View Poll Results: What Are Your Helmet Wearing Habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
52
10.40%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
24
4.80%
I've always worn a helmet
208
41.60%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
126
25.20%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
90
18.00%
Voters: 500. You may not vote on this poll
The Helmet Thread 2
11-23-14, 09:14 AM
#276
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
You snapped at a guy who was agreeing with you, and who was providing an example to support what you were saying. Don't take it personally but I see a parallel there with some of the outlandish things that you believe of the other people with whom you take issue. That they enjoy seeing people die for example.
350htrr makes a mistake by generalizing some faulty thought process to the entire "anti-helmet crowd". Then you mistakenly attribute that same faulty thought process to 350htrr, thinking him a member of the "anti-helmet crowd" which you deride. Perhaps your opinions of your adversaries originate in this sort of misreading? It's something to think about before berating someone or some group.
11-24-14, 02:40 PM
#277
Senior Member
Typical pro-helmeteer hateful hyperbole...
11-25-14, 09:53 PM
#278
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
Meanwhile, I fell off my monstercross bike (again) today. I did not hit my helmet. I did not die.
Funny how some of us manage to ride (and even crash, occasionally) without needing anything to save our lives.
Funny how some of us manage to ride (and even crash, occasionally) without needing anything to save our lives.
11-26-14, 02:40 PM
#279
Tractorlegs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 3,185
Bikes: Schwinn Meridian Single-Speed Tricycle
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked 60 Times
in
42 Posts
Even though it's the Hell-Met thread, forum rules still apply, including rules against personal comments and insults. Thanks . . . .
__________________
********************************
Trikeman
Trikeman
11-26-14, 11:00 PM
#280
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,143
Bikes: Fully customized 11-spd MTB built on 2014 Santa Cruz 5010 frame; Brompton S2E-X 2014; Brompton M3E 2014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I've seen enough posts where somehow wearing a helmet is only about death-prevention and if it can't do that effectively, it must be useless. Even if said in a facetious manner, it sounds silly.
If I don't wear a safety belt, crash my car and did not die, does that make it pointless and ineffectual? If I don't wear a life vest on a boat, it sinks and I survive, does that make it pointless and ineffectual?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any safety measure which is purely designed to eliminate no-nonsense, straight-up loss of life. AFAIK most are designed to prevent or minimize injury, and by extension, death.
11-27-14, 05:18 AM
#281
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 40
Bikes: 2013 Jamis Alegro Elite, 2015 Trek Domane 4.5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Maybe make it a choice (this may have already been proposed)....if you are in a bicycle accident and you're not wearing a helmet, your insurance can refuse to pay for your medical, and if the accident is someone else's fault, their insurance will have no liability. You have the choice to ride with or without a helmet, and the insurance companies have a choice to cover or not.
11-27-14, 08:11 AM
#282
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
warrior
I have been preaching this in the helmet thread for ages. If a cyclist is hurt or killed, the first thing that is asked or reported is-------------was the cyclist wearing a helmet? Even if the cyclist that was killed was hit by a car doing 75 the question is still asked.
Therefor my point has alway been even if you dont buy into the safety aspect of helmets, protect yourself and your family from insurance companies that will claim the cyclist was at least partly at fault for not wearing a helmet. The sad fact remains that if that car doing 75 hits and kills you, your family might not get a penney or very little if you were not wearing a helmet. Think about it!!!!!!
I have been preaching this in the helmet thread for ages. If a cyclist is hurt or killed, the first thing that is asked or reported is-------------was the cyclist wearing a helmet? Even if the cyclist that was killed was hit by a car doing 75 the question is still asked.
Therefor my point has alway been even if you dont buy into the safety aspect of helmets, protect yourself and your family from insurance companies that will claim the cyclist was at least partly at fault for not wearing a helmet. The sad fact remains that if that car doing 75 hits and kills you, your family might not get a penney or very little if you were not wearing a helmet. Think about it!!!!!!
