I've started something...

[up hill struggle]

yes yes I know I said I was going but seriously had to ask at what point did the op suggest the below must be agreed to?

But whilst there's a libertarian argument that "my ride, my rules", it's pretty extreme, rude even, to insist that your friends comply with your political / religious rules whilst out

ive read nothing about his religious beliefs or political views being forced onto others granted ive been out shopping most of this afternoon but cant see the post where this is required to join the member and his family on a cycle ride.

completely relative arguments like this is why its impossible to have a decent, rational conversation with regards to certain cycling related subjects.

don't worry i promise I'm outta here this time but will follow the thread until the mods close it.

 

[Profpointy]

I get about not riding with them, but when anyone posts re thier events, do you start giving them a hard time and debating with them about their rules?

yes yes I know I said I was going but seriously had to ask at what point did the op suggest the below must be agreed to?



ive read nothing about his religious beliefs or political views being forced onto others granted ive been out shopping most of this afternoon but cant see the post where this is required to join the member and his family on a cycle ride.

completely relative arguments like this is why its impossible to have a decent, rational conversation with regards to certain cycling related subjects.

don't worry i promise I'm outta here this time but will follow the thread until the mods close it.

Sorry, but what's a "relative argument" - genuinely asking?

My "religious / political" point was that given the helmet thing is highly controversial (unarguable just from this thread alone), to push one's view onto others is a "political" stance. Given that the evidence is unconvincing (either way), then it's more a matter of faith (="religious") than anything.

 

[up hill struggle]

Sorry, but what's a "relative argument"

thanks for pointing out my mistake there, can't get used to the way the phone thinks I mean something else and changes words ( windows 8.1 update for phone changed settings, much change them back )

I meant irrelevant argument. The op's religious / political views are not being forced on anybody & your post clearly implied that they were.

Thanks for pointing that out again, I owe ya one.

 

[up hill struggle]

bye again

 

[bpsmith]

The Political/Religious is blatantly trolling IMHO.

The OP just said that if his mates wants to ride with him, whilst with his children, then he would expect them to wear a helmet. He never went any further than that. Never chastised anyone for not wearing one. Never forced it on anyone. He doesn't deserve the backlash and the turning of his thread into a Wear A Helmet Or Else thread.

The argument about cycling being a safe sport is fine. After all, cycling itself never killed anyone. The incidents/accidents whilst cycling certainly did.

It's like saying swimming with sharks is totally safe, it's just the bite from the shark that's dangerous. Or the fall from a plane without a parachute was fine, it's hitting the floor that's dangerous. Or putting your pet in a microwave and setting the timer isn't an issue, it's pressing the start button that's dangerous.

Putting a cage around you when enjoying the shark swim, wearing a parachute or not putting your hamster in the microwave are all ways to minimise potential risks, while still enjoying them.

Yes, the cage could jam up, the parachute could blow you off course or stepping on your hamster would never have happened if you had only put him in the microwave, but surely these are freak incidents in the grand scheme of things?

 

[Fab Foodie]

The Political/Religious is blatantly trolling IMHO.

The OP just said that if his mates wants to ride with him, whilst with his children, then he would expect them to wear a helmet. He never went any further than that. Never chastised anyone for not wearing one. Never forced it on anyone. He doesn't deserve the backlash and the turning of his thread into a Wear A Helmet Or Else thread.

The argument about cycling being a safe sport is fine. After all, cycling itself never killed anyone. The incidents/accidents whilst cycling certainly did.

It's like saying swimming with sharks is totally safe, it's just the bite from the shark that's dangerous. Or the fall from a plane without a parachute was fine, it's hitting the floor that's dangerous. Or putting your pet in a microwave and setting the timer isn't an issue, it's pressing the start button that's dangerous.

Putting a cage around you when enjoying the shark swim, wearing a parachute or not putting your hamster in the microwave are all ways to minimise potential risks, while still enjoying them.

Yes, the cage could jam up, the parachute could blow you off course or stepping on your hamster would never have happened if you had only put him in the microwave, but surely these are freak incidents in the grand scheme of things?

Nobody's chastising the OP are they ... really? Offering an alternative view maybe. Sometimes you need to put these things into context.

