I love helmets

[Drago]

Erm, in case of meteorite impact?

 

[green1]

Erm, in case of meteorite impact?

I think I'd be worrying about things slightly more important than a plastic lid, like where's the nearest place to buy lots of tinned food if its a big one.

 

[benb]

So you'd be perfectly happy being called dishonest would you Adrian?

You deliberately selectively quoted me, to change the meaning of what I wrote. Dishonest was an accurate factual description of what you did, not an insult.

 

[Big Nick]

Benb pulled you up on selectively quoting him in order to answer a different question from the one asked. You did exactly that, so what's to complain about?

Hardly dishonest when you can go a couple of posts up to read his original post

 

[Big Nick]

You deliberately selectively quoted me, to change the meaning of what I wrote. Dishonest was an accurate factual description of what you did, not an insult.

Same thing, to call me dishonest in relation to it is over the top and damn right rude
Again you seek to insult to score cheap points with those on here

 

[srw]

I know you wanted to escape, but since it came only a few posts after this:

@w00hoo_kent - no-one is saying there is no danger.

I didn't think I should let you get away with this:

an apparent denial that cycling has its dangers.

 

[Big Nick]

Pointing out dishonest behaviour isn't trying '..to score cheap points' - it's pointing out dishonest behaviour.

How is it dishonest when the original post is further up the page?

If you think that's dishonest you really need to get out more

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I know you wanted to escape, but since it came only a few posts after this:

I didn't think I should let you get away with this:

Fine, although a little minimalist, stick some post numbers on it and I'll try and work out where I got confused/confusing. :-)

 

[benb]

How is it dishonest when the original post is further up the page?

If you think that's dishonest you really need to get out more

Because you deliberately selectively quoted it to change the meaning of the words. The fact the original was available is irrelevant.

It speaks volumes about the strength of your position that you have to lie in order to bolster it.

 

[srw]

Yeah, sorry for the bluntness of the question but it's kind of hit the point. I'm not on any hiking forums, but I don't think they'd have a need for a section dedicated to hikers who got injured on the trail. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong there anyone who knows. I am on other forums, they don't have a need for it either, but then they are sedentary activities (ironically the only fatality reported on that list is from a guy having a heart attack while cycling to work).

It may just be a trigger thing for me, as mentioned a lot, I come from motorbikes and have seen the same debate 'well, motorbiking isn't dangerous in itself, it's all the other people that drive in to us in cars and lorries that cause the injuries' so might be sensitive to it. Oddly there when the majority got old enough to have to answer the question 'will you let your kids ride motorbikes?' their viewpoint changed a bit. But the level of denial seemed the same. And yes, motorbikes aren't bicycles. I still know that.

As I've said a few times, I'm not saying 'helmets would solve this' while we're in a thread titled about helmets I think we've flowed around the topic quite a bit by page 15 (or, you know, page 1) all I'm having difficulty with is an apparent denial that cycling has its dangers. I'm probably just misreading it all and taking all of the comments out of context, but it has struck me over the last few months of being on Cycle Chat as being a common enough held view and I don't remember it just coming up in helmet debates.

Anyway I see little point in doggedly following this on here. I've probably hammered my point home far harder than it needed. I'll go and read about people asking which £1000 bike to buy on cyclescheme for a bit and see how long it takes for this to come up again in a debate and see if it pushes my buttons or not :-) . Thanks for the candid reply.

Fine, although a little minimalist, stick some post numbers on it and I'll try and work out where I got confused/confusing. :-)

Click on the little blue arrows and you'll go straight there.

 

[Big Nick]

Because you deliberately selectively quoted it to change the meaning of the words. The fact the original was available is irrelevant.

It speaks volumes about the strength of your position that you have to lie in order to bolster it.

Why is it irrelevant?

What have I lied about? Lie is a pretty strong word to start throwing about. You point out I haven't quoted the full sentence but lied? Unless you can show where I've lied you should reconsider your position on that

I think it says more about your position that you take issue with this to divert away from the subject of the thread by resorting to insults.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Click on the little blue arrows and you'll go straight there.

Got it. The post linked to is much more an apology to Ian for asking tough questions and an explanation of why I'm doing it. I've re read it a couple of times (although I might not be awake yet) and I can't see where I say, or can be construed as saying, cycling has no dangers. In fact I say 'hiking forums probably don't have a 'hikers down' section' while we do, although admitting that's a feeling not a study result.

The only thing I say, and have a few times in posts on this thread, is that I don't believe helmets make it less dangerous and I'm not arguing that they do.

To be honest once a debate starts going for semantics and precise dictionary definitions it starts to light the 'game over' lights in my head and this conversation has got there. I now know cycling isn't dangerous, it's risky you see, that makes it completely different... :-)

Plus Nick & Ben are stood in the corner of the playground shouting at each other and at some point soon someone's conker is going to get stood on and I'm not sure I need to see that.

 

[benb]

Why is it irrelevant?

What have I lied about? Lie is a pretty strong word to start throwing about. You point out I haven't quoted the full sentence but lied? Unless you can show where I've lied you should reconsider your position on that

I think it says more about your position that you take issue with this to divert away from the subject of the thread by resorting to insults.

You deliberately changed the meaning of what I wrote. That is dishonest: a lie.

Pointing that out is not "resorting to insults", it's holding you to account.

If you admit it and apologise I'll drop it.

 

[Mugshot]

To be honest once a debate starts going for semantics and precise dictionary definitions it starts to light the 'game over' lights in my head and this conversation has got there. I now know cycling isn't dangerous, it's risky you see, that makes it completely different... :-)

Plus Nick & Ben are stood in the corner of the playground shouting at each other and at some point soon someone's conker is going to get stood on and I'm not sure I need to see that.

It's not really arguing semantics @w00hoo_kent you were under the impression that some posters were suggesting that cycling was without risk, it was pointed out that that was not what was being said. Once accepted that an activity carries risk (which most activities do) in certain situations I believe it is as well to leave it to the individual participant to deal with that risk as they see best. Whether they no longer wish to participate, whether they wish to wear protective clothing or not should be an individual decision, it helps though if each individual is willing to look at how risky the activity is before they make that decision and certainly before they tell others what they should do.* This has of course been said and repeated ad nauseam.

*The broader picture, not just personal experience and anecdote.

 

[bianchi1]

I'm sure @Learnincurve's friend will have seen this, as he's so keen on reading research and this is as up-to-date as you can get. In line with what some of us have been suggesting, the study found (against their expectations) that while helmets might give some protection against skin wounds and some fractures, they had no effect on traumatic brain injury rates.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00068-014-0453-0

Have you got access to the article or just the abstract? Would like to read it.

If it shows that helmets reduce scull fractures, is this not an important step forward? It is of course impossible to draw that conclusion without reading the full article.