think that was sarcasm; more like irony. Your mileage may vary.


I would bet that a respectable organization like British Medical Association is well aware of that fact.

Replicating a study is not always required. One well conducted experiment may be quite sufficient to establish a fact. There is no need to create a new universe to study its origins for example.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

Curmy said:


> I would bet that a respectable organization like British Medical Association is well aware of that fact.
> 
> Replicating a study is not always required. One well conducted experiment may be quite sufficient to establish a fact. There is no need to create a new universe to study its origins for example.


Eh, I think you are just arguing to argue, or trying to rationalize a philosophical belief. I didn't expect to change your mind.


----------



## Swell Guy (Jan 20, 2005)

I do not wear a full-face helmet on hill climbs (on my 40lb steed) because it is ridonkulously hot. I think the risk of passing out on hill climbs in this particular case outweighs the risk of head injury. I wear the full-face on descents and a regular helmet almost all of the time when riding. 20 ft gaps are not generally the problem, but travelling at high speeds around trees and other immovable objects definitely is.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

HarryCallahan said:


> Eh, I think you are just arguing to argue, or trying to rationalize a philosophical belief. I didn't expect to change your mind.


I did not argue. I have presented a verified fact that was refuting some statements and expressed beliefs made in this thread. If you did not like it, I could not help.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

Curmy said:


> I did not argue. I have presented a verified fact that was refuting some statements and expressed beliefs made in this thread. If you did not like it, I could not help.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bdamschen said:


>


That's deep and convincing.
:rockon:


----------



## snowjnky (Oct 7, 2005)

Curmy said:


> I did not argue. I have presented a verified fact that was refuting some statements and expressed beliefs made in this thread. If you did not like it, I could not help.


Dooood give it up... I am not arguing I am refuting statements :madman: 
your killing me smalls

I just wonder why the British Medical Association would do a study like that, what was the motive. Did they pin-point that most overweight people/kids choice activity was cycling?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

snowjnky said:


> I just wonder why the British Medical Association would do a study like that, what was the motive. Did they pin-point that most overweight people/kids choice activity was cycling?


I have no idea. Do not shoot the messenger.


----------



## flowmaster (Jan 22, 2004)

Raphy said:


> am i like the only one in the bay area who does not wear a helmet?
> all the pics i see on the forums everyone is wearing a helmet, lol, all u non helmet wearing folks holla here


LOL come ride with me, you'll change your mind about wearing a helmet within 5 minutes :thumbsup:


----------



## feetsnofail (Sep 25, 2006)

whew - it's refreshing to see there are plenty of folks who know what's best for everyone ... it must be great to have the ability to understand another persons motives and can speak with such foresight ... thanks a bunch!


----------



## rockcrawler53 (Dec 15, 2004)

If someone wants to ride without a helmet thats fine by me. If they end up being a splat on the ground courtesy of not rideng with one, that means one less stupid person in the world and I'm all for that!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

rockcrawler53 said:


> If someone wants to ride without a helmet thats fine by me. If they end up being a splat on the ground courtesy of not rideng with one, that means one less stupid person in the world and I'm all for that!


Do you believe that helmet will magically prevent you from splatting (god forbid) ?

My close friend went in on a low turn while skydiving - wearing a helmet. They said his brain stem detached, with no external injuries whatsoever. I have found him about 10 minutes later, not breathing. If you hit it hard, it matters very little. (For the record, I do own about a dozen helmets for various outdoor activities, and I do use them)..


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

rockcrawler53 said:


> ...*rideng*[sic] with one, that means one less stupid person...


Pure gold!


----------



## EBrider (Aug 3, 2004)

With no stupid people left, there wouldn't be anyone to disagree with me on the boards. Sometimes its nice to have idiots around to keep things interesting.


----------



## Jorgemonkey (Mar 10, 2004)

Without stupid people, forums wouldn't be as fun, would they?


