Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never wear a helmet on trails. I will ride one in the rare case of riding in traffic but that's only at Wrightsville Beach. If you are a biker and think you are a vehicle with the same status as a car you better wear a helmet!!!
FWIW, the running gag in several N. European cities runs something like "you can pick the American (and Aussie) bike tourists out - they're the ones wearing helmets". It's an interesting phenomenon....
Why so few people wearing bicycle helmets? Because they're natural-born gamblers. After they land on their heads once or twice (assuming their brains don't get too scrambled), there's always the possibility they might pick up a hint or two.
That's quite an assumption, completely off topic, and comparing apples to oranges.
I asked to give you an opportunity to answer to avoid making an assumption. I don't think it's off topic or comparing apples to oranges. I am curious if there is a correlation and I view both seat belts and helmets as safety devices that may prevent injury or more serious injury. Some of the justifications to not wearing helmets sound similar to justifications on not wearing seat belts.
I asked to give you an opportunity to answer to avoid making an assumption. I don't think it's off topic or comparing apples to oranges. I am curious if there is a correlation and I view both seat belts and helmets as safety devices that may prevent injury or more serious injury. Some of the justifications to not wearing helmets sound similar to justifications on not wearing seat belts.
I saw the correlation of both are mandatory laws as well.
I asked to give you an opportunity to answer to avoid making an assumption. I don't think it's off topic or comparing apples to oranges. I am curious if there is a correlation and I view both seat belts and helmets as safety devices that may prevent injury or more serious injury. Some of the justifications to not wearing helmets sound similar to justifications on not wearing seat belts.
Fair enough. I feel that comparing seat belts and air bags in motor vehicles with bicycle helmets is a huge leap due to the fact that there's room to live inside an auto. Hence, safety devices inside a car can actually prevent injuries. I do disagree strongly with making laws mandating that people use them. I've no issue with some government faction making it a law that they be available in every auto. Additionally, motor vehicles travel at speeds that are much higher than bicycles, so to me this is an apples and oranges comparison. However, I feel that I understand the correlation that you're making. It's about the persons moral fiber/character and I think you're trying to connect the dots to see if the same type of person that takes issue with bicycle helmets also takes issue with air bags and seat belts in motor vehicles.
To me the bottom line is the fact that the lion's share of bicycle fatalities are the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. It seems as though motorists completely disregard cyclists to the point where they don't even see them, run them over, and kill them. No helmet will save a cyclists life when it comes to collisions with motor vehicles. Bicycle helmets are rather cheap flimsy affairs, so they're not even as durable as motorcycle helmets. The only way I see a bicycle helmet preventing or lessening injuries would be at a very low speed of 10 mph or less. It's simple kinetics. If I am traveling at 20 - 40 mph, and I come in contact with something that stops me instantly, I will sustain injuries up to and including death, and no helmet will prevent this.
Fair enough. I feel that comparing seat belts and air bags in motor vehicles with bicycle helmets is a huge leap due to the fact that there's room to live inside an auto. Hence, safety devices inside a car can actually prevent injuries. I do disagree strongly with making laws mandating that people use them. I've no issue with some government faction making it a law that they be available in every auto. Additionally, motor vehicles travel at speeds that are much higher than bicycles, so to me this is an apples and oranges comparison. However, I feel that I understand the correlation that you're making. It's about the persons moral fiber/character and I think you're trying to connect the dots to see if the same type of person that takes issue with bicycle helmets also takes issue with air bags and seat belts in motor vehicles.
To me the bottom line is the fact that the lion's share of bicycle fatalities are the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. It seems as though motorists completely disregard cyclists to the point where they don't even see them, run them over, and kill them. No helmet will save a cyclists life when it comes to collisions with motor vehicles. Bicycle helmets are rather cheap flimsy affairs, so they're not even as durable as motorcycle helmets. The only way I see a bicycle helmet preventing or lessening injuries would be at a very low speed of 10 mph or less. It's simple kinetics. If I am traveling at 20 - 40 mph, and I come in contact with something that stops me instantly, I will sustain injuries up to and including death, and no helmet will prevent this.
Most of the crashes involving cars I've been in or witnessed are right hooks that bring a rider down. They aren't getting run over or a head on but are traveling at about the same speed. A helmet makes a huge difference in these.
Fair enough. I feel that comparing seat belts and air bags in motor vehicles with bicycle helmets is a huge leap due to the fact that there's room to live inside an auto. Hence, safety devices inside a car can actually prevent injuries. I do disagree strongly with making laws mandating that people use them. I've no issue with some government faction making it a law that they be available in every auto. Additionally, motor vehicles travel at speeds that are much higher than bicycles, so to me this is an apples and oranges comparison. However, I feel that I understand the correlation that you're making. It's about the persons moral fiber/character and I think you're trying to connect the dots to see if the same type of person that takes issue with bicycle helmets also takes issue with air bags and seat belts in motor vehicles.
To me the bottom line is the fact that the lion's share of bicycle fatalities are the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. It seems as though motorists completely disregard cyclists to the point where they don't even see them, run them over, and kill them. No helmet will save a cyclists life when it comes to collisions with motor vehicles. Bicycle helmets are rather cheap flimsy affairs, so they're not even as durable as motorcycle helmets. The only way I see a bicycle helmet preventing or lessening injuries would be at a very low speed of 10 mph or less. It's simple kinetics. If I am traveling at 20 - 40 mph, and I come in contact with something that stops me instantly, I will sustain injuries up to and including death, and no helmet will prevent this.
Actually, what it is -- your argument -- is the argument from personal incredulity, a well-known logical fallacy. To top it off, you base this logical fallacy on another fallacy -- the fact that bicycle/auto collisions always, or even typically, stop the bicyclist 'instantly'. This rarely happens.
You can 'see' or it can 'seem' to you... well, whatever. The fact that you choose to disregard statistics which show lower injury and fatality rates amongst helmet-users speaks to nothing but your insistence on disregarding information that inconveniently does not comport with your preconceived notions.
Actually, what it is -- your argument -- is the argument from personal incredulity, a well-known logical fallacy. To top it off, you base this logical fallacy on another fallacy -- the fact that bicycle/auto collisions always, or even typically, stop the bicyclist 'instantly'. This rarely happens.
You can 'see' or it can 'seem' to you... well, whatever. The fact that you choose to disregard statistics which show lower injury and fatality rates amongst helmet-users speaks to nothing but your insistence on disregarding information that inconveniently does not comport with your preconceived notions.
D*mn, I wish I could write this well... Definitely this post is a 'keeper'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Definitely this post is a 'keeper'.
