If you're not wearing one

Post #344,548 by malraux 7/4/11 9:23:32 AM Reply	If you're not wearing one You're stupid. Sorry. That's how it is, required or not. My son has cracked 2 helmets at this point from crashes where he hit his head. I know another guy who was cruising along in a sub division, swerved to avoid a dog, hit his head and lost his sense of taste. You don't have to be moving quickly to get brain damage. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #344,553 by mvitale 7/4/11 10:51:21 AM Reply	Agreed. I just rolled over 5,000 miles on my mountain bike's odometer earlier this year. I've worn a helmet for every single one of those miles, and everyone else I ride with wears helmets as well. I knew a kid growing up...He was a few years older than I am, but he was in my grade, and confined to a wheelchair because he fell off his bike when he was young, wasn't wearing a helmet, and a car hit his head. His mental faculties were there (knowing him, you knew he was smart), but he didn't have full motor control, and his speech was slurred. Further, I've been either involved in, or adjacent to, at least two bicycle crashes where people broke their helmets on the ground. In both cases, the participants were able to walk away without any more serious injuries than scrapes and bruises BECAUSE their helmet saved them. In one case, it was helmet against curb. Let me tell you, without a helmet, that would have been VERY not-pretty. If you don't wear a helmet when riding a bike, you're stupid. -Mike "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Post #344,564 by Another Scott 7/4/11 5:49:09 PM 7/4/11 5:49:50 PM Reply	Related example from Saturday. http://slatest.slate...e_helmet_law.html A 55-year-old biker protesting New York StateÂs law requiring helmet use died at a hospital Saturday after striking his head in an accident. The Associated Press reports that Phillip A. Contos of Parish, N.Y., was riding with others through the town of Onondaga on Saturday afternoon without head protection, to protest the stateÂs requirement that bikers wear helmets. State Troopers told the Syracuse Post-Standard that Contos was driving a 1983 Harley Davidson when his bike fishtailed and he flipped over the handlebars, striking his head on the pavement. He was later pronounced dead at Upstate University Hospital. Police say that had he been wearing a helmet, Contos would probably have survived the accident. [...] :-/ No word on whether he left family behind... Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott July 4, 2011, 05:49:50 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #344,571 by Ashton 7/4/11 8:49:44 PM Reply	Irrefutably correct.. HS football: those 'concussions', once tossed off as no-big-deal, via all the $$-interested promoters, from the coach to the school treasurer --PBS [Frontline IIRC] investigated some numbers and the humans maimed/dead as a result. NO 'concussion', it seems: is trivial. Those 'sports helmets' seem not-to have the progressively-deforming innards of any decent motorcycle helmet (and I know not how much research has been done on the efficacy of those skinny bicycle lids.) Anything beats 0, but.. I'd want to know lots more re those open-air bike thingies before donning so minimalist a one. Veritas: I had bought a Brit 'Corker' helmet, long before cyclists in the Duhh-USA had copped to the Problem. This in the Lambretta scooter days. Was wearing it when crossing San Pablo Ave [wide] in Berkely, enrote to lab, on a Vincent. An idiot, not noting all the cars stopped next to him at that Ped-Xing, pulled out as I was 5/6-way across. Landed mostly flat on back, with head/helmet also striking pavement. The driver was ashen when.. I calmly got up [no hurts at all], walked over to his agape visage and snarled, ~~ "well, IDIOT: your insurance co. is gonna be bloody Glad I'm wearing this!" he thought, surely I be daid (though neither of us was moving fast: he saw head hit..) The Corker was a minimalist pith-helmet-like device, but Far-better than nothing. I upgraded as progress was made on the innards, natch. I was, maybe 1:50? 1:100? in Lambretta days :-/ So.. Yup: riding ANY 2,3-wheeler, especially with the reduced attention- and intelligence-spans of today? is simply Daring Cthulhu to do the Obvious to the cooperative-suicidalist. ImEO.
Post #344,572 by static 7/4/11 8:51:58 PM Reply	Lovely anecdotes. And I do not in any way wish to diminish personal experiences where they have made a difference. However. In all the years as a child I rode a bike, including to-and-from high school, I never had an accident involving head trauma. Neither did either of my siblings. Right there is an interesting statistical comparison. There was a public argument in the mass media in Australia a few months ago about their effectiveness. The issues were not cut and dried. Yes, individual lives have been saved and injuries reduced. However, the numbers tell a different story. The reduction in percentage deaths from mandating bicycle helmets was actually inconclusive. And then there were issues of actual safety standards and grubby money-making exercises around helmet sales. One of the few definitive statistics were how many people now do not cycle because of the mandatory helmet law. Myself included. Believe it or not, my point wasn't actually whether it is or isn't stupid to wear a helmet. My point was that how a good safety practice has been turned into a rules enforcement exercise. Sometimes I'd like the permission to decide my own safety levels. Wade. Static Scribblings http://staticsan.blogspot.com/
Post #344,573 by Ashton 7/4/11 10:15:13 PM Reply	Sympathize with that, of course Recall though: this IS a nanny-state, along with several worldwide similar. Except that in Murica, since you're 'insured' [our Largest bizness?] -- absolutely Nothing is ever again 'supposed to go-wrong' ... Go-Wrong cha cha. Arrayed against Free Will(ful-ness) are the Forces of those same Insur. Cos., natch wanting everyone to buy lots of their wares: and need fewer and fewer payouts, because everyone Must use seat belts [and, they Must! actually--or those n+1 airbags may well not save your sorry ass, as you tumble about.] That so many do Not voluntarily choose to use both: helmets/seat-belts, even-- I attribute to the Innumeracy, the Dumbth and ignorance of all science/physics, especially. A visceral appreciation of merely F=MA, would cause one to never forget to use such minimalist protection. Alas, here--the heaped dead bodies illustrated countless cases where either prophylactic most likely Would have cheated death/maiming/Reagan-brain syndrome. It's a philosophical argument. We don't Do philosophy here; maybe better in Oz?