----------



## ZEKEDAWG (Aug 13, 2007)

You can't choose when you crash, wearing it only on the downhills is risky. You can easily fall at 2 mph and crack your skull. You guys crack me up about not wearing it on the uphills. Kinda like I only wear a seat belt if I am on the freeway.

You don't dress for the ride, you dress for the crash.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

Curmy said:


> I did not argue. I have presented a verified fact that was refuting some statements and expressed beliefs made in this thread. If you did not like it, I could not help.


 Right.

Here you go:






Oh, and that "verified fact" from your unreplicated study? That study has been refuted, by your source:

During 2004, the BMA received correspondence from a number of BMA members, in particular those treating injured victims of cycle related accidents on a daily basis, requesting that the BMA reconsider its position on this issue. In its 1999 report significant emphasis was placed on the BMA's wish not to discourage cycling by making helmets compulsory. This advice was based on evidence from Australia indicating that cycling levels decreased following the introduction of legislation. This evidence was found to be outdated and contained distortions from variables including a reduction in the legal age of driving that meant more teenagers travelled in motor vehicles. A study from Ontario, Canada, demonstrated that the introduction of helmet legislation did not reduce numbers of children cycling [].

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Cyclsafety++


----------



## rockcrawler53 (Dec 15, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Do you believe that helmet will magically prevent you from splatting (god forbid) ?
> 
> My close friend went in on a low turn while skydiving - wearing a helmet. They said his brain stem detached, with no external injuries whatsoever. I have found him about 10 minutes later, not breathing. If you hit it hard, it matters very little. (For the record, I do own about a dozen helmets for various outdoor activities, and I do use them)..


Nope, I'm not saying that it will prevent those type of injuries cause it can and does happen. I'm just saying its up to the rider to wear one or not. Me personally, wear one about 90% of the time. So ya'll ask "what about the other 10%" NO COMMENT! hehe

That totally stinks about your buddy. Although skydiving sounds SUPER FUN! I think I'm too chicken for that though.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

HarryCallahan said:


> Oh, and that "verified fact" from your unreplicated study?


That is not my study. And yes, it seems to be verified (references below).



HarryCallahan said:


> During 2004, the BMA received correspondence from a number of BMA members, in particular those treating injured victims of cycle related accidents on a daily basis, requesting that the BMA reconsider its position on this issue.


Interesting. So they caved in after all. Nanny state is a powerful thing.

As far as your "repudiation" goes, here is one repudiation of "repudiation"
http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/97/10/503



> Replying to criticism of their arguments for compulsory helmet-wearing by cyclists (August 2004 JRSM1), Dr Cook and colleagues cite 'well-conducted' work from Canada concerning the effects of helmet-wearing on injury rates. The Canadian study does not in fact attempt this; rather it shows (and compares) injury rates in helmet legislating provinces and non-legislating provinces. Since there is no indication of what effect, if any, the laws had on helmet usage in the jurisdictions covered it cannot be assumed that, when the authorities legislate, helmet-wearing increases. In the province of Ontario, helmet usage *was already very high at 65%* among children before the law's implementation. Since *the law has not been enforced*, any increase following the law would have been modest-although that would be difficult to verify since no province-wide surveys were conducted after the law came into effect on 1 October 1995.
> 
> Also there were contradictions between the Canadian authors' data and their conclusion. Robinson shows that for the two largest legislating provinces, Ontario and British Columbia (BC), *the greatest decreases in head injuries did not occur in the years immediately after respective helmet laws came into effect but rather immediately before*. That throws further doubt on the study method.
> 
> ...


Here is another one:

No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets [2006]



> Summary points
> 
> Case-control studies suggest cyclists who choose to wear helmets generally have fewer head injuries than non-wearers
> 
> ...





