Sad helmet incident

On 1/20/2020 12:18 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 6:55:10 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

There's no giant conspiracy [to pass a MHL in Oregon] because you already have a helmet law in
Oregon. You're just not part of the group subject to it. But there's
constant social pressure to maintain the meme that "Of _course_ you must
wear a helmet!" And if you ride into Washington State, you may find
yourself in violation of a MHL.

Yes, its true, I'm over the age of 16.

So every parent is now expected to tell their kids "Riding a bike is
really dangerous. You are NOT allowed to ever ride without wearing a
helmet!"

If my local experience is any indication, that means a bunch of parents
will say "Look, why don't you do something else instead?" And a bunch of
kids will say "Screw it, if I have to wear that dorky hat, I'm not riding."

And this is portrayed as benign?

Well, perhaps you wouldn't, because you wouldn't dare ride without a
helmet.

Yes, because I'm just some frady cat, and you're a bare-head hero!

No, because you've bought into the hype and made it part of your uniform.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure you're braver than I am. I can tell that by
your tales of crashes.

... I started wearing a helmet full time with the USCF rule change and pestering from my now wife.

Requests (not pestering) from my wife was what got me originally wearing
one. After years of commuting in a small city, we moved here and she
said "If you're going to commute in this [bigger] city I'd like you to
wear a helmet." I agreed to her wishes to lessen her worries.

Since then, I've learned a lot, and she's heard quite a bit of it. She
occasionally wears a helmet "because mine is pretty!" She never asks me to.

It hasn't caused me any emotional distress, unlike some.

Apparently it doesn't cause you intellectual distress either.

But there are plenty of cyclists who could get prosecuted for
perfectly reasonable behavior.

Prosecuted? You men a ticket (that doesn't go against your license and can't be used for rating your insurnce)?

Are you implying that's no trouble at all, and people shouldn't fuss
about it?

This is one of my nearby climbs with a typical Portland driver. You would wear a helmet, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fzwm4m3ZFI

Note at about 1:00 into the video, the driver is wearing a helmet. By
some of the bike helmet promotion logic, every motorist should strap on
a full face helmet before pulling out of the driveway.

"Racers wear a helmet, so you should too!"


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/20/2020 5:00 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

A number of years ago I wiped out with such force that my helmeted head bounced off the pavement twice and had a very nice dent in the temple area. Frank's response to my post about that incident was if I had not been wearing the helmet my head would not have struck the pavement. It's amazing what Frank can see from thousands of miles or thousands of kilometers away from every incident.

No, Sir, you're falsely portraying what I said. My phrasing on these
matters is very careful.

Dig out a direct quote, instead of paraphrasing it for your straw man
purposes - or more charitably, paraphrasing it due to your imperfect memory.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/20/2020 12:06 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 09:36:47 UTC-5, Duane wrote:

I have no confidence that a bike helmet with prevent concussions. Hell
football helmets don't and they're a lot stronger than bike helmets.
Both may mitigate the damage but I wouldn't depend on it.

Okay I agree with you about helmets and concussions.

When I saw the deep dent on the temple area of my helmet I sure was glad that I had the helmet on that ride. A fellow not riding with us, who was behind us, saw me fall and bounce and was ready to key in 911. He couldn't believe that I just got up, checked my bicycle, rinsed off my scrapes on the arms and shoulder and was ready to continue my ride. At the very least I didn't have scrapes on my head where scrapes usually bleed quite freely. I'm just glad that the helmet was there to take the impact instead of my temple taking that impact.

Let me describe an incident I saw and posted here over ten years ago.

We had just had dinner with several friends at a nice restaurant in a
big city. We were walking back to our cars. Ahead, a tour bus was parked
at the opposite curb. A car was in the process of passing the parked
tour bus.

Just as the car got to the front end of the bus, a young guy came
zooming across the street directly in front of the car. There was no way
the driver could avoid him. From our position behind the car, we heard a
huge BANG! and saw the young guy's body fly up into the air, upside
down. His head was higher than the roof of the car. Later we heard that
he landed on his head on the street.

I immediately turned around and sprinted back to the restaurant to call
911 and report a probable fatality; then I ran up to the site of the
crash, where the driver was upset and sobbing. The front of her car was
badly mangled and her windshield was broken.

