Do you shame people who ride the wrong way against traffic? Or is that okay as long as they are wearing their helmet? Wearing a helmet is prudent. Again, I wear mine every time I ride. But it is the LEAST important safety measure that you can take behind (in order) 1. Bike Control, 2. Rule Compliance, 3. Lane Position, and 4. Hazard Avoidance. Each of these elements (1-4) have many details and procedures attached to them, and each of these details is much more important than wearing a helmet. It is MUCH safer to ride properly without a helmet than it is to ride with a helmet and violate 1-4 above. You like data? YES, the data says that 1-4 above are much more important to safety than wearing a helmet. MUCH more important.
So who should be shamed? Someone who rides properly without a helmet? Or someone who wears a helmet and rides improperly? I would take off my helmet, have three beers, and ride properly before I would wear a helmet and ride against traffic. I would be much safer riding helmet-less but properly after 3 beers than I would be riding against traffic sober wearing a full face motorcycle helmet. Yet wearing a helmet seems to be the only measure of bicycle safety and responsibility for the helmet zealots. We need to take a broader view. Do you want to determine if an accident was the fault of a bicyclist so that you can properly shame him? If so, "Was he wearing a helmet?" should be the LAST question you ask, not the first. Doug On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 6:11:10 PM UTC-8, Will wrote: > > If data indicates that helmets mitigate head damage and if you choose to > ignore that data... whose lives have you compromised? > > Yours? For sure. > > Your wife's, your children... well... maybe the shame label is > appropriate. I'll accept that opinion. > > On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 5:37:13 PM UTC-6, Doug Williams wrote: >> >> Yes, and you also disrespect your family when you fail to wear a helmet >> in your car or while walking on the street, both of which are more >> dangerous than bicycling. This is just the kind of "helmet shaming" that I >> am talking about. >> >> On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-8, Will wrote: >>> >>> Kelly, >>> >>> I think there's another perspective that has not been mentioned here... >>> >>> When I was sitting outside the ER waiting for the Cat-Scans on my wife, >>> I realized that her injuries were not simply hers. Her injuries belonged to >>> our children, our parents, our neighbors... >>> >>> The decision to wear, or not wear, a helmet isn't singular. We have >>> networks of family and friends who suffer when we are injured. The assumed >>> risk is not singular. Families and friends pick up the pieces. Jan Heine >>> was very fortunate to have a good friend drop everything to shepherd him >>> home from Taiwan. >>> >>> The decision to mitigate risk should recognize those who will bear the >>> burden of loss. It's not about laws. It's about common sense. It's about >>> respect for your loved ones. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