> Data for cyclists in collisions with motor vehicles (see bmj.com) show helmet laws increased the risk of death or serious head injury relative to the risk for pedestrians and the amount of cycling. *This implies helmet laws are counterproductive.*





> The _lack of obvious benefit from helmet laws_ may be because helmets (which prevent head wounds) are not designed for forces often encountered in collisions with motor vehicles or other serious crashes that cause most head injuries requiring hospital admission. Helmets may also encourage cyclists to take more risks, or motorists to take less care when they encounter cyclists, counteracting any benefits. Cyclists compelled to wear helmets may take less trouble to wear them correctly and ensure they fit well, reducing their effectiveness.


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

ZEKEDAWG said:


> You can easily fall at 2 mph and crack your skull. You guys crack me up about not wearing it on the uphills. Kinda like I only wear a seat belt if I am on the freeway.
> 
> You don't dress for the ride, you dress for the crash.


So, you "dress for the crash" and wear a helmet while walking around, right?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Pete Fagerlin said:


> So, you "dress for the crash" and wear a helmet while walking around, right?


Yep. One should never make it out of the house without a flak jacket, three weeks of emergency supplies, smoke signal and a shotgun.


----------



## ZEKEDAWG (Aug 13, 2007)

Pete Fagerlin said:


> So, you "dress for the crash" and wear a helmet while walking around, right?


Hell, no, i don't wear a helmet when I ride at lunch time either, it will mess up my hair and I can't go back to work with helmet head.

Is it wise to ride without one, probably not. Is it mandatory, no. Do we still live in a country where we are free to choose, yes.

When I do wear a helmet, I take it off when I climb hills and when I am coasting.:thumbsup: much easier to carry it than wear it.

If you are going to ride a 40 lb bike then suck it up and pedal the beast up the hills, shuttles and pushing is for wusses.

Does everyone always wear shinguards, knee pads, kidney belt, chest protector, elbow guards, mouth piece goggles and a full face helmet.... Why not???


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

No, Curmy. Bovine Feces.

It may not be "your study", but it's the one you repeatedly cited as "proving" your point. You pounded on that point until it was repudiated by the source you said backed you up. Now that the study you cited did not stand up, you attempt to disown it by citing a letter to the editor. That's obfuscation on a grand scale.

Maybe I was wrong about you arguing for the sake of arguing. Maybe you have some grand philosphical or political point of view here. Go for it. It's a free country.


----------



## Rex_Skidmore (Mar 5, 2006)

Raphy said:


> am i like the only one in the bay area who does not wear a helmet?
> all the pics i see on the forums everyone is wearing a helmet, lol, all u non helmet wearing folks holla here


*Raphy, *
Get your bike down to SJSU next Tues DEC 15 at 6:00pm and score yourself a free helmet and thank the Murky News.

*Rexxx*


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

ZEKEDAWG said:


> Do we still live in a country where we are free to choose, yes.


A whole lot of seemingly intelligent people on this very thread are itching to change this.


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

ZEKEDAWG said:


> Hell, no, i don't wear a helmet when I ride at lunch time either


Yet you're the one who is claiming that "You can easily fall at 2 mph and crack your skull" and you're suggesting that folks "dress for the crash."

If you were being truthful then why aren't you wearing one while you are walking around. Average walking speed is 2-3 mph after all and if you can "easily fall at 2 mph and crack your skull" you really should be "dressing for that crash."


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

HarryCallahan said:


> you attempt to disown it by citing a letter to the editor. That's obfuscation on a grand scale.


Did you actually read the second reference?

You stated that this was "unreplicated study". I have showed that you are wrong. At the very least it is replicated. I do not expect you to admit that you had been wrong, but that's how it is.


----------



## ZEKEDAWG (Aug 13, 2007)

Pete Fagerlin said:


> Yet you're the one who is claiming that "You can easily fall at 2 mph and crack your skull" and you're suggesting that folks "dress for the crash."
> 
> If you were being truthful then why aren't you wearing one while you are walking around. Average walking speed is 2-3 mph after all and if you can "easily fall at 2 mph and crack your skull" you really should be "dressing for that crash."


It is merely a suggestion to those who can't take responsibility for there own actions and own up to the consequences of their choices, or who aren't mature enough think for themselves.