But there was no dead body. Instead, the college kid she hit was sitting
on a low wall at the sidewalk, his head being held immobile by an
off-duty emergency medical technician who happened to see the crash.

Very soon, an ambulance crew arrived, immobilized the guy on a stretcher
and took him to ER. A cop took statements from us witnesses.

The young guy? He had a slight cut above his right ear, with almost no
bleeding. It seemed to be from the windshield wiper. He was the one who
said he landed on his head after the crash. But he was fine. I phoned
the next day in case he had died or something, and my testimony might be
needed. They said he attended classes as usual and had only a minor
headache.

The weird part? He was NOT wearing a helmet. Even weirder, nobody - not
the EMT, not the ambulance guys, not the cop, none of the witnesses -
said he should have been wearing one.

That's because he was a pedestrian, not a bicyclist. He had jogged out
from the front of that bus. And even though pedestrians have far more
serious TBI (in total or per mile traveled) nobody said he needed a helmet.

But if he had worn one? Why, it would be smashed. It would have been
absolute proof that it "saved his life." It might have made its way into
a newspaper article, or be on display in a pedestrian protective gear
shop - like a couple of bike helmets I've seen.

(Have people noticed there are not mandatory pedestrian helmet laws even
for kids?)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/20/2020 12:09 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 09:36:47 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
On 1/20/2020 6:17 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 11:00:17 AM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 03:55:02 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:40:34 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:39:07 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2020 12:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Even on this group, we've
had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain
injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to prevent minor
injuries.

But they never ride without it.

. . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection.

You're allowed to wear it, Jay. You can justify it to yourself however
you like. Ditto the gloves.

But two points:

First, I also ride roads that are famous - or rather, notorious - for
roughness. (I can explain why in terms of state funding for county
roads, if you like.) I'm sure I ride far fewer miles on wet roads than
you, but I still ride them, the last time being about five days ago.
It's certainly possible to do these things without hitting one's head.
Since becoming an adult, the only time my head ever touched earth
(lightly) from a bike crash was about 12 years ago, when our tandem's
forks suddenly snapped off.

I think I'm more cautious than you. Maybe that's because I don't feel
protected by a helmet?

Second point: The people I'm talking about say they _never_ ride without
a helmet. I also know people who never ride without gloves. Really? Is
_every_ ride so dangerous that protective gear is needed?

I strongly suspect that most of those people will jump in a car to ride
two blocks to buy a magazine. And indeed, I recall the day when I had
ridden my bike less than half a mile to a store, where a guy I know said
"Where's your helmet??"

This mania for protection - but ONLY when traveling by bicycle - can't
help but dissuade a lot of bike use.

Speaking of manias, you've made helmets your own white whale or bete noire -- pick your color. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. Helmets have prevented me from having more extensive injuries, so I wear one. I don't see the same deep, deep downside as you. And no, there is no giant conspiracy to pass a MHL in Oregon, so I'm not going to agonize over looming helmet laws and the possible enslavement of my hair.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay what would Frank do with his time when everyone agreed with his views. Like you I make my own judgement and distrust any data of any study about helmet use. Saves me a lot of time which we can spend on actual riding our bike(s).

Lou

A number of years ago I wiped out with such force that my helmeted head bounced off the pavement twice and had a very nice dent in the temple area. Frank's response to my post about that incident was if I had not been wearing the helmet my head would not have struck the pavement. It's amazing what Frank can see from thousands of miles or thousands of kilometers away from every incident.

Cheers

I think annoying is that if someone report a crash or fall and claims that he benefited from wearing a helmet (not save our life) he often says because it never happened to Frank to him that:
- he/she took too much risk/misjudged the situation,
- he/she could prevented it by riding more carefully or should have taken a course or read a book,
- wearing a helmet didn't make a difference,
- wearing a helmet make us guilty of the fear mongering.

And the most annying is that after this he says: 'you can do/wear/buy' whatever you want.

Lou

+1

You forgot about the bit where you say you cracked your helmet and get
back "you only hit your head because of the added thickness of the
helmet." Like SRA says, it's not possible to make such conclusions with
no clue of the circumstances.

