This is a helmet debate

[ufkacbln]

Your thread seems to have unfortunately succumbed to this (and I feel I'm going to get some stick for posting this.)

Wear a helmet to protect yourself?

 

[ufkacbln]

Maybe reading the next post before reaching for the Dictionary of Sarcasm would have answered your question...

I know - but the link wouldn't have worked!

 

[Shaun]

The problem with helmet debates is that both sides feel they are right.

There's no real proof that they save lives, but then there's no real proof that they don't.

For many organisations who offer training, organise rides, etc. they are now obliged by their insurers to force the participants to wear helments.

This was not the case previously - the rider could chose whether to wear one or not.

There's lots of opinion and conjecture, and people get really passionate about "their" side of the argument (wear/don't wear) but because of this it often, eventually, descends into heated personal exchanges that do nothing other than upset people.

The only statistic that interests me is the increase in "helmet debates" on CycleChat and their inevitable outcome (and fallout).

I'm considering creating a forum just for helmet debates (past, present, and future ones) so that we take the heat out of the many different forums they all seem to appear in, and give everyone the broadest possible scope for extending the debate.

By all means debate points and deconstruct each other's arguments, but please don't make it personal. It's not worth it.

Thanks,
Shaun

 

[Red Light]

The problem with helmet debates is that both sides feel they are right.

There's no real proof that they save lives, but then there's no real proof that they don't.

For many organisations who offer training, organise rides, etc. they are now obliged by their insurers to force the participants to wear helments.

This was not the case previously - the rider could chose whether to wear one or not.

There's lots of opinion and conjecture, and people get really passionate about "their" side of the argument (wear/don't wear) but because of this it often, eventually, descends into heated personal exchanges that do nothing other than upset people.

The only statistic that interests me is the increase in "helmet debates" on CycleChat and their inevitable outcome (and fallout).

The statistics that should also interest you is the creeping mandation of helmets you refer to and not just in training, organised rides etc but also in attempts to make it law. This past year we've had a mandatory helmet law succeed in Jersey and a strong attempt at one in Northern Ireland preceded by several attempts to introduce a UK wide one through specific legislation and attempts to insert clauses into other legislation going through Parliament. We know from Australia and New Zealand and the abject failure of their Boris Bike schemes and from Mexico and Israel where mandatory helmet laws are being repealed to get their schemes going that helmet mandation saves lives only by stopping people cycling in the first place which is what we should all be concerned about.

A big part of the debate for me is about continually resisting those who would have us all wear helmets and use dodgy statistics, proof by assertion and emotional appeals to further their cause. There is a strong mandatory helmet lobby but I've not yet heard of a lobby to ban helmets. And as you say there is no evidence they save lives (and actually quite a bit of good evidence that they don't). If it were otherwise I might think differently about it but until then I will resist strongly those that use the above devices to advance the cause of helmet wearing. Anyone here who says they wear one because its their personal choice is fine by me, anyone that says they wear one so I should wear one too is fair game.

A salutory thought is that but for the vocal pro-choice lobby that is active here, you could very well have been under a mandatory helmet law here in the UK by now.

Wall it off if you want in a separate section as the CTC Forum has done but don't stop the effort to allow you to continue to cycle with the head gear of your choice. Its easy enough to walk on by the thread if you are not interested. But all it needs for a helmet law to succeed is that a few good men (and women) do nothing (or are prevented from doing something).

 

[Red Light]

david k

I've previously tried to raise the level of debate concerning the merits (or not) of wearing a helmet.

I think I have come to the conclusion that there is a group of forummers (if that's a word) who have such rigid views on the helmet debate that the discussion really struggles to get above the level of mud-slinging.

My view is that these forummers will not tolerate a standpoint that is different to theirs and this means that reasoned debate cannot take place. However, I think this is probably just the nature of debates on forums.

If you want to move it onto a debate on the scientific evidence and its merits then we can have a reasoned debate but as long as the pro-helmet side sticks to its "helmet saved my life" and "if you don't wear one you're stupid" arguments (as they have here) then reasoned debate will be impossible because the pro-helmet side is arguing from faith not facts.



-

 

[Jezston]

Everything Red Light just said in his last two posts. Hear hear.