The statement about falling at 2 mph is directed specifically to those who" take off their helmet when the are going up hill, because it is hot" don't even take the dang helmet with you. You can't predict an accident. That is why I walk around in 15 layers of bubble wrap and have anti bacterial soap on tap. one time I fell and someone thought, we were under machine gun attack.

I don't always wear a helmet, it is a choice that I make, no one else needs to tell me when, where or how I am to act. There is no excuse not to wear a helmet, only a choice. does that make sense.


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

ZEKEDAWG said:


> It is merely a suggestion to those who can't take responsibility for there[sic] own actions and own up to the consequences of their choices, or who aren't mature enough think for themselves.


So it's "do as I say, not as I do" with a side order of "I don't know what the heck I'm typing about."

That's what I thought when I read your posts but thanks for the confirmation.



ZEKEDAWG said:


> There is no excuse not to wear a helmet, only a choice. does that make sense.


No, it doesn't make sense but I don't expect you to understand that fact.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

ZEKEDAWG said:


> It is merely a suggestion to those who can't take responsibility for there own actions and own up to the consequences of their choices, or who aren't mature enough think for themselves.


That's quite a condescending remark.

Who is to judge? There is some legal standard of having a mental capacity to decide, but that bar is quite damn low.

And, I would venture to guess that by all possible measure riding in an urban environment is quite more dangerous then sweating it out on a long empty uphill fireroad...


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Did you actually read the second reference?
> 
> You stated that this was "unreplicated study". I have showed that you are wrong. At the very least it is replicated. I do not expect you to admit that you had been wrong, but that's how it is.


You haven't shown anything. You know what the second item was, and it wasn't a study.

Look, I already said that if you have a political point, go for it. We all see it in your other posts in this thread. Freedom of choice versus the nanny state. Cool! I think a lot of us agree that freedom and choice are good things.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

HarryCallahan said:


> You haven't shown anything. You know what the second item was, and it wasn't a study.


I have already mentioned that I do not expect you to admit that your unfounded claim that the study was repudiated and not replicated was indeed unfounded.



HarryCallahan said:


> Look, I already said that if you have a political point, go for it. We all see it in your other posts in this thread. Freedom of choice versus the nanny state. Cool! I think a lot of us agree that freedom and choice are good things.


Yes, I do indeed have a political objection to limiting personal freedoms. I grew up in the Soviet Union. That is quite orthogonal to criticizing analysis that was used to justify such moves that was possibly based on selective statistics and assertions based on false intuition. I have studied physics and statistics for many years and have seen plenty of that.


----------



## PlasticBike (Sep 27, 2008)

Curmy said:


> I have studied physics and statistics for many years and have seen plenty of that.


HA! Academics'll do that.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

Curmy,

I don't have anything to admit. You cited a study that was repudiated by your own source. Then you cited opinion pieces published in two different journals, albeit opinion pieces that could lead to studies. That's it.

I'm sure you have an excellent education in statistics and physics. I'm not trying to take away your personal freedoms.

Have a nice life.

HC



Curmy said:


> I have already mentioned that I do not expect you to admit that your unfounded claim that the study was repudiated and not replicated was indeed unfounded.
> 
> Yes, I do indeed have a political objection to limiting personal freedoms. I grew up in the Soviet Union. That is quite orthogonal to criticizing analysis that was used to justify such moves that was possibly based on selective statistics and assertions based on false intuition. I have studied physics and statistics for many years and have seen plenty of that.


----------



## ZEKEDAWG (Aug 13, 2007)

don't read between the lines just read the words, you are making more out of it than is intended.

Sorry if you take it as condescending, I can't control that, kids under 18 should wear helmets, adults should have the choice, if other adults don't like the choice then they can get bent. 

I was thinking more like a long singletrack uphill that bordered on a 50 foot cliff down to a creek, not those fire roads you so cal boys call "trails"


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

PlasticBike said:


> HA! Academics'll do that.


No sh.t. I am often utterly amazed that the progress continues and stuff people make actually works, after seeing all the dumb errors that seemingly well educated people, myself included, commit.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

HarryCallahan said:


> Curmy,
> I don't have anything to admit.


OK.



HarryCallahan said:


> Have a nice life.


I will try my best.  You too.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

ZEKEDAWG said:


> I was thinking more like a long singletrack uphill that bordered on a 50 foot cliff down to a creek, not those fire roads you so cal boys call "trails"


I am from N. Cal. and no need to rub it in about our trail access issues.

Do you actually think that helmet will protect you from going down a 50ft cliff?

False sense of security is often as dangerous as a lack of protection.


----------



## PlasticBike (Sep 27, 2008)

At least it (should) keep us all pretty humble. Big conference coming up in a couple weeks - we'll see whether or not humility is in style this season.


----------



## Swell Guy (Jan 20, 2005)

ZEKEDAWG said:


> You can't choose when you crash, wearing it only on the downhills is risky. You can easily fall at 2 mph and crack your skull. You guys crack me up about not wearing it on the uphills. Kinda like I only wear a seat belt if I am on the freeway.
> 
> You don't dress for the ride, you dress for the crash.


Yeah, you can fall walking at 2 mph too. Do you wear your helmet while walking? Why not?


----------



## snowjnky (Oct 7, 2005)

Hey Curmy. Could you restate your original point, I think I have lost it or maybe it was never found..?..
I think it started with you aruguing...I mean defending the point that helmet zealouts make kids fat. Is that right? If so any study that is used in defense should have fat kids whose choice activity is cycling as samples. Plus who cares about those studies WE ARE ON MTBR (MOUNTAIN BIKE REVIEW) not RBR (ROAD BIKE REVIEW) any arguement should pertain to mountain biking unless otherwise stated.


----------



## Melt (May 24, 2004)

snowjnky said:


> Hey Curmy. Could you restate your original point, I think I have lost it or maybe it was never found..?..
> I think it started with you aruguing...I mean defending the point that helmet zealouts make kids fat. Is that right? If so any study that is used in defense should have fat kids whose choice activity is cycling as samples. Plus who cares about those studies WE ARE ON MTBR (MOUNTAIN BIKE REVIEW) not RBR (ROAD BIKE REVIEW) any arguement should pertain to mountain biking unless otherwise stated.


ill field this one ... when i was a kid (which wasnt that long ago im 24) we thought we were "mountain biking" in a municipal park in Napa known as Alston park which was basically a couple of grass hills, some mud, and maybe 300 or 400' tall "mountains" ... nobody wore a helmet, and once the laws were put into place, many kids i knew that couldnt afford helmets either stopped riding to school and around, or kept getting fines from napa pd.


----------



## snowjnky (Oct 7, 2005)

Melt said:


> ill field this one ... when i was a kid (which wasnt that long ago im 24) we thought we were "mountain biking" in a municipal park in Napa known as Alston park which was basically a couple of grass hills, some mud, and maybe 300 or 400' tall "mountains" ... nobody wore a helmet, and once the laws were put into place, many kids i knew that couldnt afford helmets either stopped riding to school and around, or kept getting fines from napa pd.


Couldn't afford helmets but could afford a bike hmm??? Did they pay the fines? Are they fat now? Did they give up there love for mountain biking becuase of the new laws? 
What a shame. 
I am down with anecdotal arguments rather than skweded medical reports though

Also to set the record strait I don't wear a helmet when commuting, but always when Mountain Biking.

Here is my question for you helmetless f-da-man rebels: Besides helmet hair, why not wear a helmet?


----------



## snowjnky (Oct 7, 2005)

*Oklahoma Coach responding to the reports*

written, by the Brits, about making fun of kids & helmets and being fat.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

snowjnky said:


> Couldn't afford helmets but could afford a bike hmm??? Did they pay the fines? Are they fat now? Did they give up there love for mountain biking becuase of the new laws?
> What a shame.
> I am down with anecdotal arguments rather than skweded medical reports though
> 
> ...