11-27-14, 08:19 AM
#283
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,959
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,528 Times
in
1,041 Posts
You have reported this alleged "sad fact" before and yet are unable or unwilling to reference any evidence to support the truth of this "fact". Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it a fact, only remains sad commentary.
11-27-14, 02:07 PM
#284
Senior Member
Whenever questioned, he just ignores and moves on.
11-27-14, 02:54 PM
#285
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1662 Post(s)
Liked 226 Times
in
131 Posts
Maybe make it a choice (this may have already been proposed)....if you are in a bicycle accident and you're not wearing a helmet, your insurance can refuse to pay for your medical, and if the accident is someone else's fault, their insurance will have no liability. You have the choice to ride with or without a helmet, and the insurance companies have a choice to cover or not.
I think your kind might actually be worse than the MHL-crowd.
11-27-14, 03:23 PM
#286
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
...If you were not wearing a helmet in a state, county, or city in which it was required for your age group, your claim negotiations will be negatively impacted. The claims adjuster will say your violation of the helmet law contributed to your injuries.
The adjuster will likely try to use your violation of the law as leverage, by claiming not wearing a helmet was a comparative factor in your injuries. Even in areas without a helmet law, the adjuster may still attempt to reduce the settlement offer.
Insurance claims adjusters have access to bicycle helmet statistics, previous court decisions involving car-bike collisions, and other evidence proving that wearing a helmet reduces injuries. Adjusters use this information to convince claimants their own negligence renders them at least partially liable for their injuries...
Bicycle Helmet Laws and Liability in Injury Accidents
The adjuster will likely try to use your violation of the law as leverage, by claiming not wearing a helmet was a comparative factor in your injuries. Even in areas without a helmet law, the adjuster may still attempt to reduce the settlement offer.
Insurance claims adjusters have access to bicycle helmet statistics, previous court decisions involving car-bike collisions, and other evidence proving that wearing a helmet reduces injuries. Adjusters use this information to convince claimants their own negligence renders them at least partially liable for their injuries...
Bicycle Helmet Laws and Liability in Injury Accidents
John
Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 11-27-14 at 03:59 PM.
11-27-14, 03:28 PM
#287
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 2,159
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 912 Post(s)
Liked 515 Times
in
344 Posts
So you want to make it a choice, but everyone who doesn't share your believes about bicycle helmets should be financially ruined by medical bills, regardless of whether the accident was their fault or whether a helmet would have helped in the first place. Never mind the rather significant possibility that you **** yourself over in the process, since the step from "cycling without a helmet is an unacceptable risk" to "cycling is an unacceptable risk" is rather small.
I think your kind might actually be worse than the MHL-crowd.
I think your kind might actually be worse than the MHL-crowd.
11-27-14, 08:31 PM
#288
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,959
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,528 Times
in
1,041 Posts
Your reference and Rydabent's point are similar, nothing but speculation about what someone (insurance adjuster or driver's attorney) might try as a gambit for their client to avoid responsibility or liability for their actions. Both rydabent and your source avoid citing any instances where playing the helmet gambit actually was effective in a civil suit.
11-28-14, 04:14 AM
#289
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 40
Bikes: 2013 Jamis Alegro Elite, 2015 Trek Domane 4.5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So you want to make it a choice, but everyone who doesn't share your believes about bicycle helmets should be financially ruined by medical bills, regardless of whether the accident was their fault or whether a helmet would have helped in the first place. Never mind the rather significant possibility that you **** yourself over in the process, since the step from "cycling without a helmet is an unacceptable risk" to "cycling is an unacceptable risk" is rather small.
I think your kind might actually be worse than the MHL-crowd.
I think your kind might actually be worse than the MHL-crowd.
11-28-14, 09:52 AM
#290
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
i like
You need to read more news reports on car-bike accidents. Almost every one that I have read mentions if the cyclist was wearing a helmet. And----------------you know good and well that any insurance company will grasp at anything to get out of paying or lowering the pay out.
