Do you wear a helmet on your commute?

[benb]

Also to add, who cares?! Whats walking got to do with cycling? You might as well compare fly fishing, potholing or watching TV. As BenB knows (but daren't admit) its a complete non-sequiter, a logical fallacy, red herring and irrelevence. Forget it. Move on.

It's not. It's illustrative of people's logical inconsistency that they want to promote head protection for one low risk activity, but not for another low risk activity.

 

[Red Light]

I could take you for a walk or two that would have you screaming for ya mummy

 

[srw]

If you considered all the available evidence including relevant statistics on some of the data sources allready mentioned here you would conclude 'A helmet must be worn at all times'.

Only if you were a complete and utter numpty and didn't understand the statistics.

Oh - you were an H&S manager, you say? That would explain it.

 

[Red Light]

The point being, that if it mitigates the chance of a minor injury, then irrelevent diversions aside (peds, numbers of cyclists etc), then surely it could be encouraged?

How far do you want to carry that principle and what are the de minimum cut offs you would apply to risks? And is it a principle you think should be applied generally or just to cyclists?

 

[lb81]

Only if you were a complete and utter numpty and didn't understand the statistics.

Oh - you were an H&S manager, you say? That would explain it.

Charming...

I was trying to be objective and point out that were you to approach this from a H&S perspective, you would come to this conclusion. Not least because the point of H&S is mostly to protect people from their own idiocy...

Had you actually read my post, i then went on to say you can do as you please, its your life and is of no concern to me.

Clearly objective discussion is not possible on this thread.

 

[Red Light]

I'm sorry, I dont undertsand your first question, but to the 2nd...

Just cyclists as we're talking about cycle helmets. It doesn't matter how much you repeat it, I don't think I can agree to the leap of logic to the pedestrian analogy.

I'm just asking whether anything that mitigates the chance of a minor injury should be encouraged or whether you had some minimum levels of risk below which you wouldn't bother. And why would it not be equally sensible to encourage anything that encourages the chance of a minor injury in children or pedestrians or the elderly or any other group you care to define? Is there something special about cyclists that makes minor injuries to them unacceptable while minor injuries to everyone else are acceptable?

 

[Red Light]

Charming...I was trying to be objective and point out that were you to approach this from a H&S perspective, you would come to this conclusion.

I think you could only come to that conclusion through a faulty risk assessment for the reasons I have indicated but you have not responded to.

 

[Red Light]

How many times? Analogies dont interest me. This is Cyclechat where we talk about cyclists, cycle helmets and injuries to cyclists. If you want to talk about pedestrians go www.pedchat.net and argue compulsion there.

And "minimum levels of risk", what the hell are you blathering on about?!

If you don't understand the concepts of de minimus risk you perhaps should not be pronouncing on risks. Do you for example wear full kevlar cycling armour (you can buy it in the shops and on-line) to prevent arm, leg and torso minor injuries in everyday cycling? Or perhaps you only ride on disc wheels to mitigate against an injury from your fingers going in the spokes. Or is there a risk level of minor injuries below which its just not worth bothering to protect against?

And I'm not talking about analogies. I'm talking about principles. You have set out a principle that anything that mitigates the chance of a minor injury should be encouraged. I'm just wondering whether you think those general principles should apply to all minor injuries and all minor injuries however minor?

 

[Red Light]

Im saying its up to you - but when it comes to minor injuries of the head, perhaps we should take those more seriously?

Why? Is there any reason to think minor injuries to the head are anything more than minor injuries?

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 1998160, member: 45"] If we're aiming for transparency and education[/quote]

What we're aiming for, surely, is the joy of the wind in our hair? OK, I'll scrub the hair bit on Adrian's account, and just go for the joy.

 

[Red Light]

I'll have you know that I enjoy the wind over my scalp just as well as the next man thank you very much

That's what happens when you put you head down on the back of a tandem

 

[threebikesmcginty]

What we're aiming for, surely, is the joy of the wind in our hair?

Yeah, just get on your bike and ride the f*cker, they're great!

 

[StuartG]

I was trying to be objective and point out that were you to approach this from a H&S perspective, you would come to this conclusion.

How then do you explain statisticians are mostly agnostic on this issue?
Should that not worry 'H&S' people? Or do they know better and how?

 

[david k]

Agreed. But the 'severity' of accidents involving cyclists would be a higher score due to the increased velocities involved.

They would probably come to the same overall score due to the increased 'probability' of a pedestrian accident, but that does not mean you should implement the same control measure for both activities.

I will think on it and come back with something more comprehensive.

your presuming the same distances, the likelihood is that people wouldnt walk to work the same distances as cyclists would. therefore it may not be increased probability as you claim

 

[david k]

Yes, and not one person who is in favour of helmets has been able to adequately explain why they are not also in favour of helmets for pedestrians.

its probably due to the reduced risk