 

[yello]

Are we done yet? Time to ring time?

 

[sunnyjim]

Everything Red Light just said in his last two posts. Hear hear.

+1

 

[snorri]

Everything Red Light just said in his last two posts. Hear hear.

Agreed.

I think it is important to keep the helmet issue in the spotlight and would hope we do not adopt the CTC forum idea of shunting it into a 'side forum'.

Whilst agreeing that some helmet threads get a bit repetitive, even this one has brought out information regarding crashes in pro cycling that I for one had been unaware of.
Perhaps helmet threads could be limited by post number or time, and get locked when they reach a predetermined limit. This would (perhaps) allow reasonable discussion or passing on of information and experience in the main forum, but prevent the thread descending into nonsensical repetition or personal attacks.

 

[david k]

If you want to move it onto a debate on the scientific evidence and its merits then we can have a reasoned debate but as long as the pro-helmet side sticks to its "helmet saved my life" and "if you don't wear one you're stupid" arguments (as they have here) then reasoned debate will be impossible because the pro-helmet side is arguing from faith not facts.

If you want to move it onto a debate on the scientific evidence and its merits then we can have a reasoned debate but as long as the anti-helmet side sticks to its "they are only their for stationary fall" and "show me proof they work" arguments (as they have here) then reasoned debate will be impossible because the anti-helmet side is arguing from only 1 sided facts.

 

[ianrauk]

If you want to move it onto a debate on the scientific evidence and its merits then we can have a reasoned debate but as long as the anti-helmet side sticks to its "they are only their for stationary fall" and "show me proof they work" arguments (as they have here) then reasoned debate will be impossible because the anti-helmet side is arguing from only 1 sided facts.

There is no 'Anti-Helmet side' as you put it. There is a pro-choice side.

 

[david k]

There is no 'Anti-Helmet side' as you put it. There is a pro-choice side.

Morning Ian,

I'd like to agree but cannot see evidence of that, only trying to damn those who choose to wear helmets IMHO.

There is little point in continuing the debate along the same lines as it creates pages of repetition, something I wont continue to do. But I feel I had to point out the irony of one sides 'reasoned' debate and the fact I have seen no evidence to suggest helmets are not of any value except for the extreme examples given, hardly scientific proof.

Take care, David

 

[Smokin Joe]

Morning Ian,

I'd like to agree but cannot see evidence of that, only trying to damn those who choose to wear helmets IMHO.

There is little point in continuing the debate along the same lines as it creates pages of repetition, something I wont continue to do. But I feel I had to point out the irony of one sides 'reasoned' debate and the fact I have seen no evidence to suggest helmets are not of any value except for the extreme examples given, hardly scientific proof.

Take care, David

You really don't get this, do you?

The onus of proof is on the side who claim that helmets should be worn because they prevent death and serious injury. All those of us who are pro choice can do is to continually point out that no-one has ever shown any evidence that helmets have made even the slightest difference. We don't have to provide proof because we have nothing to prove, you do.

 

[david k]

I post saying "except for the extreme examples given" within just several minutes we have a reply asking for proof of saving "death or serious injury"

I rest my case

 

[Jezston]

Morning Ian,

I'd like to agree but cannot see evidence of that, only trying to damn those who choose to wear helmets IMHO.

There is little point in continuing the debate along the same lines as it creates pages of repetition, something I wont continue to do. But I feel I had to point out the irony of one sides 'reasoned' debate and the fact I have seen no evidence to suggest helmets are not of any value except for the extreme examples given, hardly scientific proof.

David - it seems increasingly clear that you simply are not processing or paying attention to the arguments presented by the anti-compulsion side of the argument, as if you were you wouldn't be coming out with such ignorant and swathing judgements like that. You say you want rational debate, but you aren't behaving in that way yourself.

1. NO ONE is 'anti-helmet'. If you are going to make generalisations like that, please present just ONE post in this thread which suggests that.

2. Many of us who are anti-compulsion also happen to often wear helmets when riding.

You don't seem to be interested in giving any ground in this debate at all, and are dismissive to anyone who presents a view opposing your own, and are now claiming you are some kind of victim of some kind of oppression because of your views.

You are not helping your case at all.