# Restrict 'Helmet Debates' to members only viewing?



## yello (5 Sep 2011)

I've not phrased the title very well, admitted. Just wondering whether the 'helmet debates' sub forum should/could be excluded from general view (i.e. when not logged in). Btw, I have it on ignore (or whatever the term is) on my profile. 

Imho, the 'helmet debates' sub-forum has not been a success. The debates are going around in circles (as I suspect many feared they would) and have really become between only a handful of people at most, with occasional contributions from others. I'm not sure it is serving much purpose for a wider audience.


----------



## MacB (5 Sep 2011)

yello said:


> I've not phrased the title very well, admitted. Just wondering whether the 'helmet debates' sub forum should/could be excluded from general view (i.e. when not logged in). Btw, I have it on ignore (or whatever the term is) on my profile.
> 
> Imho, the 'helmet debates' sub-forum has not been a success. The debates are going around in circles (as I suspect many feared they would) and have really become between only a handful of people at most, with occasional contributions from others. *I'm not sure it is serving much purpose for a wider audience*.




Works for me, I'd rather not see it back in general circulation


----------



## Fab Foodie (5 Sep 2011)

Having it on genera; circul;ation might allow non-members an opportunity to look at some of the wider issues of the Helmet debate. Very few Joe Public know there is any other side to the coin apart from 'Must wear a helmet'.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (5 Sep 2011)

Fab Foodie said:


> Having it on genera; circul;ation might allow non-members an opportunity to look at some of the wider issues of the Helmet debate. Very few Joe Public know there is any other side to the coin apart from 'Must wear a helmet'.



Could the page for non-members show only a small paragraph stating the main points in favour (reduces severity/incidence of head injury) and against (which, I *think* is that helmets could increase the risk or severity of head injury and that they discourage cycling); with a link to the website where these are all investigated?

and a comment that further debates are in the forum which is members-only?


----------



## numbnuts (5 Sep 2011)

I really can't see a need for a debate you either wear one or you don't end of story


----------



## Panter (5 Sep 2011)

Fab Foodie said:


> Having it on genera; circul;ation might allow non-members an opportunity to look at some of the wider issues of the Helmet debate. Very few Joe Public know there is any other side to the coin apart from 'Must wear a helmet'.



This.

I was of the exact same mindset when I first started cycling and wouldn't venture out without my helmet.
It just seemed so obvious that some protection was better than none.
Without threads like the helmet debate ones I'd have been none the wiser even now.


----------



## yello (5 Sep 2011)

Panter said:


> Without threads like the helmet debate ones I'd have been none the wiser even now.



Whilst I agree with this in theory, what we are seeing in practice is a seemingly endless ping-pong of point scoring. Perhaps someone could make a sticky of bullet points with links?


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Sep 2011)

I for one have sought, gained and (hopefully) given good advice on a wide range of subjects from GPS, mapping, medical through routes to how to neatly line up your tyres with the valve!

The site itself is a source of valid information and a useful resource

The problem arises when you get statements such as "helmets are wide enough to prevent facial injuries" that are blatantly untrue.

If someone reads a a statement like this on a respectable cycling website and expects this to be the case then it discredits and devalues the good work done on this site

There is unfortunately a need to challenge dangerous statements like this


----------



## yello (5 Sep 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> There is unfortunately a need to challenge dangerous statements like this



I know. I agree. I wish there weren't quite so many such statements, so many mistaken beliefs, but I'm trying to be even handed.


----------



## Panter (6 Sep 2011)

yello said:


> Whilst I agree with this in theory, what we are seeing in practice is a seemingly endless ping-pong of point scoring. Perhaps someone could make a sticky of bullet points with links?



I did request this some time ago, but I appreciate mods/admin are very busy people.
There is a huge amount of useful info in those threads, along with links to relevant studies that could help people to decide for themselves, but they're usually obscured by hundreds of pages of arguments and talk about cheese...

Maybe it could all be sorted into one comprehensive, impartial thread and any future helmet discussion banned unless it's relating to any new, credible research? I'd be happy to help if I can.


----------

