Detention Lines: I will wear a helmet.

[Origamist]

That's a bit uncalled for, Origamist.

Maybe, but you should remember that when someone disagrees with you or asks you for further clarification, accusing them of having a hidden agenda or asking them for their cycling CV is uncalled for and diversionary and will only serve to make the debate even more adversarial.

 

[BentMikey]

Maybe, but you should remember that when someone disagrees with you or asks you for further clarification, accusing them of having a hidden agenda or asking them for their cycling CV is uncalled for and diversionary and will only serve to make the debate even more adversarial.

And yet that's what you do when you start trolling on a particular topic. I don't believe it's what I've done here, or previously.

 

[dondare]

Handsome Joe, you'd better make it a full-face helmet. Can't have you signing in one day as "Still alive but no longer handsome Joe".

 

[BentMikey]

Another sidestep - why not answer the question? Do you not think it is important?

(and frankly, on this showing, the answer to your question is an emphatic 'yes' - althought I'd really rather it wasn't.)

You haven't asked a question in your last three posts, including the above. I haven't side-stepped anything, so your claim is simply dishonest debating. Perhaps you could specify exactly what question you want answered?

As for evidence on your point 3, there certainly is. The government themselves have said that helmet wearing is a vote for compulsion. More helmet wearers equals more fear of the danger of cycling from the general public. That clearly equals less cyclists, as has been proved by the effects of helmet laws. It diverts efforts from measures that actually improve safety on to helmets, which have an effect between nothing and negative for cyclist safety.

 

[magnatom]

Guys, we need to ease back a little. BM did say quite clearly that it was his opinion that the culture of helmet wearing had a negative effect. I agree that there is little if any evidence to support it, but likewise there is little evidence to refute it. Therefore, I have no problem with BM sharing his opinion. Doesn't mean it is right, but I don't think he needs to back up opinions.

Of course if BM's opinion was true, it would certainly open up a can of worms. BM, do you really think the fact that I wear a helmet by choice might put people off? I don't. I think what puts people off are their perception of the dangers on the roads (i.e. bad driving), lack of facilities etc that make a difference, not helmets. My opinion of course .

 

[Origamist]

And yet that's what you do when you start trolling on a particular topic. I don't believe it's what I've done here, or previously.

I've never (to my knowledge) accused anyone of having a hidden agenda or asked for their cycling credentials when debating with them. Find me an example, or retract.

 

[BentMikey]

Is it co-incidence that the US and the UK have high rates of helmet wearing, and high rates of cycling injury and death, and yet low rates of cycling, whilst Denmark, The Netherlands, and Germany have the reverse?

 

[BentMikey]

Really Origamist, whatever. It's about as much use as debating with Lee or Bonj.

 

[Origamist]

Really Origamist, whatever. It's about as much use as debating with Lee or Bonj.

OK, I'll bow out now as you've proved my point (again).

 

[Maz]

And me.

Maybe I misunderstood, but you have a Giro Atmos? What do you do with it if you don't wear it on your head?:?:

 

[Graham O]

Is it co-incidence that the US and the UK have high rates of helmet wearing, and high rates of cycling injury and death, and yet low rates of cycling, whilst Denmark, The Netherlands, and Germany have the reverse?

You can't have it both ways. All through the thread your arguement has been that you can't claim a helmet saved injury because you didn't then repeat the crash without a helmet. Now you are concluding some link between nationality, helmet wearing, injuries and rates of cycling without any evidence of the alternative, i.e. the US and UK must now have a period with helmet wearing banned in order to show that injuries decrease and rates increase.

 

[BentMikey]

Maybe I misunderstood, but you have a Giro Atmos? What do you do with it if you don't wear it on your head?:?:

Wear it for skating, reluctantly and under duress.

 

[col]

And yet that's what you do when you start trolling on a particular topic. I don't believe it's what I've done here, or previously.

And so the name calling starts,wait till he really disagrees with you,you will be blocked

Im only saying this cos he cant see it

 

[BentMikey]

You can't have it both ways. All through the thread your arguement has been that you can't claim a helmet saved injury because you didn't then repeat the crash without a helmet. Now you are concluding some link between nationality, helmet wearing, injuries and rates of cycling without any evidence of the alternative, i.e. the US and UK must now have a period with helmet wearing banned in order to show that injuries decrease and rates increase.

I'm not concluding anything with my comment, simply asking a question. Why are you leaping to assumptions like this? Your first point is wrong as well, as what I was actually claiming is that you can't tell whether a helmet saved your life in any one particular crash, because it's simply not possible to tell.

 

[Graham O]

I'm not concluding anything with my comment, simply asking a question. Why are you leaping to assumptions like this? Your first point is wrong as well, as what I was actually claiming is that you can't tell whether a helmet saved your life in any one particular crash, because it's simply not possible to tell.

You are posing a question to strengthen your arguement, but by not claiming it as fact, you can always claim that the other person is making assumptions. Which is what you have done. It is a very poor way of making a point.

I don't see what difference there is between your "you can't tell whether a helmet saved your life in any one particular crash, because it's simply not possible to tell" and my "your arguement has been that you can't claim a helmet saved injury because you didn't then repeat the crash without a helmet. Those two statements look very similar to me.