Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Zen Cycle Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: Helmet efficacy test Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:37:08 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <87o6xkmwqn.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <5rteuj1mr9a65enuv3jqj7sfmpgurreaqs@4ax.com> <87iknpxigi.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <87tt79kodg.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <62cmuj1f1dvq0kig96gflu90uat89d6ssj@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 23:37:09 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c90924a89aa9ea1c43110d5ef238ddf1"; logging-data="2228326"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ryjw+nktVlOeZzwTQwIfu0ywJXXGbCfU=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:OqOXWODLm9vSnd0o/eDOLvoMUe0= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 3617 On 4/8/2025 5:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: > On 4/8/2025 3:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote: >> On 4/8/2025 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>> On 4/8/2025 1:53 PM, Zen Cycle wrote: >>>> On 4/8/2025 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> If you had a logical reason for driving your bike to the start of >>>>>>> a ride while leaving your helmet on the seat instead of >>>>>>> protecting your head, you'd give us that reason. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have given that reason several times (it's cleverly hidden in >>>>>> place sight, even in this message). You just don't like the answer. >>>>> >>>>> No, you're playing games. If you had a good reason explaining why >>>>> you drive without wearing the helmet you have in the car, you'd >>>>> have given it explicitly. >>>> >>>> I did, several times. >>> Since I apparently missed it, why not state it concisely here and now? >>> >> >> I've decided the benefits far outweigh the detriments ("if there comes >> a time when you do crash, a helmet/seatbelt can be extremely >> beneficial.") > > That's a rather vague and very general statement, especially with the > very low standard of "can be." As noted previously, I answered the question, just not to your satisfaction, which is irrelevant. > > It's vague enough to apply equally well to knee pads, elbow pads, chest > protectors, steel toe shoes, hearing protection and probably much more. yup > It certainly doesn't address why you use that to justify a seatbelt but > not a motoring helmet. You don't see the detriments of trying to drive while wearing a bike helmet? > -- Add xx to reply