Would any cycle helmet have helped here?

Discussion in 'Helmet Discussions' started by al78, 17 Jul 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thomk

    Thomk Veteran

    Location:
    Warwickshire
    I don't know. I wear a helmet while cycling for the reasons I mentioned and to save grief from Mrs Thomk. I don't expect it to save me from a medium/high speed collision with a car (or wall or tank etc).

    My post was slightly tongue in cheek.
     
  2. Mugshot

    Mugshot Guru

    This is what you said, no where in your post did you say that you didn't bang your head, your intention was to give the impression that you did and that your helmet saved you from further injury.

    I am not suggesting that you shouldn't wear a helmet I am suggesting that you should stop claiming that a helmet saved you from injury when in one example you, just like me, may not have received an injury anyway and in the other you didn't even bump your head.
     
    TinyMyNewt likes this.
  3. ufkacbln

    ufkacbln Guest

    As above, you could have saved time and googled, but here we are at home

    The thread here is a classic where a professional racing accident i s used to justify helmet use
     
    Last edited: 5 Aug 2015
  4. ufkacbln

    ufkacbln Guest

    This was an error on my part, I had mixed tow posters and hence the post was incorrect

    What I should have posted was:


    Not at all.there is a difference between an attack and a challenge

    It was the simple case of someone making the absurd claim (in spite of the evidence otherwise) that cycle helmets offer facial protection

    Then we had an infantile tantrum and name calling, and further unfounded claims that cycle helmets reduce facial injuries

    It is simply challenging dangerous and unevidenced claims that are misleading.. this is a necessary step and not an attack on the individual but a challenge to a misleading claim

    If someone was to accept this claim and decide to wear a helmet expecting facial protection then they have been misled and lied to

    Everyone entitled fully to a different view, but they are not entitled to make unfounded, unevidenced clams about the effectiveness of helmets that fly in the face of the evidence

    What I do find ironic is that the only one who is calling people who don' t agree with them infantile names was the one making these claims

    I would really be interested in evidence for the claims that helmets protect the face and let's put the discussion on an evidenced footing instead of tantrums
     
  5. Lemond

    Lemond Senior Member

    Location:
    Sunny Suffolk
    I said that I wear a helmet "for just these sort of incidents". I was speaking in generalities. I didn't say for these specific incidents. I said these sort of incidents. There's a big difference.

    As you said above, I "may not have received an injury"... Which, of course, means that I might have received an injury. Your own statement proves my point. thanks very much.
     
  6. Lemond

    Lemond Senior Member

    Location:
    Sunny Suffolk
    A single thread doesn't exactly equate with "frequently".
     
  7. ufkacbln

    ufkacbln Guest

    How many would you like?

    Or we could go for sharing?

    One piece of evidence that professional use is used to justify helmet use for normal cyclists, and in turn gain a single piece of evidence that helmets prevent facial injury

    Then we can take turns...
     
  8. Lemond

    Lemond Senior Member

    Location:
    Sunny Suffolk
    The statement about helmets and facial injuries wasn't made by me either mate. You're not having much luck on that one, are you?

    As for your use of the word "frequently", I kinda thought you would be showing me one example after another as it happens so, you know, frequently.
     
  9. Mugshot

    Mugshot Guru

    Yes Lemond you may have, you may not have, but that is not what you are saying, you are saying that the helmet prevented injuries, you have no way of knowing that, so you really need to stop saying it. You were not speaking in generalities, there is not a big difference, you were and are attempting to use entirely spurious examples to demonstrate something which you patently cannot without being totally disingenuous.
    BTW, when you're riding down a path with low hanging branches why not try riding at a pace that allows you to both observe your surroundings for potential dangers and take avoiding action should you spot any, you'll probably find that you'll suffer no injuries if you don't keep riding into things, helmet or not.
     
    classic33, TinyMyNewt and mjr like this.
  10. Lemond

    Lemond Senior Member

    Location:
    Sunny Suffolk
    Right back at you.

    You have no way of knowing that my helmet didn't prevent me from injury. To claim you know otherwise is just plain stupid.

    And thanks for the advice on how I ride my bike. But seeing how you yourself have banged your head on a branch too, it's probably wise that I don't listen to you too carefully.

    Seeing how you clearly don't ride at an appropriate pace either, you might want to consider wearing a helmet
     
  11. ufkacbln

    ufkacbln Guest

    Care to point out where I said it was you??
     
  12. Mugshot

    Mugshot Guru

    Did you forget that I didn't injure myself or are you choosing to ignore that? The stupid thing here is your insistence that it was the wearing of a helmet that prevented the injuries, you have no way of knowing that, can you honestly not see the point or are you just trolling now? I am quite prepared to say that in some circumstances a helmet may prevent injuries, although in your path example and plenty of others those potential injuries could be prevented simply by riding in a manner which is appropriate for the conditions, you however cannot bring yourself to admit that wearing a helmet is not actually essential for the prevention of injuries, either you are actually convinced or you are determined to try to convince yourself that helmets are an essential safety item when riding a bike. Your post with your nonsense examples is also an attempt to convince others that it is necessary to wear a helmet, you quite clearly wish to suggest in that post that you would have, not may have, suffered injuries without it, (despite the fact you didn't even bump your head in one of them) but if you would only be honest enough to admit it I have proven to you that in both of your examples you absolutely cannot show that your helmet prevented you from sustaining injuries.
     
    classic33 likes this.
  13. Lemond

    Lemond Senior Member

    Location:
    Sunny Suffolk
    if you didn't think it was me, why ask me to provide you with evidence about it?
     
  14. Lemond

    Lemond Senior Member

    Location:
    Sunny Suffolk
    It staggers me that you cannot see the double standards in your own words.
     
  15. TinyMyNewt

    TinyMyNewt An execrable pun

    Location:
    South coast, UK
    Help us out, what are they?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice