A few things.
Thoglette wrote:DaveQB wrote: I do believe 100% my helmet saved me from major head injury.
And I know people who 100% believe what they read in some very old books. There's nothing I can do to change your belief system, regardless of the evidence.
What evidence has the OP supplied to back his belief? None that I know of. I can no more make comment fairly on non existent evidence than you can. Maybe it's just an emotional belief. Maybe not. We don't know.
Comedian wrote: As noted - this thread is about MHL not the effectiveness of helmets.
Indeed. I wonder if that's what the OP had in mind when making the initial post. Did he request the merge, or was it Mod induced in order to control the spreading of the MHL issue? As put by Yugyug
I wonder whether it's best to concentrate helmet discussion in the one thread. I know there are megathreads on other topics, but is discussion on those topics elsewhere moved to those threads with the same readiness?
There is value in having wider discussion about helmets elsewhere on the forum.
I'd agree with that. Is it possible to have that wider discussion
without introducing MHL's? TBH, based on past experience I'd think not. I would love to see it proved otherwise. One of the older assertions anti-MHL'ers raised was the possibility of helmets causing injusy in and of themselves though things like friction caused by skidding (raised above and elswhere in threads as diverse as one regarding the mounting of cameras on helmets), possibility of strangulation by the straps (YY has raised that one), and the rotational forces on the neck and head when striking something. I have personally pointed out the rise of MIPS equipped helmets has shown an appreciation of this by manufacturers and consumers yet the anti-MHL lobby has always remained silent on this (which is a good thing).
Because it rapidly highlights the one remaining risk and it's root cause: driver attitudes.
I don't think that there is anyone on this board who would disagree with that. Is it what the OP had in mind with his post though?
I knew they had a use . . . but that's about it for a commuter like me.
I think helmets are a PITA for short shopping trips etc which I often do
For tootling to to the shops for milk or to the train station they are a damned inconvenience.
Common thoughts, and fair enough more than likely. However, I will ( and have previously) point out that my brother died from head injuries incurred in a cycle accident. No other vehicles involved, he simply missed a corner and rode into a light pole. At walking speed. No helmet (1963). He is what many here would call an "outlier". I will point this out, because
It can happen.
The juxtaposition of my friend being killed a few years back when a car went over him; in spite of wearing a helmet; should swing the tide back in favour of the anti-mhl argument. Or at least a centrist viewpoint.
I find that many instances that disagree with the pro-cycling attitude that you naturally get on a Cycling Forum are glossed over (such as the recent death of a pedestrian in Melbourne). This is understandable. It does not make for decent, rational or fair discussion. Maybe that sort of discussion could be had about helmets. I don't know.
As usual, I must point out that I am anti-MHL. On a libertarian basis. I do accept the downturn in cycling was accelerated by MHL's. I do not accept that this (a reduction in cycling) was not going to happen, or that MHL's are responsible for that downturn to the degree that some here assert. I simply do not accept the level of gov. interference involved (with regards to MHL's). On adults anyway. On children below 13 or so I'm undecided.
Also, as usual, I admire the input that Yugyug has into these threads.
We don't have mandatory slip-slop-slap laws for stepping out in the sun.
Because they're not readily enforceable. I challenge you to find a primary school that does not have mandatory use of some form of hat as protection against sun when outside. Or an outdoor employer who does not have to provide sunscreen, long sleeves and trousers. TBH, that should be easy; nonetheless it is more common than not.
Musing thoughts.
Edit. I'm not in agreement with using comparisons in general TBH. Arguments such as that above, on sunscreen. Or the mandatory use of helmets in cars etc. To my way of thinking, if an argument cannot stand alone i.e. "MHL's are wrong because they suck, and here's the evidence" then it is a losing argument. Pointing out another's failings to enhance your own place in society never does it for me. And I simply refuse to adopt the victim mentality so common to cyclists.