Detention Lines: I will wear a helmet.

[col]

I think when someone has a close call,and they are lucky,it is possible to tell if a helmet or something else saved your life depending on the accident or situation.but you have to be there involved or witness it to be able to say.

 

[Maz]

Wear it for skating, reluctantly and under duress.

I see, but why are you forced to wear it?

 

[BentMikey]

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.

It's a very valid point to make - it shows quite clearly that helmets don't have a significant effect on cyclist safety, but not why or how this is the case. That's why I posed it as a question, because I'm not sure it's possible to claim much detail from it.

What is poor debating is how you knock down the point, and ignore the fact that you really did make unwarranted assumptions about what I was saying. Moving to minor issues, hair splitting and avoidance are not good ways to convince others of your point of view.

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.

There's a big difference - your point makes fun of the view that it's not possible to know whether a helmet worked or didn't work. Your view also misses the point that whilst it's not possible to see the effects in any one particular incident, it is possible to see the effect of a sudden change in helmet wearing across a population.

 

[BentMikey]

I see, but why are you forced to wear it?

Because the instructor association with which I'm qualified with is originally Leftpondian, and has helmet religeon. Plus it's required in races, not that I've raced for ages.

I'm also aware that helmets may be slightly more effective in skating than in cycling, against the risk of road rash and minor scrapes given the many rolling tumbling sliding falls I've had. I often skate without a helmet on my own, and most of the skaters in London don't wear helmets.

 

[swee'pea99]

This squabble seems to me to be getting ill-tempered, personal and of very doubtful benefit to anyone. Dare I suggest some general principles we might all agree to:

1) The jury is out on the extent (if any) to which helmets offer H&S benefits to riders
2) (Therefore) everyone should be free to wear one or not, as they see fit
3) Substantial evidence exists to suggest that compulsion reduces cycling rates
4) (Therefore) it's bad for the public health, so: Compulsion is a Bad Thing

Doubtless counter-posters will say 'well, who said otherwise?' My point entirely.

Seems to me whatever our position re helmets, we virtually all oppose compulsion - and that is to me the important thing. Because compulsion very much is a live issue. It's legislation in many parts of the world; it re-surfaces here regularly, on slow news days ('low hanging fruit' for rabble-rousing political pond-life); and respected bodies (the BMA for one) have declared themselves in favour. It behoves us pedellers to present - as far as possible - a united front.

So, to the OP - "I will wear a helmet" - can we not all say 'Fine. No worries.'
And to everyone else let's all say: 'Leave me to decide whether I will wear one.'

Or would that just spoil the fun?

 

[BentMikey]

Except that simply wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion. The govt. has said so in the past.

 

[swee'pea99]

Except that simply wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion. The govt. has said so in the past.

I really don't want to get into the argument, but just two things on that: 1) Just 'cos the Govt says it, don't make it true, and 2) It isn't

 

[Nigeyy]

Well I started reading your post with great hope that it might help this thread, but then you go ahead and (I think) make statements that are questionable and not agreeable, certainly given the posts of this thread. I'll try a more succinct and less controversial approach:

Unless otherwise mandated by legislation, you are free to choose whether or not you wish to wear a helmet. It's up to you, it's your choice (a choice that is probably formulated by many factors including your political beliefs, research and personal experience). If it is mandated, you wear one or else face whatever penalties are incurred, and if you feel strongly enough about it, you are free to work for change within your political system (likewise, if you feel strongly that helmet wearing should be compulsory, then you can do similar for that belief).

No amount of squabbling will change an ardent proponent of either side -look hard enough and there will be studies or anecdotal evidence to suggest support for helmet wearing or not, and even then any study can be questioned for accuracy or how it should be interpreted. Anyway, got to go, I'm off to persuade a McCain supporter to vote for Obama :?:


[quote name='swee'pea99']This squabble seems to me to be getting ill-tempered, personal and of very doubtful benefit to anyone. Dare I suggest some general principles we might all agree to[/QUOTE]

 

[Rhythm Thief]

[quote name='swee'pea99']This squabble seems to me to be getting ill-tempered, personal and of very doubtful benefit to anyone. Dare I suggest some general principles we might all agree to:

[/QUOTE]

Better still, could we just agree to save this whole thread and repost it every few months?

 

[Crackle]

Except that simply wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion. The govt. has said so in the past.

And this really is where you're coming from and it would've been more honest to have said so up front rather than confusing the whole debate with mixed up views on compulsion and effectivness.

Your view that helmet wearing may reduce cycling is valid and as Mickle said earlier wearing helmets may provide a negative image to many. For that reason we are all against compulsion (I don't believe anyone's for it on this thread are they?).

To some extent both views are negated if we have some proper studies which prove that helmets are effective. Alternatively both views are justified if the studies prove helmets are ineffective. Or worst of all we all stay different sides of the fence if the studies prove that helmets are effective in some circumstances but not in others

 

[BentMikey]

Crackle, surely that first para is neither fair nor truthful about me? My views are neither mixed up nor "less honest" as you imply.

 

[Crackle]

Crackle, surely that first para is neither fair nor truthful about me? My views are neither mixed up nor "less honest" as you imply.

Mikey I'm not trying to imply you're dishonest and apologies if it came out that way. What I'm saying is that during this debate you've presented a confused argument or at least it seems so to me and I would suggest it seems so to FM as well.

There are several strands to the helmet debate and you've crossed them over on a few occasions as evidence of one against the other. For instance using compulsion evidence and risk evidence against helmet effectiveness.

I'll re-phrase my first para.

It would've been helpful if you'd stated up front that you were against helmet wearing for many reasons and not just on the grounds that the evidence is not convincing that they are actually effective against injury.

I suspect also, that like me, you don't like being told what to do but of course I can't just say I don't like being told what to do, I generally have to find good reason not to do something I'm told to do.

 

[Wolf04]

I think when someone has a close call,and they are lucky,it is possible to tell if a helmet or something else saved your life depending on the accident or situation.but you have to be there involved or witness it to be able to say.

Surely the opposite is the case the only incontrovertible proof is when the helmet fails. If you survive an accident while wearing a helmet you can't be certain on it's role in your survival. I am not however not trying to infer people cannot or should not draw whatever conclusions they choose from their experiences.

 

[Crackle]

Surely the opposite is the case the only incontrovertible proof is when the helmet fails. If you survive an accident while wearing a helmet you can't be certain on it's role in your survival. I am not however not trying to infer people cannot or should not draw whatever conclusions they choose from their experiences.

It's impossible to derive any conclusion from a single real life accident, unless you've got the whole thing mapped out. This is why I said earlier that the only way to go is a kind of cycling Euro NCAP procedure.

 

[col]

Surely the opposite is the case the only incontrovertible proof is when the helmet fails. If you survive an accident while wearing a helmet you can't be certain on it's role in your survival. I am not however not trying to infer people cannot or should not draw whatever conclusions they choose from their experiences.

Well yes but im saying sometimes you can say something saved your life,for example if a piece of say slate was embedded in your helmet like a knife and just missed your scalp,could you not conclude that the helmet did indeed save you?Unlikely i know,but you get the idea?