If you scroll back a bit, you can find one quote from some Australian statistician that is one of many studies (I am so terribly sorry for not providing an exhaustive bibliography and analysis) that indicate that 1)enforced mandatory helmet laws do discourage cycling. 2)overall impact of enforced helmet laws on public health is uncertain at best. I do agree with that argument.

There is certainly no good reason not to wear a helmet once you are on the bike and you can afford to buy one; except maybe for convenience on long climbs. There are even more reason to wear one when riding on the streets. I certainly wear one, and my kids do. But I am an enthusiast, I am not affected by fear mongering and fear of punishment or cost that very well may discourage kids and adults with a less privileged social status from cycling.

A much better way to encourage kids to wear helmets is to subsidize its costs, design them so that they want to wear it, and teach them and their parents. Forcing and scaring parents, presenting biking as an overly dangerous activity is not a good idea. As others have mentioned, making drivers and pedestrians to wear protective gear does make just as much sense.

And all this is not even touching the issue of fundamental immorality of nanny state laws.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

snowjnky said:


> written, by the Brits, about making fun of kids & helmets and being fat.


A whole lot of people are completely missing the difference between what is sensible to do, and what social engineering experiments your nanny state should engage, that more often then not have unintended consequences.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

snowjnky said:


> Couldn't afford helmets but could afford a bike hmm??? Did they pay the fines? Are they fat now? Did they give up there love for mountain biking becuase of the new laws?


Yes. Yes. Possibly. Yes.


----------



## snowjnky (Oct 7, 2005)

Curmy said:


> A whole lot of people are completely missing the difference between what is sensible to do, and what social engineering experiments your nanny state should engage, that more often then not have unintended consequences.


I think you missed the point


----------



## snowjnky (Oct 7, 2005)

Curmy said:


> And all this is not even touching the issue of fundamental immorality of nanny state laws.


I think Henry C was right; you just want to argue...are we still talking about hemets?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

snowjnky said:


> I think Henry C was right; you just want to argue...are we still talking about hemets?


If you want to participate in a discussion, it is a good idea to discuss the subject, not a taken out of context last phrase in a post. Since you are obviously not interested in a discussion on a subject, but rather in some posturing, I would not oblige you with further answers.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

snowjnky said:


> I think you missed the point


Could be. Would not be the first, nor last...


----------



## w00t! (Apr 28, 2008)

This thread has gone so far out into the realm of idiocy that it's just plain silly.

To paraphrase...


whiny-ass beotches said:


> I know it's smart to wear a helmet and I usually do but doggone it, nobody better tell me to.


----------



## snowjnky (Oct 7, 2005)

Curmy said:


> If you want to participate in a discussion, it is a good idea to discuss the subject, not a taken out of context last phrase in a post. Since you are obviously not interested in a discussion on a subject, but rather in some posturing, I would not oblige you with further answers.


how ironic


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

I think at this point, you guys can't see the forest for the trees. 
How about this:

When mountain biking, it's safer to wear a helmet than not. That doesn't mean you can't still hurt your head, however the benefits outweigh the risks.

In some places, the government enforces helmet laws. This has no bearing on whether or not helmets really do protect you better if you have one, it has to do with people's perception of how safe they are. Those people vote, therefore they determine what the government does.

If you don't like what the government does make sure you vote and go out and raise some awareness for your cause. When you're raising this awareness and have found some receptive people to preach....er inform, then and ONLY then will people care if you bring up some stupid Canadian or British study.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

snowjnky said:


> how ironic


OK. :thumbsup:


----------



## snowjnky (Oct 7, 2005)

w00t! said:


> This thread has gone so far out into the realm of idiocy that it's just plain silly.
> 
> To paraphrase...


true dat ...I am wearing a f-n helmet but not cause I am riding a bike

I also like your tagline


----------



## bayareamtnbiker (Jan 2, 2006)

My God, why did I read this stupid sheeet up to this point?
Friikin idiot!


----------

