Reasons not to wear helmets

[Red Light]

Even if we considered the risk when walking to cycling as being the same which it is not, the likelihood is greater on a bike.

Congratulations, you have just won the Nonsense Sentence of the Month award.

 

[david k]

My evidence doesn't show what you are claiming.

My evidence was that walking is six time more dangerous than cycling per km. You in an attempt to discredit it because it made your position untenable insisted on doing it per hour but that still makes it more dangerous per hour walking than cycling. If you then exclude the over 64s it come down to about the same risk. But by any measure the risk of walking is comparable to the risk of cycling. Your problem is you can't accept that and that the risk of cycling is therefore so low as to be not worth wearing a helmet.

It proved that exercising for an hour is safer when walking than cycling, post it again and we can see. Then take off the old and drunk from each and walking will appear even safer again. You attempt to twist the stats to show that I am misguided for wearing a helmet when cycling. As the risk is greater and the likelihood of more severe accidents I have the same opinion as many and wear a helmet when cycling but not walking

 

[ufkacbln]

if anyone fell at any time would a helmet help or not, id say in some cases yes and in some no

but the real question must consider likelihood. Any ppe or helmets or similar Safety precaution depends on risk and likelihood. Even if we considered the risk when walking to cycling as being the same which it is not, the likelihood is greater on a bike. Therefore it is reasonable and logical and majority of people i see appear to agree that a helmet for walking is not required.

Again - the question is whether we are actually looking at preventing head injuries.

PPE works when the accident happens, and that is the point that should be addressed..... you do not look at the figures and decide that labourers suffer many more injuries than a managing director and then exempt the MD from wearing that PPE when they are on the site because the number of MDs suffering injuries is far less than labourers!



..and as before why is not wearing a helmet when walking "supportive" that helmets not required, but cyclists not wearing them isn't "supportive" of cycle helmets not being required?

 

[david k]

And the old drunk cyclist? I ask because this is my aspiration.

lol, i leave my bike at home when going the pub

 

[david k]

You are really going to have to prove this one

happy too, ive posted it somewhere on here, just need to find it

 

[david k]

PPE works when the accident happens, and that is the point that should be addressed..... you do not look at the figures and decide that labourers suffer many more injuries than a managing director and then exempt the MD from wearing that PPE when they are on the site because the number of MDs suffering injuries is far less than labourers!

The figures would prove that labourers are exposed to the risk more frequently which would affect the figures. The MD would be at the same risk when exposed, therefore requiring the same ppe

 

[ufkacbln]

The figures would prove that labourers are exposed to the risk more frequently which would affect the figures. The MD would be at the same risk when exposed, therefore requiring the same ppe

So a pedestrian on a cycle path and a cylist on the same cycle path would by your definition be equally at risk, and therefore both equally require a helmet?

 

[david k]

So a pedestrian on a cycle path and a cylist on the same cycle path would by your definition be equally at risk, and therefore both equally require a helmet?

no, they are 2 different activities and would require two different risk assessments. Mine would show a helmet is not required for walking

 

[david k]

Irrespective.

really?

using the site example, two different activities, welding and joinery, the ppe would differ. A different risk assessment is required for every activity, cycling and walking are completely different activities and would therefore be considered separately, so I'm afraid they it is not irrespective at all

 

[david k]

Show me the maths please

what maths? that considering safety protection differs with the activity? No maths to prove that, all activities are considered seperate as they are different activities.

Or, are you asking for maths to prove that the two activities in this case, walking and cycling differ/ If so Ive asked redlight to post it again as i cannot find it at the moment, he has posted it twice before as i know off, feel free to look for it if you are getting impatient

 

[ufkacbln]

The figures would prove that labourers are exposed to the risk more frequently which would affect the figures. The MD would be at the same risk when exposed, therefore requiring the same ppe

no, they are 2 different activities and would require two different risk assessments. Mine would show a helmet is not required for walking

You have changed the parameters again.

The first example was generic PPE simply for being on the site, and you are now looking at specific PPE for individual tasks.


The generic risks of a low speed fall, being knocked over by an errant dog or pedestrian or cyclist are similar.

The fact that yours would show a helmet is not required for walking is really rather irrelevant, the assessment should if realistic show similar risks and similar PPE required to combat that risk.

 

[Red Light]

It proved that exercising for an hour is safer when walking than cycling, post it again and we can see. Then take off the old and drunk from each and walking will appear even safer again. You attempt to twist the stats to show that I am misguided for wearing a helmet when cycling. As the risk is greater and the likelihood of more severe accidents I have the same opinion as many and wear a helmet when cycling but not walking

No it didn't and you are twisting what I wrote to justify to yourself your own illogical conclusions.

 

[Red Light]

what maths? that considering safety protection differs with the activity? No maths to prove that, all activities are considered seperate as they are different activities.

Or, are you asking for maths to prove that the two activities in this case, walking and cycling differ/ If so Ive asked redlight to post it again as i cannot find it at the moment, he has posted it twice before as i know off, feel free to look for it if you are getting impatient

And I have already said several times here that it does not say what you are trying to claim it says, let alone prove. If you have the evidence to prove your claim post it.

 

[david k]

You think that a different risk assessment is called for for cycling and walking on the same off road path, to the extent that one demands a helmet and for the other it would be ludicrously over the top, correct me if I have got this wrong. On that basis, I think it is reasonable to suggest that the onus is on you to demonstrate it.

never said ludicrously over the top did I, please dont put words into my mouth

i think it is reasonable to suggest it is for me to demonstrate it and as i repeat i will but need the stats from redlight

 

[david k]

You have changed the parameters again.
The first example was generic PPE simply for being on the site, and you are now looking at specific PPE for individual tasks.
The generic risks of a low speed fall, being knocked over by an errant dog or pedestrian or cyclist are similar.
The fact that yours would show a helmet is not required for walking is really rather irrelevant, the assessment should if realistic show similar risks and similar PPE required to combat that risk.

No change in parameters at all, all risk assessments on done on the basis of many factors such as who, where, what activity, duration, current control measures and the task. simply being in the same place does not mean the risk is the same.