Post #344,574 by mvitale 7/4/11 10:23:55 PM Reply	Yes, and? When I was a wee lad, I never wore a helmet either. That doesn't make it any less stupid, in hindsight. We know more now. It only takes one accident, and you could be a vegetable, or worse. I don't care how stupid it might make me look wearing it, it's goin' on my head. Do you wear a seat belt when you drive? -Mike "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Post #344,600 by folkert 7/6/11 4:24:13 PM Reply	Well... how about this then... I was 8. Yes ballsy. I rode my bike down the slide at the Elementary School near my home. (I went to it the first time the next year in third grade). So... I crashed and burned. Didn't crack my head open but I gouged out my left hand and nicked my cartilage of the first knuckle of my left pointer finger. Does that mean every one should have to wear protective hand gear and riding armor? There are people that care more about what they look like in the motorcycle world. Some try to get away with "Novelty" helmets because they are slim and small... but they all die sooner or later.
Post #344,601 by malraux 7/6/11 4:31:33 PM Reply	Gouged hand < closed head injury HTH! ;-) Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #344,604 by mhuber 7/6/11 5:55:04 PM Reply	And who pays Mostly, somebody with a hand injury ends up paying for the related experience themselves or (if 8) via immediate family. Closed head injuries tend to be real, real expensive, and often render the injured party incapable of paying expenses. Your hand protection is mostly your own financial risk, your decision. Your head, though, is my (as a member of your risk group via insurance or unpaid hospital bills) financial risk, so I may feel I have a stake in the decision. I haven't decided where I come down on the whole issue, but while I usually tend to very strongly favor the individual right, in this kind of thing I also see another side as being not automatically wrong. --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #344,606 by malraux 7/6/11 7:02:07 PM Reply	On the gripping hand... I'm much less concerned about informed adults. If someone wants to ride their motorcycle in a Kraut helmet because it looks cool, I don't care. It's their decision. Not that I'm very impressed with people who won't wear a helmet because it ruins their hair-do. And I agree with you on the financial burden. Parents who don't put helmets on their kids, however, are another matter. I consider it along the same lines as smoking in a car with kids. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #344,607 by drook 7/6/11 7:18:34 PM Reply	Then you should favor helmetless riding Someone crunched the numbers back in the 80s. People without helmets are more likely to die. People with helmets are more likely to have debilitating -- but non-fatal -- brain injuries. So if you're looking just at the finances of it, it's cheaper for you if other people ride without helmets. -- Drew
Post #344,640 by folkert 7/8/11 8:29:23 AM Reply	Is that why... Ohio doesn't have a helmet law? Nor Indiana.
Post #344,646 by drook 7/8/11 9:59:15 AM 7/8/11 9:59:26 AM Reply	Dunno about that All I'm saying is you can't use the economic impact argument to support your desire to tell someone else that they should wear a helmet. (Not "you" you of course, just in general.) -- Drew Edited by drook July 8, 2011, 09:59:26 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #344,669 by static 7/8/11 10:56:11 PM Reply	+5, Illuminating. So many things in this modern western secular society is done for the "economic impact", even if the original impulse was actually quite noble. :-( (Don't get me started on speed cameras...) Wade. Static Scribblings http://staticsan.blogspot.com/
Post #344,651 by hnick 7/8/11 11:16:28 AM Reply	We (ohio) used to have a helmet law. It was repealed on the basis that it was not up to the government to prevent people splitting their heads. The insurance companies pissed and moaned and some quack from the Cleveland Clinic wrote numerous screeds to the paper that it was so heartbreaking fixing the people who were splattered without helmets. I wrote, in response, that he probably picked the wrong profession and he should bitch about his guidance councilor instead. The paper declined to publish it... I am the first to admit that Ohio is an incredibly stupid state, but the helmet laws have nothing to do with it.
Post #344,641 by folkert 7/8/11 8:31:20 AM Reply	Sure it is... But hands are exceptionally important to a persons ability to become a hardworking lackey in the order of Society. SURELY you don't want to deprive johnny his ability to make money for the rich folk?!

Welcome to IWETHEY!