I'm with Jay and Andre. I wear a helmet because road rash on my head
hurts like hell and scalp wounds bleed a lot and though my ears are
larger than necessary I don't want to scrape them down in size.

I have no confidence that a bike helmet with prevent concussions. Hell
football helmets don't and they're a lot stronger than bike helmets.
Both may mitigate the damage but I wouldn't depend on it.

I've also experimented with melons and helmets. Funny thing is that without a helmet the melons all split open upon impact with the ground or pavement. The melons with the helmet did not split open. I'd far rather have a bit of protection on my head than no protection at all. However, I want it to be MY choice not some lawmakers.

Cheers


I can't remember anyone here arguing in favor of MHLs. Maybe I missed it.

On Monday, 20 January 2020 13:14:17 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
On 1/20/2020 12:09 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 09:36:47 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
On 1/20/2020 6:17 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 11:00:17 AM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 03:55:02 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:40:34 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:39:07 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2020 12:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Even on this group, we've
had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain
injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to prevent minor
injuries.

But they never ride without it.

. . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection.

You're allowed to wear it, Jay. You can justify it to yourself however
you like. Ditto the gloves.

But two points:

First, I also ride roads that are famous - or rather, notorious - for
roughness. (I can explain why in terms of state funding for county
roads, if you like.) I'm sure I ride far fewer miles on wet roads than
you, but I still ride them, the last time being about five days ago.
It's certainly possible to do these things without hitting one's head.
Since becoming an adult, the only time my head ever touched earth
(lightly) from a bike crash was about 12 years ago, when our tandem's
forks suddenly snapped off.

I think I'm more cautious than you. Maybe that's because I don't feel
protected by a helmet?

Second point: The people I'm talking about say they _never_ ride without
a helmet. I also know people who never ride without gloves. Really? Is
_every_ ride so dangerous that protective gear is needed?

I strongly suspect that most of those people will jump in a car to ride
two blocks to buy a magazine. And indeed, I recall the day when I had
ridden my bike less than half a mile to a store, where a guy I know said
"Where's your helmet??"

This mania for protection - but ONLY when traveling by bicycle - can't
help but dissuade a lot of bike use.

Speaking of manias, you've made helmets your own white whale or bete noire -- pick your color. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. Helmets have prevented me from having more extensive injuries, so I wear one. I don't see the same deep, deep downside as you. And no, there is no giant conspiracy to pass a MHL in Oregon, so I'm not going to agonize over looming helmet laws and the possible enslavement of my hair.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay what would Frank do with his time when everyone agreed with his views. Like you I make my own judgement and distrust any data of any study about helmet use. Saves me a lot of time which we can spend on actual riding our bike(s).

Lou

A number of years ago I wiped out with such force that my helmeted head bounced off the pavement twice and had a very nice dent in the temple area. Frank's response to my post about that incident was if I had not been wearing the helmet my head would not have struck the pavement. It's amazing what Frank can see from thousands of miles or thousands of kilometers away from every incident.

Cheers

I think annoying is that if someone report a crash or fall and claims that he benefited from wearing a helmet (not save our life) he often says because it never happened to Frank to him that:
- he/she took too much risk/misjudged the situation,
- he/she could prevented it by riding more carefully or should have taken a course or read a book,
- wearing a helmet didn't make a difference,
- wearing a helmet make us guilty of the fear mongering.

And the most annying is that after this he says: 'you can do/wear/buy' whatever you want.

Lou

+1

You forgot about the bit where you say you cracked your helmet and get
back "you only hit your head because of the added thickness of the
helmet." Like SRA says, it's not possible to make such conclusions with
no clue of the circumstances.

I'm with Jay and Andre. I wear a helmet because road rash on my head
hurts like hell and scalp wounds bleed a lot and though my ears are
larger than necessary I don't want to scrape them down in size.

I have no confidence that a bike helmet with prevent concussions. Hell
football helmets don't and they're a lot stronger than bike helmets.
Both may mitigate the damage but I wouldn't depend on it.

I've also experimented with melons and helmets. Funny thing is that without a helmet the melons all split open upon impact with the ground or pavement. The melons with the helmet did not split open. I'd far rather have a bit of protection on my head than no protection at all. However, I want it to be MY choice not some lawmakers.

