Deaths when not using helmet

[david k]

Quite often the purpose is to challenge unrealistic, inflated and simply erroneous clams

Do you believe that a full face helmet is unnecessary because normal helmets are wide enough to prevent facial injuries?

Is it incorrect to refute such bizarre and unfounded claims?

unnecessary for what? you fail to say what it is unnecessary for? if you mean general road cycling then yes id say it is unnecessary and standard cycle helmet that meets the required standard is good enough for that purpose. But yet again i assume you are referring to previous comments but misrepresenting them.

 

[ufkacbln]

unnecessary for what? you fail to say what it is unnecessary for? if you mean general road cycling then yes id say it is unnecessary and standard cycle helmet that meets the required standard is good enough for that purpose. But yet again i assume you are referring to previous comments but misrepresenting them.

Lets make this clear....... the posts are here:

Post 228

post 229

To me it is quite simple....

1. You were asked in post 228 if you wore a full face helmet

So you wear a full face helmet when cycling then?

2. In post 229 you replied

no, with the helmet being wider than my face im guessing that will take the impact if i fall

The meaning is clear and presented in context.

 

[david k]

thanks for clearing that up, what i typed was different to what you claimed i said

 

[lukesdad]

Quite often the purpose is to challenge unrealistic, inflated and simply erroneous clams

Do you believe that a full face helmet is unnecessary because normal helmets are wide enough to prevent facial injuries?

Is it incorrect to refute such bizarre and unfounded claims?

Of course not.
Is it incorrect to challenge the evidence ?

You present most of the time a rational well balanced argument. Unfortunately you are in a minority.

 

[ufkacbln]

Of course not.
Is it incorrect to challenge the evidence ?

You present most of the time a rational well balanced argument. Unfortunately you are in a minority.

That is the point.....

Please do challenge the evidence, none of it is absoultely conclusive, but that is the nature of Science.

What I personally feel is that whichever choice you make it should be based on your interpretation of that evidence and how you apply that to your own risk assessment. However it should be evidence based

If you are a 10 mph commuter, an avid diehard down-hiller, a racer, or a simple leisure rider that does a couple of miles to the pub whilst on Holiday, then your exposure and risks are different and you should be allowed to choose.

For instance, have a helmet in your pannier when you ride to the down hill route, wear it for the session on the trails and put it back in your pannier for the trip home... or wear a normal helmet on the trip to and from and a full face on the trails

Why should anyone question that decision and your assessment of the risk?

 

[ufkacbln]

thanks for clearing that up, what i typed was different to what you claimed i said

Absolutely - you were asked if you wore a full face helmet and then claimed that you didn't need to as cycle helmets are wide enough to prevent facial injuries.

 

[lukesdad]

And how would you define evidence, would that only be scientific evidence, or would you include personal experience ?

 

[twobiker]

How dare you swear at me!

You are funny , the Edinburgh fringe is your true calling.

 

[ufkacbln]

And how would you define evidence, would that only be scientific evidence, or would you include personal experience ?

The problem with personal experience is just that - it is personal, and unique, it often does not represent the "full picture".

Scientific evidence is more robust usually as it has a larger number of cases and therefore more likely to be valid in a decision making process.

You can of course use personal experience as evidence if it is formally assessed in a controlled and systematic way


For instance:

Take a bike and paint it pink. Then try and sell it ...

The first random customer is a boy

The personal experience is that you cannot sell a pink bike.

If the first random customer is a girl then the personal experience is that pink bikes are easy to sell

However if you tried selling it to two random children the personal experience would be totally different - the outcome is more valid as you now know you can sell pink bikes to girls, but not to boys.

Of course the girl may be a tom boy and the personal experience is that you cannot sell pink bikes to either girls or boys.

Now take a hundred random children and personal experience is nearer the truth - that you can sell pink bikes to girls, but not boys

The case of facial injury is a prime example. The statement was that the personal experience was that a helmet is wide enough to protect from facial injuries so a full face helmet was not needed.

The combined personal experiences of a cohort of cyclist showed that this is clearly not the case.

 

[Red Light]

Well I always dismiss yours on the grounds you don't know what you are talking about,

Clearly not as you keep replying to my posts.

 

[twobiker]

Clearly not as you keep replying to my posts.

I respect your right to voice your opinion, and that's not something you will hear on debates about helmets very often. but I reserve my right to
dismiss it if I see fit.

 

[Red Light]

I respect your right to voice your opinion, and that's not something you will hear on debates about helmets very often. but I reserve my right to
dismiss it if I see fit.

Ditto.

 

[twobiker]

Ditto.

Then at least we can agree on something.

 

[lukesdad]

The problem with personal experience is just that - it is personal, and unique, it often does not represent the "full picture".

Scientific evidence is more robust usually as it has a larger number of cases and therefore more likely to be valid in a decision making process.

You can of course use personal experience as evidence if it is formally assessed in a controlled and systematic way


For instance:

Take a bike and paint it pink. Then try and sell it ...

The first random customer is a boy

The personal experience is that you cannot sell a pink bike.

If the first random customer is a girl then the personal experience is that pink bikes are easy to sell

However if you tried selling it to two random children the personal experience would be totally different - the outcome is more valid as you now know you can sell pink bikes to girls, but not to boys.

Of course the girl may be a tom boy and the personal experience is that you cannot sell pink bikes to either girls or boys.

Now take a hundred random children and personal experience is nearer the truth - that you can sell pink bikes to girls, but not boys

The case of facial injury is a prime example. The statement was that the personal experience was that a helmet is wide enough to protect from facial injuries so a full face helmet was not needed.

The combined personal experiences of a cohort of cyclist showed that this is clearly not the case.

I like this example, of course it could always be a T-Mobile replica.

 

[david k]

Lets make this clear....... the posts are here:

Post 228

post 229

To me it is quite simple....

1. You were asked in post 228 if you wore a full face helmet



2. In post 229 you replied



The meaning is clear and presented in context.

fancy answering the question, it is unnecessary for what?