The old argument of wearing a cycle helmet. For & against.

[Red Light]

Are you saying that you dispute that any helmet has averted head injury in any circumstances because I think that would be a rather silly outlook.

Which bit of "or there is another anecdote somewhere of someone else having a more serious injury from wearing a helmet to keep the overall no effect balance" did you not understand?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

such comments like helmets sulking, only take the discussion away from the real agenda and turn this into tit for tat, or simply a joke Jonny.

There is no agenda but you keep trying to create one.

Helmets do not work, the evidence shows that , you won't accept the evidence no matter how many times/ways you are presented with it.

You are the equivalent of a climate change denier, saying "it's cold today, so Global Mean Temperatures can't be rising"

I can understand that you don't have the abilities to comprehend the evidence, I understand that you don't trust me, what I don't understand is why you keep coming back , (with empty hands) to try and drive your agenda from a different direction.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Hey I'm a confirmed helmet wearer. Have been and always will be. Just because we see the silly side of a discussion and act accordingly does not mean we turn our our back on serious discussion. It merely shows that we are not anal about the discussion point and can add to free debate in a more relaxed manner whilst taking into account the overall issues.
It's called general interaction

I like this man!

 

[Red Light]

oh ok, thought it may have an affect, if not fine im happy to accept it doesnt if the majority feel it so

So we are saying it makes no difference whether it is legislation that leads to helmet wearing or choice, therefore compulsion is not relevant to discussing helmet benefits?

A good example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

 

[ufkacbln]

oh ok, thought it may have an affect, if not fine im happy to accept it doesnt if the majority feel it so

So we are saying it makes no difference whether it is legislation that leads to helmet wearing or choice, therefore compulsion is not relevant to discussing helmet benefits?

Not at all.

What was actually said was that a helmet does not know why it is being worn and that in a particular case the helmet would not function differently if worn through compulsion or choice. In this case the compulsion is irrelevant as an indicator for the outcome.

What has also been said is that 100% helmet wearing through compulsion or choice will be unlikely to reduce the number of head injuries overall, so there would be no net benefit from 100% helmet wearing through either mechanism. Either case could also increase the number of injuries as suggested. Again as the same applies at 100% the reason for wearing would be irrelevant to the outcome.

Given the proven lack of benefit there should be a choice.

This is highlighted by the OP who describes taking part in a high risk activity, if another cyclist simply pootles 500 yards round the corner to the shop at 8mph on a good quality off road cycle path then surely they have reduced their risks to a fraction of those referred to in the OP. Why on earth should they have imposed on them the same precautions as the person taking the risks described in the OP

Its a bit like making car helmets compulsory because racing car drivers wear them. The risk level is entirely different

The argument is deeply flawed as it assumes that the ideal "Gold Standard" is helmet wearing and that is simply not the case. That in itself is a viewpoint that raises Compulsion to the top of the Agenda. As proven time and time again, there are far more effective ways of reducing cyclist injuries (including head injuries) than the wearing of a helmet.

 

[Smokin Joe]

how rude

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[MontyVeda]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[sup](whispers) [/sup]+1

 

[addictfreak]

Probably because he feels that every helmet thread is exactly the same, nothing new is ever offered and the same old arguments go round and round in circles for umpteen pages. We're all adults, we've heard the opinions one way or the other over and over again and unless and until something new and conclusive is offered to change our minds we will carry on as we are.

I agree, can't we just send these helmet threads straight to room101!

 

[steve52]

wow what an itneresing responZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Smokin Joe]

Whilst I have every sympathy for the OP's friend and hope he recovers from his injuries fully and quickly, I'm afraid that my eyes glazed over when it became apparent that the purpose of the post was to deliver a patronising "Please wear a helmet" lecture. Why didn't he go the whole hog and implore us to give up smoking and drinking more than 21 units a week while making sure we ate all our greens up and always put a condom on before $ex.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Whilst I have every sympathy for the OP's friend and hope he recovers from his injuries fully and quickly, I'm afraid that my eyes glazed over when it became apparent that the purpose of the post was to deliver a patronising "Please wear a helmet" lecture. Why didn't he go the whole hog and implore us to give up smoking and drinking more than 21 units a week while making sure we ate all our greens up and always put a condom on before $ex.

Maybe because the 21 units a week, is another bit of advice that is now shown to have no basis of proof?

 

[JonnyBlade]

Really ? I thought the real rudeness was someone trying influence me ( and others ) on what to wear.

This could become another one of those saga's lol

 

[JonnyBlade]

You don't agree?

Would you find it rude if someone stopped you on the street and said ".... Blah , blah.... Please wear a XXX "?

Edited Buddy. I re read and put what I really meant to say........

Should have read that this was going to become another one of those sagas lol !

 

[JonnyBlade]

Which bit of "or there is another anecdote somewhere of someone else having a more serious injury from wearing a helmet to keep the overall no effect balance" did you not understand?

How very dated your response is! What part of .... did you not ...... what ever effect you tried is lost on this thick skin

Edited again by me! I really should not try to gain an impression of someone via a chat site. I just saw you as negative and over argumentative but that's what a chat site is all about. You keep on with your 'whitty' and slightly inflammatory responses and I'll continue to enjoy reading all posts.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

This could become another one of those saga's lol

Of course it will, it always does! :-(

Some well meaning but ill informed person will say how wonderful helmets are/ we all need to wear one.
That demands a response , if only to show that it's not as cut and dried as some bodies would like to have us all think, and then come the usual, predicatable response. No one is as fed up as it as me, but the key is to stop the intial ,well meaning, but ill informed post once that is made there is no going back until the tread peters out.