Crashes oregon fatality last month

[bigoilbob]

@sactownie HUGE BS call on the "over and over". How do I say this politely. "Not base in fact, sactownie". Your interesting gymnastics exercise notwithstanding.

That being said, no doubt helmets have been oversold by the NHTSA. 85% reduction in head injuries? Get real. But even given that, I will take the UNDISPUTABLE 15-45% reduction in head/neck injuries, from the most authoritative of the "study of studies", as convincing enough. Even given the findings that they make drivers act more aggressively towards us. Even though (with human powered biking) they reduce the attractiveness of a much needed form of exercise for our obese country. And even though those beautiful Copenhageners don't wear them. Sac, whatever urban myth self tests U administer 2 yourself, you're a fool not 2 wear a bike helmet. Hopefully a well insured fool I don't have to indirectly comp with my premiums.

 

[keatonx]

A big reason to wear a helmet is improving public opinion.
Sure, we know that a regular bicycle helmet will do much to save us in most cases, but the public and (more importantly) the pooolice, do.

I wear a full face motocross helmet, (which makes sense when you see the sketchiness of my lawn mower bike lol), yet I'm constantly getting lectured on how what I'm doing is "illegal". I'm getting tired of it. Especially since I have a convenient peice of paper in my pocket that says MBs can legally ride on the road

 

[grinningremlin]

@sactownie HUGE BS call on the "over and over". How do I say this politely. "Not base in fact, sactownie". Your interesting gymnastics exercise notwithstanding.

I think you've got Sactownie and I mixed up, you should be calling "grinningremlin" names , I'm the one who doesn't wear a helmet.My guess is you don't have very good balance.Do you think biking is not athletic??Do you think a gymnast would need a helmet??

That being said, no doubt helmets have been oversold by the NHTSA. 85% reduction in head injuries? Get real. But even given that, I will take the UNDISPUTABLE 15-45% reduction in head/neck injuries, from the most authoritative of the "study of studies", as convincing enough. Even given the findings that they make drivers act more aggressively towards us. Even though (with human powered biking) they reduce the attractiveness of a much needed form of exercise for our obese country. And even though those beautiful Copenhageners don't wear them. Sac, whatever urban myth self tests U administer 2 yourself, you're a fool not 2 wear a bike helmet. Hopefully a well insured fool I don't have to indirectly comp with my premiums.

Shouldn't name-call those you don't know, neck injuries are shown to go up with bike helmets, not down.Smash a bike helmet with a sledge hammer and see if an igloo-cooler on your head is going to make much difference.If you don't have good balance, and or know how to fall, you need one.
You're concerned about your insurance prems, tough toenails, that's life.Do everything you can to live longer if it makes you feel better, and I'll live my life the way "I" see fit,... good enough?

 

[grinningremlin]

@sactownie HUGE BS call on the "over and over". How do I say this politely. "Not base in fact, sactownie".

Bigoilbob, not based in fact??Here's a good quote from the first link below: "just as gloves prevent minor wounds to the hands, cycle helmets are likely to prevent similar wounds to the head, but these are not serious injuries or in any way life-threatening. In the largest case-control study, 73% of head injuries did not involve concussion or other brain injury (Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, 1996)
Here's some links, you're never too old to read/learn.I can find more if you need the "over and over" to be done "over and over".
http://cyclehelmets.org/1052.html
http://cyclehelmets.org/1019.html
http://cyclehelmets.org/1255.html
http://cyclehelmets.org/1013.html
http://www.bikersrights.com/helmets.html
http://road.cc/content/news/34527-c...ury-risk-much-its-thought-claims-new-analysis

 

[sactownie]

@sactownie you're a fool not 2 wear a bike helmet. Hopefully a well insured fool I don't have to indirectly comp with my premiums.

I do wear a helmet! My poor ass spent $50 for a motorcycle helmet Yes I could have used that money for the under frame tank I want or any other upgrades but no i used it on helmet. And dont worry about your insurance premiums! My wife happens to work for kaiser hospitals, I can go to the ER and all it cost me is $5 ! don't worry I am not on welfare!

 

[sactownie]

there was a thread on here last year that the guy posted a picture of his head after a "test n tune" accident, his head looked like spagetti. i cant find the thread, if anyone can find it post it.

 

[grinningremlin]

there was a thread on here last year that the guy posted a picture of his head after a "test n tune" accident, his head looked like spagetti. i cant find the thread, if anyone can find it post it.

