Mark Shroyer said:On 2007-07-05, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:How about some reality? You're at least as likely to die in a car so
why don't you wear a helmet in a car? I'm asking you seriously? Why
don't you?
Tens of thousands of people are dying in cars every year in the US
and a helmet may help. Do you advocate they wear one? And if not,
why not?
I'll go ahead and state the obvious: A modern car offers
excellent built-in protection against moderate-speed impacts,
including seat belts, multiple airbags, active head restraints
(in Hondas anyway), and most importantly a solid frame around
your entire body with crumple zones in the front and rear. A
helmet doesn't add a whole lot to that. (It may be worth
noting, however, that in motor sports such as rally racing and
NASCAR, where crashes are significantly more likely, helmets
*are* worn.)
Bicycles and motorcycles cannot offer the same level of head
protection as a car, so it's generally a good idea to wear a
helmet on these if you feel there's a risk of you hitting the
pavement.
Quoted message said:I'm not saying you should -- I'm just asking. Why or why not? And
if not, what makes cycling so special that it warrants extra
protection?
And don't pretend that the question of whether or not you hit
the pavement is entirely a matter of your skill as a cyclist.
On this newsgroup there are constantly stories of cyclists being
hit by negligent drivers; in those threads, nobody makes foolish
arguments that the cyclist was at fault for not being careful
enough.
An anecdote involving my ex-roommate provides a good example.
Coming home from campus last semester, he was right-hooked by a
driver who cut across the bike lane. She came from behind, did
not use a turn signal, and turned suddenly, running over his
rear wheel; there was no reasonable way for him to anticipate or
avoid this collision.
When he went down, his head hit the concrete curb. Fortunately
he didn't hit hard, but the side of his head was badly scraped
and he suffered a minor concussion. He passed in and out of
consciousness a few times that night.
Now you helmet-haters can argue all you want that a helmet
wouldn't necessarily have completely prevented his concussion,
or that the scrapes he suffered and had to take care of for
weeks aren't worth consideration. But wearing a helmet
certainly wouldn't have hurt, and he'll surely be wearing a
helmet as soon as he gets his bike replaced.
Quoted message said:These are simple questions.
One other argument I'd like to attack, which I keep seeing pop
up in this and similar threads, is that helmets aren't rated for
30 MPH collision, ergo if you're riding at 30 MPH then wearing a
helmet won't do you any good. Bull$hit. If you're clipped and
fall off your bike, the speed at which you hit the ground is
mostly a function of the acceleration of gravity from your
position on top of your bike down to the pavement, regardless of
your horizontal velocity.
I don't understand the vehemence of the anti-helmet fanatics in
this thread. Nobody (at least nobody here) is telling you that
you should wear a helmet if you don't want to; likewise, if the
rest of us prefer having some degree of protection, however
minimal, between our heads and the road, then you really
shouldn't take it personally.
You're completely correct...and obviously a newbie to these flame wars. The
AHZs (anti-helmet zealots) refuse to listen to reason. You'll see :-D