Cheers


I can't remember anyone here arguing in favor of MHLs. Maybe I missed it..

Nor do I. However Frank usually starts saying that's what anyone in favour of helmet use wants.

Cheers

On 1/19/2020 10:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:25:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it is very unlikely that
bicycle helmets will disappear or be outlawed in the foreseeable
future. Even if some neutral organization could be found to sponsor a
long term study proving that bicycle helmets cause some accidents, are
unsafe, and generally fail to deliver on advertised promises, bicycle
helmets will not disappear from the market or from general use.

That's because the PERCEPTION of safety is what sells bicycle helmets.
To the GUM (great unwashed masses), one is simply not riding safely
without a bicycle helmet.

I admit, I'm hoping for a sudden epidemic of acute rationality. Heck,
I'd be satisfied with slowly increasing chronic rationality.

I'm hoping that gradually, people will begin saying "Wait a minute, the
data shows there's just not much head injury risk in riding a bike." And
perhaps "It looks like bike helmets really aren't doing much good."

It's not impossible. The idealists who want to promote bicycling so
people stop driving cars are beginning to say "Helmet laws are
counterproductive" and sometimes even saying "Helmets aren't needed."
They're pointing out facts like tens of millions of American bike share
trips, with a total of only one fatality ever. They're actively
countering some of the worst nonsense.

I don't agree with everything these people say, but I think they're
right about MHLs.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/...-laws-are-bad/

I've always been of the opinion that making laws to ensure people act
safe is the wrong way to approach the subject. I would rather see
something that obviously penalized the individual such as "if you
aren't wearing a helmet your hospitalization is null and void".

I guess you mean "your hospitalization insurance"? If so, I'd agree ONLY
if that were applied to absolutely everyone who appeared at a hospital
with a head injury. Not just bicyclists.

I'll note that statements like yours are not uncommon in helmet rants on
the internet, especially when non-cyclists post in comments on news
articles. But those non-cyclists always aim that prejudiced proposal
ONLY at bicyclists. Never at motorists and never at pedestrians,
although their count of head (or brain) injuries absolutely eclipses
that of bicyclists.

It's yet more evidence that bicycling is continually and falsely
portrayed as a terrible risk for serious brain injury. And sadly, that
portrayal is accepted by most avid cyclists. Go figure.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/20/2020 11:09 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
...
So, what is left for a bicycle helmet company to do? Well, they can
divert R&D money into political lobbying or perception advertising in
the hope of making their products mandatory. They can push for
declaring their products defunct or unsafe after every collision, thus
creating a replacement market....

Vaguely related: We recently heard and read several news articles
cautioning parents to NEVER buy a used car seat for a child. Why?
Because the car seat may have been in a crash and suffered invisible
damage.

A lot like a used bike helmet, that may have bumped on the ground and
invisibly caused its magic to leak out.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/20/2020 1:14 PM, Duane wrote:
On 1/20/2020 12:09 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 09:36:47 UTC-5, DuaneÂ* wrote:
On 1/20/2020 6:17 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 11:00:17 AM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 03:55:02 UTC-5, Â* wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:40:34 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:39:07 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/19/2020 12:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
Even on this group, we've
had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain
injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to
prevent minor
injuries.

But they never ride without it.

. . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull
fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion.Â* Sounds like a
reasonable thing to do.Â* I'm going out in a bit -- wet
pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate
time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my
soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other
existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for
hand protection.

You're allowed to wear it, Jay. You can justify it to yourself
however
you like. Ditto the gloves.

But two points:

First, I also ride roads that are famous - or rather, notorious
- for
roughness. (I can explain why in terms of state funding for county
roads, if you like.) I'm sure I ride far fewer miles on wet
roads than
you, but I still ride them, the last time being about five days
ago.
It's certainly possible to do these things without hitting one's
head.
Since becoming an adult, the only time my head ever touched earth
(lightly) from a bike crash was about 12 years ago, when our
tandem's
forks suddenly snapped off.

I think I'm more cautious than you. Maybe that's because I don't
feel
protected by a helmet?

Second point: The people I'm talking about say they _never_ ride
without
a helmet. I also know people who never ride without gloves.
Really? Is
_every_ ride so dangerous that protective gear is needed?