BTW there have been 3 bad accidents here in Lincoln this year with two deaths, and each one discussed wether the cyclist was wearing a helmet.
You need to read more news reports on car-bike accidents. Almost every one that I have read mentions if the cyclist was wearing a helmet. And----------------you know good and well that any insurance company will grasp at anything to get out of paying or lowering the pay out.
BTW there have been 3 bad accidents here in Lincoln this year with two deaths, and each one discussed wether the cyclist was wearing a helmet.
11-28-14, 12:31 PM
#291
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
I think the idea is to minimize damage of without exception the most important part of our entire body.
I've seen enough posts where somehow wearing a helmet is only about death-prevention and if it can't do that effectively, it must be useless. Even if said in a facetious manner, it sounds silly.
If I don't wear a safety belt, crash my car and did not die, does that make it pointless and ineffectual? If I don't wear a life vest on a boat, it sinks and I survive, does that make it pointless and ineffectual?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any safety measure which is purely designed to eliminate no-nonsense, straight-up loss of life. AFAIK most are designed to prevent or minimize injury, and by extension, death.
I've seen enough posts where somehow wearing a helmet is only about death-prevention and if it can't do that effectively, it must be useless. Even if said in a facetious manner, it sounds silly.
If I don't wear a safety belt, crash my car and did not die, does that make it pointless and ineffectual? If I don't wear a life vest on a boat, it sinks and I survive, does that make it pointless and ineffectual?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any safety measure which is purely designed to eliminate no-nonsense, straight-up loss of life. AFAIK most are designed to prevent or minimize injury, and by extension, death.
Regardless, let's look at the boat sinking deal a bit more closely. If you are alone in a small vessel sailing around the world, most people would agree a life vest is a great idea. If you are on a gigantic cruise ship, life vests are available, but of course no one expects to wear it 24/7 while aboard. And if you are sailing your rubber raft around your swimming pool, most people would actually think you a bit odd if you wore a vest.
So most people are able to understand that even within the same general group of activities, there are different levels of risk. Somehow, though, a certain kind of cyclist either can't or won't see that the same situation exists with bicycling.
11-28-14, 12:38 PM
#292
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
Maybe make it a choice (this may have already been proposed)....if you are in a bicycle accident and you're not wearing a helmet, your insurance can refuse to pay for your medical, and if the accident is someone else's fault, their insurance will have no liability. You have the choice to ride with or without a helmet, and the insurance companies have a choice to cover or not.
Beyond that, though, your argument has been made before, and has been shot down before, easily. Using your reasoning, insurers can refuse to pay for injuries or illnesses related to any less-than-perfect decisions we make. Heart attack? "Well, we inventoried has refrigerator and discovered red meats and butter." Diabetes? "Well, we found soda in the house." Electrocution? "Some of the outlets in his home were not GFI."
So tell you what. You feel free to let your insurer run your life for you, and the rest of us will keep living our own lives.
11-28-14, 12:40 PM
#293
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
Just so you know, this kind of smug, self-satisfied proclamation from helmet wearers is what keeps the argument heated.
Last edited by Six jours; 11-28-14 at 05:30 PM.
11-28-14, 01:47 PM
#294
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
six
Actually the reason for the heated argument is the fact that for so reason anti helmet people seem offended by anyone that wears a helmet. Why do they care if anyone wants to wear a helmet********************?
Actually the reason for the heated argument is the fact that for so reason anti helmet people seem offended by anyone that wears a helmet. Why do they care if anyone wants to wear a helmet********************?
