Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In Bikes
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
PO Box 86208, Portland, OR 97286
PO Box 86208, Portland, OR 97286
I deal with injured people for a living, so I'm very well acquainted with exactly how little force it can take to completely fuck your life up in an instant, for years and even permanently. It's a shame that other people don't truly get this either until it happens to them, or someone very close to them.
As risk of a severe outcome goes up, so should the steps we all take to be careful, for our own sakes and the sakes of others. From a risk standpoint alone, wearing a helmet while cycling all, or nearly all, of the time should be a no-brainer.
ALSO, NOW THAT SMIRK IS BACK... DOES THAT MEAN WE CAN FINALLY FIRE ALEX?
Normal everyday cycling, even in an urban environment, is just not that risky. Telling people that they should be wearing a helmet to perform this relatively safe activity implies that cycling is a lot more risky than it actually is, and is one of the things that actively discourages more people from cycling.
On the other hand, motorcycles are another story, because of the greater speeds involved, and wearing a helmet for higher risk activities on a bicycle, such as road racing, zoobombing or downhill MTB riding is probably a smart thing to do. Higher risk = greater personal protective gear.
But humans are notoriously bad at making the distinction between perceived and actual risks, which is why so many people still smoke cigarettes despite all the evidence that it is harmful, and why people are more afraid of flying than driving, even though your chances of dying or being seriously injured in an automobile crash are way higher than being in a plane crash.
Quit posting bullshit like this, all you're doing is stirring the car vs bike debate even if that wasn't your intention. Or at least post something about drivers needing to wear helmets as well. The more you continue to spread disinformation, the more you continue to spread ignorance.
Next time you preface your statement with "this is a dumb conversation", try to make sure it veers away from dumb conversation. Thanks.
But I really don't think 'crotchety old men' would be the ones responsible for yelling at folks to wear a helmet, as they didn't grow up wearing them either.
Seems to me more like something a young militant biker would do.
Expect the unexpected!
http://transportationnation.org/2012/05/31…
2. It's not just cars that can cause crashes, so can the cyclist him/herself, and so can other cyclists.
3. The type of head injury you are most likely to get while riding in a car is a concussion caused by the whiplash-motion of your brain against the front of your skull, or front-then-rear in what is called a coup-countrecoup concussion. This happens all the time without the driver's head striking anything, or possibly only striking the headrest. Meanwhile, the type of head injury you get in a bike crash is almost certainly going to be from your head hitting something, i.e. the ground or a car.
THUS: a helmet in a car won't protect you from the most common head injuries suffered in a car crash, because the damaging motion occurs completely within your own skull, while a helmet may very well protect you from the most common head injuries suffered by cyclists.
QED, BUTTFUCKERS.
Why are people so strongly opposed to wearing seat belts?
Kudos, CC. I just L'dOL until I coughed up something green.
Also, you're ten million percent correct. OTOH, if other cyclists care so little for what's inside their head that they want to risk it, that's their thing (and yours, when you apparently have to tell their loved ones that they'll be eating through a tube for the rest of their vegetable life).
As for me, my head is where I keep all my favorite stuff, so yeah I'm going to wear a helmet when I'm racing down busy urban streets at 15 mph.
I wear. It's stupid not to. You certainly won't ever change your mind until you hit your own head or have someone you know and love fall, bang their their head and never be the same person again. It's ok, I aint mad. Until then you'll be the most kempt and stylish person en route to the party/bar/restaurant. Congratulations!
WOLFSON'S POINT, AND MINE, IS THAT IT SHOULD NEVER BE AN ISSUE OF THE HELMET BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH. WE SHOULD FOCUS OUR EFFORTS ON MAKING OUR STREETS SAFER FOR ALL USERS, PARTICULARLY THE MOST VULNERABLE.
"What about pedestrians?!" Ummm, not a valid comparison. Last time I checked, most pedestrians are not moving at 10+mph with their feet off the ground and engaged in a machine in the middle of the street. These conditions increase your risk of landing violently on your head. It's not an opinon, it's fucking physics.
I'm always surprised more people don't mention the social cost aspect. If you split your head open on a bike without your helmet, you're almost certainly going to go the ER and maybe need God knows what other kinds of hideously expensive medical care for years to come. You may become effectively disabled and not be able to work, or, you know, dead! MASSIVE costs to you personally, but also society at large. And all because you didn't want to put on a $30 piece of Styrofoam (also get real on the "hemets make some accidents worse!" business -- the key word being SOME and the more important implied complement to that statement being "helmets make MOST accidents better). Maybe we should mandate bikers to have biking insurance (like car insurance) to cover some of those costs, but I'm sure that would be met with howls of protest about "personal freedom."
The right to smash your head on the ground ends where my share of tax dollars wasted on your preventable injuries begins.