I strongly suspect that most of those people will jump in a car
to ride
two blocks to buy a magazine. And indeed, I recall the day when
I had
ridden my bike less than half a mile to a store, where a guy I
know said
"Where's your helmet??"

This mania for protection - but ONLY when traveling by bicycle -
can't
help but dissuade a lot of bike use.

Speaking of manias, you've made helmets your own white whale or
bete noire -- pick your color. If you don't want to wear a
helmet, fine. Helmets have prevented me from having more
extensive injuries, so I wear one. I don't see the same deep,
deep downside as you. And no, there is no giant conspiracy to
pass a MHL in Oregon, so I'm not going to agonize over looming
helmet laws and the possible enslavement of my hair.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay what would Frank do with his time when everyone agreed with
his views. Like you I make my own judgement and distrust any data
of any study about helmet use. Saves me a lot of time which we can
spend on actual riding our bike(s).

Lou

A number of years ago I wiped out with such force that my helmeted
head bounced off the pavement twice and had a very nice dent in the
temple area. Frank's response to my post about that incident was if
I had not been wearing the helmet my head would not have struck the
pavement. It's amazing what Frank can see from thousands of miles
or thousands of kilometers away from every incident.

Cheers

I think annoying is that if someone report a crash or fall and
claims that he benefited from wearing a helmet (not save our life)
he often says because it never happened to Frank to him that:
- he/she took too much risk/misjudged the situation,
- he/she could prevented it by riding more carefully or should have
taken a course or read a book,
- wearing a helmet didn't make a difference,
- wearing a helmet make us guilty of the fear mongering.

And the most annying is that after this he says: 'you can
do/wear/buy' whatever you want.

Lou

+1

You forgot about the bit where you say you cracked your helmet and get
back "you only hit your head because of the added thickness of the
helmet." Like SRA says, it's not possible to make such conclusions with
no clue of the circumstances.

I'm with Jay and Andre.Â* I wear a helmet because road rash on my head
hurts like hell and scalp wounds bleed a lot and though my ears are
larger than necessary I don't want to scrape them down in size.

I have no confidence that a bike helmet with prevent concussions.Â* Hell
football helmets don't and they're a lot stronger than bike helmets.
Both may mitigate the damage but I wouldn't depend on it.

I've also experimented with melons and helmets. Funny thing is that
without a helmet the melons all split open upon impact with the ground
or pavement. The melons with the helmet did not split open. I'd far
rather have a bit of protection on my head than no protection at all.
However, I want it to be MY choice not some lawmakers.

Cheers


I can't remember anyone here arguing in favor of MHLs.Â* Maybe I missed it.

You've forgotten. At one time, it was not uncommon. The more data that
got presented, the fewer pro-MHL posts. Now nobody admits to ever being
in favor of MHLs. But many people would never, ever ride without one,
and some say or imply it's foolish not to wear one.

Imagine proposing law making it mandatory for all Americans to always
wear an American flag pin over their heart. Imagine a population where
half the people said it should be mandatory, and the other half said it
must remain a matter of free choice.

Then imagine every person from both sides pinning on their American flag
and proudly pointed it out to one and all.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/20/2020 1:23 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 13:14:17 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
On 1/20/2020 12:09 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 09:36:47 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
On 1/20/2020 6:17 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 11:00:17 AM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 03:55:02 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:40:34 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:39:07 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2020 12:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Even on this group, we've
had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain
injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to prevent minor
injuries.

But they never ride without it.

. . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection.

You're allowed to wear it, Jay. You can justify it to yourself however
you like. Ditto the gloves.

But two points:

First, I also ride roads that are famous - or rather, notorious - for
roughness. (I can explain why in terms of state funding for county
roads, if you like.) I'm sure I ride far fewer miles on wet roads than
you, but I still ride them, the last time being about five days ago.
It's certainly possible to do these things without hitting one's head.
Since becoming an adult, the only time my head ever touched earth
(lightly) from a bike crash was about 12 years ago, when our tandem's
forks suddenly snapped off.

I think I'm more cautious than you. Maybe that's because I don't feel
protected by a helmet?

Second point: The people I'm talking about say they _never_ ride without
a helmet. I also know people who never ride without gloves. Really? Is
_every_ ride so dangerous that protective gear is needed?