Likes For rydabent:
11-29-14, 04:20 AM
#296
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 40
Bikes: 2013 Jamis Alegro Elite, 2015 Trek Domane 4.5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Some ppl simply have too much time on their hands, and dream up whatever counter argument they deem appropriate to satisfy their pleasures. Go ahead and discount this, but without a doubt, at the end of the day, we will all be subject to whatever it is the imperial government decides is best...for both you and me. If it is to wear helmets...then that is what the law will demand. If it is to use insurance to passively force helmets on our heads, then so be that too (And by the way...last I saw some states were using insurance and illegal hiring practices to "weed" out smokers...and to some effect, fat ppl). Today it is kind of mute to argue this point, seeing there are helmet laws for motorcycles, helmet laws for kids, and helmet rules for professional riders. Handwriting is on the wall, best get used to wearing a helmet.
11-29-14, 07:11 AM
#297
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: SW Fl.
Posts: 5,612
Bikes: Day6 Semi Recumbent "FIREBALL", 1981 Custom Touring Paramount, 1983 Road Paramount, 2013 Giant Propel Advanced SL3, 2018 Specialized Red Roubaix Expert mech., 2002 Magna 7sp hybrid, 1976 Bassett Racing 45sp Cruiser
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1065 Post(s)
Liked 780 Times
in
502 Posts
To helmet or not to helmet, that is the question:
Whether 'tis wiser to crash and burn with noggin directly impacting terra firma, or what-ever,
Or to have some barrier between, THAT is the question....
Preach at the top of your lungs however you feel, but understand we have the right to disagree without being berated.
In a 60+ mph rear end crash, my wife suffered a subdural hematoma on the front of her brain. There was NO external IMPACT involved, just brain and skull. The interesting fact was that there was just as much concern with a possible HEART INJURY due to the compression of the seat belt across her chest.
I've bounced off the ground with helmet on a number of times after going down while riding. I've also face planted after tripping while in running races with nothing between face and pavement. As far as I know, I suffered no brain injuries so far, but had I not been wearing a helmet during my bicycle crashes I am not sure I would not have had a concussion.
Whether 'tis wiser to crash and burn with noggin directly impacting terra firma, or what-ever,
Or to have some barrier between, THAT is the question....
Preach at the top of your lungs however you feel, but understand we have the right to disagree without being berated.
In a 60+ mph rear end crash, my wife suffered a subdural hematoma on the front of her brain. There was NO external IMPACT involved, just brain and skull. The interesting fact was that there was just as much concern with a possible HEART INJURY due to the compression of the seat belt across her chest.
I've bounced off the ground with helmet on a number of times after going down while riding. I've also face planted after tripping while in running races with nothing between face and pavement. As far as I know, I suffered no brain injuries so far, but had I not been wearing a helmet during my bicycle crashes I am not sure I would not have had a concussion.
11-29-14, 04:15 PM
#298
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't doubt that lawyers or insurance adjusters might grasp at any straw when all else fails.
Your reference and Rydabent's point are similar, nothing but speculation about what someone (insurance adjuster or driver's attorney) might try as a gambit for their client to avoid responsibility or liability for their actions. Both rydabent and your source avoid citing any instances where playing the helmet gambit actually was effective in a civil suit.
Your reference and Rydabent's point are similar, nothing but speculation about what someone (insurance adjuster or driver's attorney) might try as a gambit for their client to avoid responsibility or liability for their actions. Both rydabent and your source avoid citing any instances where playing the helmet gambit actually was effective in a civil suit.
It appears that you are correct. Here's an interesting quote from Oregon Attorney Bob Mionske:
“Is there anything else I need to know?”
There sure is. Oregon’s bicycle helmet laws contain a very important protection for cyclists of any age. In Oregon, a violation of the mandatory helmet law, or evidence of the failure of an adult cyclist to wear a helmet, CANNOT be used in court to reduce the damages or to defend against a claim from a cyclist who is injured or killed by a driver who is either wholly or partially at fault. (See ORS 814.489).
