What's your agenda?

Status
Not open for further replies.

lukesdad

Guest
I am sceptical of so called evidence on both sides of the arguement ( its not a debate ). Relying on flawed evidence is not good yet one side seems happy to while ridiculing the other. Other than that I have no agenda.

Good thread Adrian you ve made it off my ignore list :thumbsup:
 

Norm

Guest
1986501 said:
I'm an anti compulsionist on the basis that compulsion is bad for cycling.
Yes, and promotion of thinking about the appropriateness of riding kit to the conditions, and the idea that glasses and gloves are more likely to benefit than a helmet, and the realisation that a helmet will only protect a small part of the head at low impact speeds... etc.
 
Whilst I believe that a helmet may have some shielding function against rocks and some impacts, I'm not sold on them as the cure-all for everything that can go wrong.
I think there's lots more research to be done to prove or disprove cycle helmets.

I wear one due to spending 99% of my time off road, but don't expect miracles.

Plus it won't shield you from an asswipe racing his mates to the pub in the Corsa as he sits on the floor with his arm stretched out like Superman.
Stop telling us helmets would make a difference, start telling us it's time to enforce road laws.
 
Make your own choice, but it should be genuinely informed

Stupid statements, anecdata and "hint and run" all need to be challenged
 

lukesdad

Guest
1986498 said:
I propose that no one should be allowed to post in a helmet debate without clearly and honestly declaring their agenda on the subject here.
That's all, no follow up discussion, no arguing here, just a simple reference guide., a Who's Who as it were.
Erm ^ this Adrian.... remember ? ^_^
 

david k

Hi
Location
North West
Make your own choice, and it is does not have to be deeply informed as long as you have the basic grasp of what it is, what its for and its limitations.

As with all things, I believe that if this (think seat belts as a comparison) or anything else for that matter was proved to be of real benefit (pros) and that benefit outweighs and drawbacks (cons) then I would not appeal against compulsion.

I think this is a lot different to promoting it and therefore it is not an 'agenda' as such. I just dont have an issue with experts (presuming these would be the ones making this decision) in making our lives safer.

For now people can chose to wear or not it makes no difference to my life. But when people tell me I must be informed before I can chose to wear a helmet or they want to make me feel like I'm contributing to poor health by wearing one (the obesity argument) then I feel I am justified in challenging this. This is often wrongly presumed to be pro compulsion which it clearly isn't
.
All above is my opinion. (not to be confused intentionally or not with promoting of facts, studies, evidence or advice)
 

screenman

Legendary Member
R, "..and who are too retarded to understand the basics of evidence based research." makes you a retard in my books.

I'm an anti compulsionist on the basis that compulsion is bad for cycling.

Of course my own research leads me to wear one at all times on the bike.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
PeteXXX Anti Vaxxers: what's their agenda? News & Current Affairs 227
Top Bottom