I strongly suspect that most of those people will jump in a car to ride
two blocks to buy a magazine. And indeed, I recall the day when I had
ridden my bike less than half a mile to a store, where a guy I know said
"Where's your helmet??"

This mania for protection - but ONLY when traveling by bicycle - can't
help but dissuade a lot of bike use.

Speaking of manias, you've made helmets your own white whale or bete noire -- pick your color. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. Helmets have prevented me from having more extensive injuries, so I wear one. I don't see the same deep, deep downside as you. And no, there is no giant conspiracy to pass a MHL in Oregon, so I'm not going to agonize over looming helmet laws and the possible enslavement of my hair.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay what would Frank do with his time when everyone agreed with his views. Like you I make my own judgement and distrust any data of any study about helmet use. Saves me a lot of time which we can spend on actual riding our bike(s).

Lou

A number of years ago I wiped out with such force that my helmeted head bounced off the pavement twice and had a very nice dent in the temple area. Frank's response to my post about that incident was if I had not been wearing the helmet my head would not have struck the pavement. It's amazing what Frank can see from thousands of miles or thousands of kilometers away from every incident.

Cheers

I think annoying is that if someone report a crash or fall and claims that he benefited from wearing a helmet (not save our life) he often says because it never happened to Frank to him that:
- he/she took too much risk/misjudged the situation,
- he/she could prevented it by riding more carefully or should have taken a course or read a book,
- wearing a helmet didn't make a difference,
- wearing a helmet make us guilty of the fear mongering.

And the most annying is that after this he says: 'you can do/wear/buy' whatever you want.

Lou

+1

You forgot about the bit where you say you cracked your helmet and get
back "you only hit your head because of the added thickness of the
helmet." Like SRA says, it's not possible to make such conclusions with
no clue of the circumstances.

I'm with Jay and Andre. I wear a helmet because road rash on my head
hurts like hell and scalp wounds bleed a lot and though my ears are
larger than necessary I don't want to scrape them down in size.

I have no confidence that a bike helmet with prevent concussions. Hell
football helmets don't and they're a lot stronger than bike helmets.
Both may mitigate the damage but I wouldn't depend on it.

I've also experimented with melons and helmets. Funny thing is that without a helmet the melons all split open upon impact with the ground or pavement. The melons with the helmet did not split open. I'd far rather have a bit of protection on my head than no protection at all. However, I want it to be MY choice not some lawmakers.

Cheers


I can't remember anyone here arguing in favor of MHLs. Maybe I missed it.

Nor do I. However Frank usually starts saying that's what anyone in favour of helmet use wants.

No, it's absolutely not what I say. Where do you get your daydreams?

"A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on
giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually
refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who
engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, 20 January 2020 12:47:09 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2020 5:00 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

A number of years ago I wiped out with such force that my helmeted head bounced off the pavement twice and had a very nice dent in the temple area.. Frank's response to my post about that incident was if I had not been wearing the helmet my head would not have struck the pavement. It's amazing what Frank can see from thousands of miles or thousands of kilometers away from every incident.

No, Sir, you're falsely portraying what I said. My phrasing on these
matters is very careful.

Dig out a direct quote, instead of paraphrasing it for your straw man
purposes - or more charitably, paraphrasing it due to your imperfect memory.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Okay, you stated: "More briefly, many helmet hits would be near misses
with bare heads, and many hard helmet hits would be gentle hits of a
bare head."

and:

And you may be correct. That is, you may be the unusual person who
correctly assessed the severity of the impact your helmet sustained;
and you may also be the unusual person who can correctly tell that the
impact of your bare head would have caused serious injury.

and:

"It seems much more likely that most dented helmets are not proof a
serious head would have occurred. Instead, it's proof that if you put
something oversized and fragile on your head, you're likely to bump it
eventually. You can probably demonstrate the same thing by wearing
your helmet 24 hours a day. My bet is you'll dent it getting in and
out of your car, looking for cooking pots in your kitchen cabinets,
working in your garage, carrying your ladder, hiking in the woods,
etc"

and so on but I have better things to do than argue with you when you start ranting about people choosing to wear a helmet.

Cheers

Cheers