Helmet - would you or wouldn't you?

[2IT]

From the helmet thread, I can't determine the percentage of people who take cycling seriously or helmets seriously.

Would you cancel a ride if it meant riding without a helmet?

 

[classic33]

This is the opposite over here. Many organised rides insist that helmets be worn. For those, I've pulled out of one or two.

 

[Absinthe Minded]

This is the opposite over here. Many organised rides insist that helmets be worn. For those, I've pulled out of one or two.

Agreed. I'd be more likely to cancel if wearing one was compulsory.

 

[swee'pea99]

What helmet?

 

[Hill Wimp]

I won't go into the local cyclopark because they insist on you wearing one.

 

[slowmotion]

What I do or don't do with my cranium is my business, nobody else's. I wear a helmet on my bike out of choice and I would never go to a ski resort that insisted on helmets on the slopes.

 

[Tin Pot]

Twice in the last week I've met up with a cyclist for a ride, and they had forgotten their helmet. I informed them that their death was now a certainty, but the crazy fools cycled regardless.

By some double miracle, neither died.

 

[ufkacbln]

I used to organise an annual sponsored ride for a Charity, and provided about 1/3 of their annual income

Then they started excluding people who were not wearing helmets from participating even though they had sponsors

That was when I stopped organising them

 

[srw]

From the helmet thread, I can't determine the percentage of people who take cycling seriously or helmets seriously.

Would you cancel a ride if it meant riding without a helmet?

No. And my job is all about risk understanding.
@Moderators - this is a duplicate thread

 

[Lonestar]

Probably not but I'm so used to wearing one now I probably wouldn't be comfortable.

 

[Cubist]

No. And my job is all about risk understanding.
@Moderators - this is a duplicate thread

Actually, having given it a bit of thought it's a question in its own right, and for the time being can stay separate from the helmet thread. As long as participants stay on topic, and answer the question posed, ie whether they would object to compulsion in an organised ride, then it can stay. Let's just see however how long it will take for the discussion to descend into invective, insult and demands for evidence on the separate question of whether or not helmets are a good thing. A reminder to all that the forum rules are still in play, and not to let this fine question be hijacked by zealots on either side of the debate.

 

[swansonj]

As long as participants stay on topic, and answer the question posed, ie whether they would object to compulsion in an organised ride, then it can stay.

I'm confused now - I read the question as, slightly oddly, the reverse - as, I think, did the first couple of replies - would you still ride if not allowed a helmet?

 

[Cubist]

I'm confused now - I read the question as, slightly oddly, the reverse - as, I think, did the first couple of replies - would you still ride if not allowed a helmet?

Indeed. But logic dictates that the question will naturally reverse itself. Far more organised events insist on helmets being worn. The OP , as I read it, was throwing up the hypothetical opposite.
@Hill Wimp was the first to answer in this vein, yet the subsequent posts were moving towards a discussion on compulsion

 

[srw]

Indeed. But logic dictates that the question will naturally reverse itself. Far more organised events insist on helmets being worn. The OP , as I read it, was throwing up the hypothetical opposite.
@Hill Wimp was the first to answer in this vein, yet the subsequent posts were moving towards a discussion on compulsion

I don't trhink the OP was asking about formal organised rides, but about going for a ride without a helmet - because it's lost or broken or left at home.

 

[Cubist]

OK then, comprehension fail on my part. Carry on, but play nice.