agr

Isn't it great to be able to make your own decisions like that?

iaink

That was the mistake I made.... then I decided to check out a side trail and lost three teeth, my oakleys and ten minutes of my memory. D'Oh.

That was literally the last time I rode without one.

agr

Interesting perspective. Much of the pro-helmet fervour rests on a fatalistic assumption that one can't influence the probability of a crash happening in the first place. Or worse, that people can't be trusted to look after their own probabilities and make decisions accordingly regarding the degree of protection they choose to employ.

If not wearing a helmet was your only mistake, then the inference is that the tumble was inevitable - but was it really inevitable?

bats

More likely to break his neck.

I like your thinking. We should refuse repair surgery to all those exercise nuts who insist on ruining their joints with exercise.

iaink

The tumble was inevitable, given my level of stupidity on the day. The lost teeth were inevitable helmet or not. The loss of conciousness may have been mitigated by a helmet, and I would probably have been with it enough to find my sunglasses.

Had it been a legal requirement, on a hot summer day on the rail trail I would probably have ignored the law anyway, but now, given the unpleasant end result of that quiet ride down the rail trail my perspective on the whole helmet thing is understandably skewed in favour. I still have stringy "floaters" in my field of vision occasionally, 10 years after the accident as a reminder.

I understand and acknowledge the arguments against, and they are not without merit, but on the whole I think the pros of helmets outweigh the cons, especially now they are so much lighter and better ventilated than "helmet 1.0". However, people need to understand the limitations of helmets too.

iaink

Besides, I suspect its probably some form of tresonable offence to argue with Wiggo at the moment

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...clists-helmets

Hawk13

I guess that's one of the main points "regardless of the law, people will do whatever they want", which I'm OK with as long as they are responsible for those actions and don't try a sue someone (like the municipality or government) afterwards

I have several of the top end helmets, nice and light and ventilated but still don't wear one on the "rail grade" rides. Personal choice I guess. It's nice to ride your bike on a nice sunny day without a helmet.

+1


Now I'm off to pack for my annual mountain bike trek to the Kootenays - helmets, gloves, arm & shin guards - check.

Hope everyone else has a great, safe long weekend (maybe getting a bike ride or two in as well).

Greenhill

To be honest, I'd just assumed wearing a helmet while cycling would reduce the chance of my head getting hurt or suffering a fatal head injury from an accident.

However, after having a quick scan through this report I now realise that my assumption was just that; an assumption.

"Summary of injury data
Despite the lack of obvious change in %HI in response to increased helmet wearing from legislation (Figs 1-5), proponents of helmet laws have claimed the laws were effective. They usually fail to mention important aspects of the data, such as the similar trends in %HI for all road users (Fig 3), that non-head injuries fell by almost as much as head injuries (Fig 1), or the large reductions in the amount of cycling (see next section)."

This report: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811624.pdf tells me that cycling in the evening with alcohol in my blood is when I'm most likely to have a fatal accident (helmet or no helmet).