Benefits of wearing a helmet

[ufkacbln]

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?

Wrong!

You have stated previously that you did not value research, would not be swayed by it, and preferred to decide on your own experience. Are you now denying that?

You stated you were pro-compulsion - are you now denying that?

Then of course the real problem. You are clearly stating that people are "wrong" not to wear helmets and using silly "experiments" to persuade them. These are then demonstrated as being silly and you get upset.

As above, no-one is trying to persuade you not to wear a helmet.... you have every right to do so

The idea (which you seem to feel uncomfortable with) is to balance these overstated and often ridiculous claims with evidence that cycle helmets do have limitations, and that people are wrong not to wear them


People have the right to be informed, and the right to wear a helmet or not, it is refusing them that information because you find it inconvenient, or simply telling them that they are wrong not to wear one that is a closed mind

 

[teletext45]

Having survived leukemia, septacemia, two car accidents and being ran over 3 times i'm not leaving anything to chance so helmet all the way, i don't particularly like mine but never mind!

andy

 

[david k]

Wrong!

You have stated previously that you did not value research, would not be swayed by it, and preferred to decide on your own experience. Are you now denying that?
You stated you were pro-compulsion - are you now denying that?
Then of course the real problem. You are clearly stating that people are "wrong" not to wear helmets and using silly "experiments" to persuade them. These are then demonstrated as being silly and you get upset.
As above, no-one is trying to persuade you not to wear a helmet.... you have every right to do so
The idea (which you seem to feel uncomfortable with) is to balance these overstated and often ridiculous claims with evidence that cycle helmets do have limitations, and that people are wrong not to wear them
People have the right to be informed, and the right to wear a helmet or not, it is refusing them that information because you find it inconvenient, or simply telling them that they are wrong not to wear one that is a closed mind

oh dear you seem to have memory loss, we decided to leave the pro compulson out of it, there is a seperate thread on this and my thoughts are on that
to clarify again, i do value research, i may wish to question it, something you have a prolem with
if your not trying to pursuade me not to wear a helmet what are you trying to pursuade me of?
were did i state peope were 'wrong' for not wearing a helmet
once again suggesting that i dont believe helmets have limitations, yet more lies by you

your post is a complete and utter bunch of lies, worst is you know it

If you are not trying to get me to jusify why i wear a helmet and i have established (as proven in previous threas numerous times) that i do not want to force anyone to wear a helmet then please explain wha you issue with, and try without posting lies, making assumtions, twisting anything ive posted, please stick to the facts

 

[ufkacbln]

your post is a complete and utter bunch of lies, worst is you know it

So tat means that :

1. You ARE denying posting that you do not value evidence and rely on your own experience

2. You ARE denying posting that you are pro-compulsion

3. You are denying stating that someone was wrong for not wearing a helmet

 

[david k]

So tat means that :

1. You ARE denying posting that you do not value evidence and rely on your own experience

2. You ARE denying posting that you are pro-compulsion

3. You are denying stating that someone was wrong for not wearing a helmet

1. the evidence has flaws so dont value it in this case as it is not relevant to me putting a helmet on or not, yes i value my own experience/thoughts/opinions
2. There is a pro compulsion thread with my thoughts, how many times do you need to hear it ?
3. yet again, i posted that i feel people should but i cannot make them, as in my story of my cycling friend


1. can you trust your own experience or must you have data analysis to back it up?
2. Is your only issue therefore compulsion? If so why do you refuse to use a thread that is designed for that and contine to use it in other threads when you run out of anything useful to post?
3. do you deny making things up and posting lies about me?
none of this is forcing, you are a liar for sugesting i said i force people to wear helmets
now can you reply without lies?

 

[david k]

worth wearing not should be worn

Deny choice? we decided to park discussing compulsion so it doesnt muddy the water, theres an alternative thread on that

i dont feel the risk for pedestrians is the same as cycling. Therefore i wear a helmet when cycling but not walking.

Do you think people who wear helmets when cycling but not walking are hypocrites ??

stll waiting for this one to be answered

 

[david k]

and the other one you keep avoiding, are the medical experts to be considered as reputable in this debate or not

and this one

 

[Red Light]

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?

Its been verified and you have all you need to verify it yourself. If you find an error let me know.

Nothing to hide, just not playing your games for you. Feel free to come back and challenge my numbers if you wish but you're going to have to work for it for a change. I suspect the problem though is you don't even know how to start so you want someone to provide you with a list of names you can quibble over instead.

 

[tigger]

Its been verified and you have all you need to verify it yourself. If you find an error let me know.

Nothing to hide, just not playing your games for you. Feel free to come back and challenge my numbers if you wish but you're going to have to work for it for a change. I suspect the problem though is you don't even know how to start so you want someone to provide you with a list of names you can quibble over instead.

Look at the Pro Cyclists Wearing Helmets thread. Dan B has posted a list which I have also seen. I've searched through all of the riders and obtained information on most of the accidents - some I can't find. What I have seen so far doesn't give that graph any credence at all. Of course we can't guarantee the validity of this list tallying with the casualties in your graph, but given its a relatively select bunch, most must have been part of the data in your graph.

 

[lukesdad]

Look at the Pro Cyclists Wearing Helmets thread. Dan B has posted a list which I have also seen. I've searched through all of the riders and obtained information on most of the accidents - some I can't find. What I have seen so far doesn't give that graph any credence at all. Of course we can't guarantee the validity of this list tallying with the casualties in your graph, but given its a relatively select bunch, most must have been part of the data in your graph.

Not another great bloody hole in his evidence surely ?

 

[tigger]

Not another great bloody hole in his evidence surely ?

Is this a common trait??

 

[Shaun]

Just a friendly reminder: please stick to debating the subject, and not taking pot shots at each other.

Thanks,
Shaun

 

[ufkacbln]

1. the evidence has flaws so dont value it in this case as it is not relevant to me putting a helmet on or not, yes i value my own experience/thoughts/opinions

So I was not lying when I said you stated that you don't value the evidence and preferred to rely on your own experience?

2. There is a pro compulsion thread with my thoughts, how many times do you need to hear it ?

You are refusing to discuss this except under your own agenda, it is not, and should not be restricted in this debate.

3. yet again, i posted that i feel people should but i cannot make them, as in my story of my cycling friend

... and stated "he is wrong of course", so you have now answered your own question as to "where you said someone was wrong not to wear a helmet" - thanks for being honest with that one at least

 

[ufkacbln]

1. can you trust your own experience or must you have data analysis to back it up?

As an HCP my entire working scenario is based on Evidence Based Practice. Anyone in this day and age who does not do so should not be practicing. It is the whole point of ensuring that things are done properly.

2. Is your only issue therefore compulsion? If so why do you refuse to use a thread that is designed for that and contine to use it in other threads when you run out of anything useful to post?

My issue is the false claims and lies used to promote compulsion, along with silly experiments in a vain attempt to inject a level of science that Gillian McKeith would be proud of

3. do you deny making things up and posting lies about me?
none of this is forcing, you are a liar for sugesting i said i force people to wear helmets
now can you reply without lies?

See 1 and 2 above - I "lied" about you stating someone was "wrong" for not wearing a helmet.

I "lied" when I stated that you believed your own experience rather than evidence

The rest of your allegations are as erroneous and misplaced.

 

[ufkacbln]

and this one

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, you seem to have missed something