Cyclist who don't wear a helmet

[mcshroom]

Which emotive arguments do you believe the non compulsionists put forward @w00hoo_kent ?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I am not sure that lobbying my MP about legislation not actually under consideration would be that clever. Firstly he disregards my opinion on every subject. Secondly, having become aware of the issue, he might decide to actively support it.

That really depends on the strength of your argument. Staying under the radar and bickering amongst the choir isn't going to help your case and you only have to look at seat belts or motorbike helmets to see the effectiveness of lobbying after the legislation has arrived. Wouldn't it be better to get a positive attitude in advance, when it's not an emotive issue, rather than to solicit one once the debate begins and the people with vested interest (insurance companies, helmet manufacturers, etc.) start to weigh in with bigger budgets.

If the 'no compulsion' camp has legs, then getting people interested in researching the pro's of not wearing a helmet, and convincing people to use riders without helmets in advertising to normalise the image can't be bad things?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Yes, it is annoying that the same arguments have to be trotted out over and over again. A sticky has been suggested, but most probably no one would bother to read it.

It's a long shot, but it's a chance I'd be willing to take.

I can't help thinking that being able to post early in the thread "this has already been discussed a lot, read here and here and then let us know if you have something new" would stop a lot of old ground being retread. I've really not been on cycle chat long and I've already seen the same arguments recycled enough times that I know what I'm going to read before it happens and can play helmet topic bingo with myself. I guess it's possible that this area being so toxic keeps people from being too snarky elsewhere...

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Which emotive arguments do you believe the non compulsionists put forward @w00hoo_kent ?

Non-compulsion tend to go for 'thin end of the wedge' and 'the freedom of cycling au naturel' with a side order of 'less cyclists will make it more dangerous for everyone' and 'if it's good enough for cyclists everyone should be wearing one'. Off the top of my head (no pun intended, but it appears one was achieved).

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Write one then.

I might when I'm at a real keyboard.

 

[oldfatfool]

Hmm an helmet, wonder if this guy will help out

 

[w00hoo_kent]

How is that emotive? That's just true.

More true than "my doctor/nurse/paramedic/homeopath said without a helmet I'd have died" or "a helmet saved my friend from injury" or "if it helps one person then it must be worthwhile". They are all unproven viewpoints that sit somewhere on a sliding scale between fact and belief. There have been some figures quoted for studies and they can be debated but once you move to their relevance to different situations you are pulling in conjecture and emotion.

If it helps to see my viewpoint, I sit in the middle here, I wear a helmet as and when I choose and for my own reasons. I'd not argue another person should or shouldn't have one on (this as with anything isn't 100% true thanks to a very specific case) and I have never called someone on their choice either way. I don't believe in compulsion because I like the freedom of choice. I don't believe my life has ever been saved by a helmet, but I'd lay money my chin has been by a motorcycle one.

 

[Dan B]

It is a valid illustration at the very least. People arguing for the use of helmets expect to, and do, get away with all sorts of emotive, exaggerated claims. People questioning those claims get pulled up just for questioning them even when, as here, they are almost certainly correct.

Bone: stone age man used to make knives from it
Tarmac: on a warm day you can see your footprints in it

I concede that maybe my planet uses a different definition of hardness from yours, but I always thought it was about "how much it squishes when you poke it"

 

[jonesy]

These arguments often end up with the fallacy of false compromise/appeal to moderation...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_moderation

 

[Profpointy]

Bone: stone age man used to make knives from it
Tarmac: on a warm day you can see your footprints in it

I concede that maybe my planet uses a different definition of hardness from yours, but I always thought it was about "how much it squishes when you poke it"

Yebbutt you can use the facts to prove anything - tarmac is harder it's obvious innit - and it was on some helmet website so must be true

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Sorry, that's not true or helpful, but I'm not going to go down that road yet again.

Which bits were conjecture?

As with TMN I'm not looking to have the argument again over which bits are true or not, that really would be counterproductive to my personal 'no rehashing the same old debates about helmets' crusade but what I've stated in the two posts above are some of the beliefs held and argued ad nauseum by the two camps in the debate. It would be a bit disingenuous to pretend they aren't, but if you want to go that way, feel free, just don't expect me to bite on the mouldy old bait.

I'm fully aware that each camp sees their beliefs as immutable facts and the ones held by the other as spurious inanities but I'd hope we can at least admit that each side has these beliefs and move on otherwise it's all just going to get bogged down again. Occasionally I guess someone might change camps, but considering the tone that is quite quickly adopted in these threads I'd be surprised if it was many and I'd imagine the percentage is decreasing.

 

[Dan B]

Did I fail to express the fact that I was in agreement with you clearly?

Sorry, apparently my brain today is nearly as dense as my skull

 

[w00hoo_kent]

These arguments often end up with the fallacy of false compromise/appeal to moderation...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_moderation

Interesting but I'd hold that this is in the exception list rather than the proof of the rule list. For it to prove the rule you'd be looking at the argument basically polarising to 'everyone should wear a helmet' or 'nobody should wear a helmet' and for me I believe the argument 'some people feel happier cycling with a helmet, others feel happier without, that is fine' is actually a better target.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I'll revise my suggestion from earlier. If you are not prepared to justify your claims, you are probably not the best placed person to write any sticky on the subject.

I'll let you do it then. :-)

 

[Dan B]

From what I've seen neither side believes the 'facts' the other side quotes, both revert to arguing emotive points to a fairly equal degree and then things go round in circles while the language either side uses is examined in ever more desperate minutiae in an attempt to score points and win.

I fear you misunderstand my motivation: it's boredom, not desperation