This means that if a negligent or reckless driver injures or kills a cyclist who was not wearing a helmet, the driver’s insurance company cannot argue that the cyclist was at fault for not wearing a helmet, or that the damages owed to the cyclist should be reduced because the cyclist was not wearing a helmet. As an Oregon bicycle accident lawyer, I have seen countless attempts by insurance companies to shift the blame from a negligent or reckless driver to the victim. But in Oregon, the bicycle helmet law protects the rights of cyclists, and holds negligent and reckless drivers accountable for their own negligent and reckless behavior.
Of course, some people believe that cyclists should be held accountable for their own injuries if they are not wearing a helmet and are hit by a driver, even though the crash is the fault of the driver. However, this is not a rational belief. Would we say the same thing about a pedestrian who is struck down in the crosswalk? Of course not. We would immediately recognize that the pedestrian is not to blame for failing to wear protective gear in case a dangerous driver breaks the law and injures them. When somebody is careless or reckless, we don’t allow them to get away with it by saying their victims should have been more careful if they didn’t want to get injured. And in Oregon, that principle is enshrined in the state’s bicycle helmet law.
Oregon Bicycle Helmet Laws | Bike Law
There sure is. Oregon’s bicycle helmet laws contain a very important protection for cyclists of any age. In Oregon, a violation of the mandatory helmet law, or evidence of the failure of an adult cyclist to wear a helmet, CANNOT be used in court to reduce the damages or to defend against a claim from a cyclist who is injured or killed by a driver who is either wholly or partially at fault. (See ORS 814.489).
This means that if a negligent or reckless driver injures or kills a cyclist who was not wearing a helmet, the driver’s insurance company cannot argue that the cyclist was at fault for not wearing a helmet, or that the damages owed to the cyclist should be reduced because the cyclist was not wearing a helmet. As an Oregon bicycle accident lawyer, I have seen countless attempts by insurance companies to shift the blame from a negligent or reckless driver to the victim. But in Oregon, the bicycle helmet law protects the rights of cyclists, and holds negligent and reckless drivers accountable for their own negligent and reckless behavior.
Of course, some people believe that cyclists should be held accountable for their own injuries if they are not wearing a helmet and are hit by a driver, even though the crash is the fault of the driver. However, this is not a rational belief. Would we say the same thing about a pedestrian who is struck down in the crosswalk? Of course not. We would immediately recognize that the pedestrian is not to blame for failing to wear protective gear in case a dangerous driver breaks the law and injures them. When somebody is careless or reckless, we don’t allow them to get away with it by saying their victims should have been more careful if they didn’t want to get injured. And in Oregon, that principle is enshrined in the state’s bicycle helmet law.
Oregon Bicycle Helmet Laws | Bike Law
Court?s Remark About Helmets May Harm Illinois Bicycle Crash Victims | Bike Law
John
11-29-14, 05:13 PM
#299
Senior Member
Um, no. Proposed useless mandatory helmet laws are fought and killed frequently. While motorcycle helmet mandates were part and parcel with mandatory seatbelt laws in many states, they overlooked mandatory bicycle helmet usage at the time. Same thing with states who instituted mandatory helmet use by kids--somehow, they forgot the same for adults.
Someday, the Imperial Gov't will surely outlaw bicycles as best for you and me. Handwriting is on the wall, you should probably stop riding now.
Someday, the Imperial Gov't will surely outlaw bicycles as best for you and me. Handwriting is on the wall, you should probably stop riding now.
11-29-14, 06:33 PM
#300
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
I-Like-To-Bike,
It appears that you are correct. Here's an interesting quote from Oregon Attorney Bob Mionske:
However, there is a comment in Federal Court which is causing ripples in the lawyer realm:
Court?s Remark About Helmets May Harm Illinois Bicycle Crash Victims | Bike Law
John
It appears that you are correct. Here's an interesting quote from Oregon Attorney Bob Mionske:
However, there is a comment in Federal Court which is causing ripples in the lawyer realm:
Court?s Remark About Helmets May Harm Illinois Bicycle Crash Victims | Bike Law
John
It appears that warrior4130 is wrong about the law in the majority of states, and his certainty misguided.
