chipcom 

From what I recall, you are not exactly a lone rebel in that regard.

closetbiker

Yes, enforcement has fallen by the wayside. Our usage rate has dropped to pre-law levels. I've not only been riding by police lidless, several times I've been stopped, waiting at a light with a cop car next to me and nothing happens.

I'm just adding to the growing numbers of people riding bikes without helmets up here. Cycling has been getting more attention as something positive and it seems, it's seen as positive even without helmets. It'll be interesting to see if the proposed Paris-style Velib program gets going and the if people using these bikes will be using helmets or if the program gets shelved because of our helmet law.

As far as I understand, it's only in our province's capital, Victoria, where they enforce the law with an iron fist.

San Rensho 

Correct me if I'm wrong since this is from memory, but I seem to remember cites to studies that wearing a helmet actually increases your risk because either drivers respect you less or it makes the cyclist take more risks because they feel protected as well as statistics (from australia?)about no statistical benefit from wearing a helmet.

San Rensho 

That and my tin hat. Damn aliens and FBI beaming these thoughts into my head.

EnigManiac

ac⋅tiv⋅ist: [ak-tuh-vist] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause.
–adjective
2. of or pertaining to activism or activists: an activist organization for environmental concern.
3. advocating or opposing a cause or issue vigorously, esp. a political cause: Activist opponents of the President picketed the White House.

Blue Order, just to remind you what an activist is: an activist is ACTIVE in pursuing a cause, ACTIVELY campaigning, in one manner or another, in support of a specific agenda.

How many of the gazillion helmet threads here in BikeForums were serious campaigns to convince helmet-wearers to rid themselves of their helmets? There have been those, like me, who retorted that helmet wearing does not provide significant protection or who have argued that in their extensive experience they have learned that avoidance of dangerous situations was a more effective form of protection than a helmet. Those responders were just that, responders, to threads initiated by those who ACTIVELY sought to put helmets on the helmetless. I can recall no serious thread initiated by anti-helmet 'activists.' It seems the flippant reply on your part that you might have fleetingly thought was clever has made you eat your words, because there simply is no redeeming evidence that there are anti-helmet activists within the cycling community. This is the same type of statement-of-fact assertions that religious fanatics use: pots calling the kettle black in an attempt to deflect the accurate and justifiable accusations made against them by leveling the same inaccurate and irrational accusation against their accusers. If there are anti-helmet ACTIVISTS ACTIVELY campaigning to convince helmet-wearers to give up their lids, please prove us wrong. Otherwise, admit you made an off-the-cuff remark that has no truth or accuracy contained within it.

HoustonB

Question for chipcom:

Is it possible for individuals to have a common or somewhat overlapping agenda, but not be part of a group or organization and also know nothing of each other?

If the answer is yes, then why would it be necessary to provide the names of those that cannot be known.

Basil Moss

I must put my hand up here. I have (horror of horrors) cited various studies indicating an increased risk to helmet wears. Some of these were statistical data from areas with helmet enforcement, showing significantly increased injury rate per cyclist mile after enforcement, others were attempts to explain this, proposing reasons such as reduced cycling (safety in numbers), risk compensation, rotational injury and increased risk of sustaining a blow to the head in the event of a fall.

I'm sorry if flagging up data such as this is a sin, maybe this makes me the supposed "anti-helmet activist" the blue fellow was referring to. Certainly I've never taken to the streets with placards, but maybe I do follow the insiduous agenda of highlighting scientific evidence that seriously questions the efficacy of helmets. I expect the BF inquisition will be with me soon... "But NOBODY expects the BF Inquisition!!!"

San Rensho 

Hah, confess the heinous crime of anti-helmet advocacy! No? Brother Chipcom, bring me the comfy chair!

I-Like-To-Bike

Move over, Basil! I also raise my hand for questioning the ability of currently marketed bicycle helmets to have any SIGNIFICANT effect on reducing overall bicycling risk. In the overall scheme of measuring risk, the scrapes and bruises from low speed bicycle accidents that fall within the performance standard of bicycle helmets are insignificant. Bicycle helmets' low performance specification alone almost guarantees no SIGNIFICANT reduction in the severity of injuries that occur outside the minimal impact performance range capabilities of the helmet design. Helmets are designed only to mitigate the effects of low speed minimal impact events; events which have over time been recognized by all but the helmet zealots as having an extremely low probability to result in severe head injuries.

All but the helmet zealots (and those who fall for their fear mongering sales pitch) are able to determine that cycling with acceptable risk does not require an intelligent person to don protective gear that is unlikely to have any SIGNIFICANT positive effect. Wearing a helmet to protect oneself from serious injury will, by itself, be totally ineffective in reducing the probability of any accident event, and ineffective in significantly reducing the severity of the effects of almost all events that could cause serious head injuries; events/injuries that almost always occur at speeds and impacts that are beyond the helmet's performance design.

Hence the risk reduction power of a bicycle helmet is little better than wearing a Pearl Izumi baseball cap.

But hey if wearing a thin Styrofoam hat makes you feel better, go ahead. I also don't object to those who hang religous medallions or mount plastic figures on their car dash, for "just in case/can't hurt" purposes. Especially since I haven't heard of them getting into a snit or calling down Darwin on those who don't take the same precautions as they.

chipcom 

I think people have posted those studies, but not in a effort to discourage anyone from wearing a helmet.
Indeed, I think the one about the drivers giving you more distance was great comedy material...especially the part about wearing a wig and dressing like a woman seeming safer than wearing a helmet.

chipcom 

Huh? Care to rephrase than into da Inglis, gringo?

I-Like-To-Bike

If anonymous individuals are suspected of flying about in different invisible black helicoptors engaging in some sort of unspecified nefarious acts for unknown purposes, how can any self respecting wingnut be expected to name their names?