Benefits of wearing a helmet

[tigger]

Cross thread.

Evidence is vitally important Red Light. Show me the names. Show me the names....

Yes, the fact that both of you try to rubbish the evidence from a position of ignorance of what the evidence actually is and what it says, because it conflicts with your personal beliefs.

As I've said so many times already I don't care what you wear on your heads and whether you think it will save you from a tree branch, a bike accident or a buzzard attack. If you just said you wear one because you want to or because it stops you hitting your head on branches I'd probably say nothing, If you said you wore one because it would save you from head injuries in an accident I would say you might like to look at how effective they really are. If you want to say, as david k has being doing here and in other threads, you wear on because you believe they will save your head in an accident and anyone who says otherwise is talking BS, then I will challenge you.

Neither of you has been able to demonstrate any evidence of knowing about or having read any of the research, I have invited you on several occasions to provide a critique of the research that I have put forward or suggest your own papers for consideration but neither of you seems capable of that. All you appear capable of doing is saying something is rubbish because it conflicts with your beliefs.

 

[chillyuk]

Going back to the OP, the poster says about the ambulace taking the casualties bike with them to hospital. Does anyone know what they do then. Leave it outside?

 

[lukesdad]

I dont need to provide evidence I am offering my opinion on your evidence. You brought it to the debate, you defend it. If you dont like people dissecting it,dont bring it to the party. Simple.

 

[Mark_Robson]

I broke my collar bone last year and as a result my bike and myself were ambulanced to hospital. Once there the paramedic locked my bike to a spare bed frame in A&E.

 

[david k]

Yes, the fact that both of you try to rubbish the evidence from a position of ignorance of what the evidence actually is and what it says, because it conflicts with your personal beliefs.
As I've said so many times already I don't care what you wear on your heads and whether you think it will save you from a tree branch, a bike accident or a buzzard attack. If you just said you wear one because you want to or because it stops you hitting your head on branches I'd probably say nothing, If you said you wore one because it would save you from head injuries in an accident I would say you might like to look at how effective they really are. If you want to say, as david k has being doing here and in other threads, you wear on because you believe they will save your head in an accident and anyone who says otherwise is talking BS, then I will challenge you.
Neither of you has been able to demonstrate any evidence of knowing about or having read any of the research, I have invited you on several occasions to provide a critique of the research that I have put forward or suggest your own papers for consideration but neither of you seems capable of that. All you appear capable of doing is saying something is rubbish because it conflicts with your beliefs.

challenge me to what? i think they work you dont, why wont you accept it? if you wont accept that i choose to wear one because i think they are of benefit do you challenge eveyone with a helmet on? You go on to say you dont care if i wear one, you obviously do as you feel the need to challeneg me?

 

[david k]

I broke my collar bone last year and as a result my bike and myself were ambulanced to hospital. Once there the paramedic locked my bike to a spare bed frame in A&E.

thats good of them, nice people you see

 

[Red Light]

I dont need to provide evidence I am offering my opinion on your evidence. You brought it to the debate, you defend it. If you dont like people dissecting it,dont bring it to the party. Simple.

Yes and I've been giving a mainly evidence based response to your opinions and pointing out the gaps in your knowledge. But you and david k appear to object to that.

But the standard rules are its for those proposing an intervention to demonstrate its needed. The burden of proof therefore lies with you.

 

[david k]

Yes and I've been giving a mainly evidence based response to your opinions and pointing out the gaps in your knowledge. But you and david k appear to object to that.

Not objected it but considered the points youve raised. The points discussed have not made me change my opinion, why would you think bombarding someone with data would unless it was totally irrefutable, which it isnt

 

[tigger]

Yes and I've been giving a mainly evidence based response to your opinions and pointing out the gaps in your knowledge. But you and david k appear to object to that.

But there's gaps in your evidence Red Light. Show me the names...

 

[lukesdad]

Yes and I've been giving a mainly evidence based response to your opinions and pointing out the gaps in your knowledge. But you and david k appear to object to that.

But the standard rules are its for those proposing an intervention to demonstrate its needed. The burden of proof therefore lies with you.

Ive not proposed anything, and you ve lost the plot.

 

[Red Light]

I broke my collar bone last year and as a result my bike and myself were ambulanced to hospital. Once there the paramedic locked my bike to a spare bed frame in A&E.

Spare beds in A&E? I didn't think they existed.

 

[Red Light]

But there's gaps in your evidence Red Light. Show me the names...

All the information you need is there so work it out yourself you lazy sod.

 

[ufkacbln]

Not objected it but considered the points youve raised. The points discussed have not made me change my opinion, why would you think bombarding someone with data would unless it was totally irrefutable, which it isnt

It's called discussion and debate.


Accepting that data is not irrefutable is exactly what the game is about. Helmets are not the "magic bullet" and have limitations, equally they have strengths.

You can accept those and wear on if you feel that is right, equally you can balance that data and decide not to. whichever you feel is appropriate to your riding style, skills and experience..

The difference is that you have stated that anyone who does the latter is "wrong", and that you rely on your own feelings and do not value research or evidence as it will not change your mind.


The data is presented to be read, and as such interpretation by open minded people who then decide how they value that data and act accordingly

I do of course realise just how difficult that can be for those who do not wish to allow cyclists to make an informed choice.

 

[tigger]

All the information you need is there so work it out yourself you lazy sod.

No no, you're the lazy sod. I should perhaps add manipulating too.

You couldn't be arsed to check the validity of your evidence. Now challenged, you still can't be bothered. Or is it because you want to hide something?

 

[david k]

It's called discussion and debate.
Accepting that data is not irrefutable is exactly what the game is about. Helmets are not the "magic bullet" and have limitations, equally they have strengths.
You can accept those and wear on if you feel that is right, equally you can balance that data and decide not to. whichever you feel is appropriate to your riding style, skills and experience..
The difference is that you have stated that anyone who does the latter is "wrong", and that you rely on your own feelings and do not value research or evidence as it will not change your mind.
The data is presented to be read, and as such interpretation by open minded people who then decide how they value that data and act accordingly
I do of course realise just how difficult that can be for those who do not wish to allow cyclists to make an informed choice.

You have speculated that i dont value research, having discussed its merits is proof that i do, dont confuse not valuing research with not thinking it is valuable enough to make me take off my helmet. So stop making things upo to suit your agenda

Open minded people, so ive heard its merits and made my mind up, so is that wrong or not, you keep changing your mind. Seems you are only open minded if i agree with you.

"those of you who do not wish people to make an informed choice" There you go again, that old chesnut, eluding to pro compulsion even though we have debated that to death and decided to park it, are you running out of things to argue about

I want to wear a helmet, stop trying to convince me not too, if your not, what are you on about then?