The data also says that cycling IS SAFE. This is a point that needs repeating over and over again.
http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect

I want people to know it's safe. But think about whose interested in cycle helmets and their promotion most ... is it the health lobby? the so called 'safety' lobby? The law? No, it's helmet makers, magazine sellers, insurance companies who think they can demand bigger premiums, car drivers who would like to absolve themselves of any responsibility or liability and those who make money by preying on an unsubstantiated fear.
If you really want to prevent head injuries, make helmet wearing in cars compulsory.

Helmet wearing has pretty much ZERO impact on cycling safety.

 

[bpsmith]

Nobody's chastising the OP are they ... really? Offering an alternative view maybe. Sometimes you need to put these things into context.

The data also says that cycling IS SAFE. This is a point that needs repeating over and over again.
http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect

I want people to know it's safe. But think about whose interested in cycle helmets and their promotion most ... is it the health lobby? the so called 'safety' lobby? The law? No, it's helmet makers, magazine sellers, insurance companies who think they can demand bigger premiums, car drivers who would like to absolve themselves of any responsibility or liability and those who make money by preying on an unsubstantiated fear.
If you really want to prevent head injuries, make helmet wearing in cars compulsory.

Helmet wearing has pretty much ZERO impact on cycling safety.

I said the OP never chastised anyone. Didn't say anyone had chastised him. Those are your words, not mine.

This debate has made me more intrigued about the no helmet thing and I have spent the past 30 mins or do Googling it. Some recent info and some studies from a few years ago.

Some show reductions in damage to heads of upto 85%. Some show no change in death rates where laws have been made compulsory. They make no mention of damage caused. Some say car drivers are more likely to drive closer to helmet clad cyclists than those without. Some say car drivers give lady cyclists more space...

...but each of the above articles state that helmets are very good at protecting slow speed falls and recommend them to be used by children. Which leads straight back to the whole point of this thread...

 

[bpsmith]

Furthermore, some reckon that having to wear a helmet is stopping some from actually cycling at all, when they should be out there cycling and thus reducing the effects of obesity.

Personally, if someone would prefer to be overweight and unfit than wear a helmet, then they are free to live with the consequences. Just plain daft tbh.

 

[Profpointy]

Wasn't trying to catch you out over "relative argument" - though it was one of those phrases like "straw man", or "begging the question", or even (my favourite) "whataboutery"

 

[Fab Foodie]

I said the OP never chastised anyone. Didn't say anyone had chastised him. Those are your words, not mine.

This debate has made me more intrigued about the no helmet thing and I have spent the past 30 mins or do Googling it. Some recent info and some studies from a few years ago.

Some show reductions in damage to heads of upto 85%. Some show no change in death rates where laws have been made compulsory. They make no mention of damage caused. Some say car drivers are more likely to drive closer to helmet clad cyclists than those without. Some say car drivers give lady cyclists more space...

...but each of the above articles state that helmets are very good at protecting slow speed falls and recommend them to be used by children. Which leads straight back to the whole point of this thread...

Apols, you're right about chastising, my misapprehension.

Many of the helmet studies are poor and have been discredited. However, that's by the by. You can trawl all the other helmet threads about that.
I agree about the value of kids wearing helmets, I said that in my first post, BUT to mandate others who are not kids to wear helmets before they ride with you is IMO wrong as I also stated in my first post.
Any obstacle to people riding with other people is rarely a good thing in my book.

Unfortunately the obesity issue is a little more complicated ....

 

[bpsmith]

I am not trying to open another can of worms @Fab Foodie. Going to call it a day on this now.

 

[Retribution03]

I've spoken to the people who wish to ride with us and told them my views about when the kids are with us and they are in total agreement as they are fathers too.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I am not trying to open another can of worms @Fab Foodie. Going to call it a day on this now.

No worries, good to share views. Take it easy

 

[glenn forger]

Didn't realise there was such an anti helmet brigade so why not tell the kids that go skateboarding scootering and bmxing not to wear any protection because it doesn't prevent any injuries and by some accounts could even be more harmful!!!its simple they are my rules people either stick to them or don't ride with us.

But you don't make your kids wear a helmet in a car, where the risk of head injury is greater than on a bike.

 

[bpsmith]

No worries, good to share views. Take it easy

Nice one.