Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 4/8/2025 6:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 4/8/2025 5:37 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

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?

 Hmm. I guess you'd look funny, but that applied to bicycling too, until the marketing started working. I suppose if your car gave you less than 1" of headroom it would be a problem.
 

You've obviously never actually got into a car with your helmet on.