I think bigoilbob has us confused.The idea that everyone should do something to avoid the "possibility" of what happened to another is craziness to me, seems similar to the campaign against sweets/cigarettes/narcotics, control everybody because a few can't control themselves .
The dude with the "spaghetti head", what were the circumstances, was he an out of shape person, was he inebriated, were conditions bad for riding, not the most skilled rider/bad balance?Too many possible negative variables just to blanket, "well that's a good enough story, lid me".To each their own, I'm not wearing one.
One of my fav comments from the last link in my post two above:
"To provide a contrast to the very first post which came from a Kiwi, let's look at the NZ bicycle helmet law:
It is an overwhelmingly political success, and even has widespread support among the bicycling community.
However it is also a health, safety and financial disaster which has not reduced the injury or death rates by one iota.
Other countries choose not to pass these laws based on the results in NZ and Oz.
So why do so many Kiwi's still support the law? Well it's called the placebo effect - hand out sugar pills and a significant number of people will feel they are of benefit. It works great for bicycling:
1. first take a relatively safe activity which is an overall health benefit and make it into a dangerous one - its called creating the market
2. now promote a "solution" to the "problem" you've just created - you've a product to sell after all
3. persuade some idiots to make your "solution" law - laws are hard to rescind (politicians, even more so than most of us, don't like admitting mistakes) and give you a liability out - "we just supply the legal requirement, don't blame us when fails"
4. wait for the accidents, people will believe they've been saved by the placebo on their heads. You'll also probably get more accidents, as people feel "protected" or when motorists assume bicyclists are, which helps keep the belief in the danger. You'll also get a lot of parents refusing to let their kids bike anymore, its "too dangerous due to the traffic" - even though your "solution" doesn't actually work in traffic at all..."

 

[bigoilbob]

Guys. All the references R by anti helmet advocacy groups. And they show what they want to show. Here is the most authoritative study I've found.
http://www.smf.org/docs/articles/report.html

It is not as editorial, but is much more compelling.

Some common sense observations;

1. Our activity takes us to speeds up to 20 m/h faster than most bicyclists ride. Any benefit from head protection would be increased exponentially.
2. I agree that IF helmet use uncontrollably compels us to ride more aggressively, and/or vehicles to drive more aggressively around us, then that is a detriment to helmet use. But I think we can at least control ourselves.
3. If you indulge in an irresponsible activity, such as helmetless motorbicycle riding, you are more likely to indulge in others. Such as riding recklessly, and being under/non insured.

sactownie, I am thankful you wear a helmet, that you are not on welfare, and that you have an inside track to proper health insurance. Coincidentally, me too. and MY veteran
ER nurse wife would have me sleeping in the Casita if she caught me riding my (slow) MB without a helmet. IM just sayin' that the GROUP that includes you and I are helping fund the health costs (plastic surgery, service monkeys, etc.) of THE GROUP that rides MB's helmetless. Now, I'm not Ron Paul, and will dutifully help fund those social costs. I just wish I didn't have to.....

My guess is that no bubbles will be penetrated, no minds changed. This is probably something on which we will just have to disagree.

 

[grinningremlin]

Guys. All the references R by anti helmet advocacy groups. And they show what they want to show. Here is the most authoritative study I've found.

WRONG!The "cyclehelmets" site, is showing reports, from both anti and pro groups reports, no bias!

1. Our activity takes us to speeds up to 20 m/h faster than most bicyclists ride. Any benefit from head protection would be increased exponentially.

You didn't say WHAT head protection, a bike helmet or a motorcycle helmet?A bike helmet is rated at 12-15mph bump to the ground, not 25-30mph into a car.

2. I agree that IF helmet use uncontrollably compels us to ride more aggressively, and/or vehicles to drive more aggressively around us, then that is a detriment to helmet use. But I think we can at least control ourselves.
3. If you indulge in an irresponsible activity, such as helmetless motorbicycle riding, you are more likely to indulge in others. Such as riding recklessly, and being under/non insured.

sactownie, I am thankful you wear a helmet, that you are not on welfare, and that you have an inside track to proper health insurance. Coincidentally, me too. and MY veteran
ER nurse wife would have me sleeping in the Casita if she caught me riding my (slow) MB without a helmet. IM just sayin' that the GROUP that includes you and I are helping fund the health costs (plastic surgery, service monkeys, etc.) of THE GROUP that rides MB's helmetless. Now, I'm not Ron Paul, and will dutifully help fund those social costs. I just wish I didn't have to.....

My guess is that no bubbles will be penetrated, no minds changed. This is probably something on which we will just have to disagree.

Sounds like you're more worried about the old lady than getting hurt.I'll agree to disagree but will say this, there is "NO", "ZERO DIFFERENCE" between the mentality of pro-helmet/helmet-law people, and the rational behind Obamacare, "ZERO DIFFERENCE".Making or chiding people into buying something they don't want OR need, based on the clumsiest lowest common denominators.If that's your idea of a way to do things/ common sense, well,... life loves irony.

 

[bigoilbob]

What "Obamacare"? Sorry if my Ron Paul reference required more interest in current events. Dr. Paul is apparently an advocate of faith based health care. We disagree on that. Feel free to substitute "Helmetless MB riders" in the CNN Host's question.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/tea-party-debate-health-care_n_959354.html