Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
Do you wear a helmet on your commute?
- Thread starter beany_bot
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
These are the posts that absolutely confirm the pedestrian / car driver comparisons.
The fact is that if you walk into that Hospital and look at the records you will see that cyclists formed a small part of the number of head injury admissions. Lots of activities will be more common than cycling as a cause.
The question has to be asked why we do not have the same claims for each one, whether they be pedstrians, drunks, children on playing fields, someone climbing stairs, or simply tripping on a kerb?
If the guy in the next bed fell off a ladder would we have been seeing :
For instance a workman on a ladder who will die sometime soon in my local area, who is in hospital. Didn't wear a helmet and one would have saved him. Hes now in coma and they are just waiting for him to die now. Horrible but true. Horrific head injury. They had to remove part of his skull to release pressure building up around his brain.
If not, why not?
My position is clear and unequivocally that there should be a choice, but that choice should be an informed one not emotional blackmail, or bullying. The individual should have a realistic concept of what helmets can and cannot do, they should also realise the pitfalls and hazards of wearing a helmet as well as the positive ones.
On a personal basis then it is up to you whether you read evidence or not, the only person who will be hurt if you are wrong is yourself......but when you start advising others and are ignorant of the facts then that is unacceptable.
If you then give information that is blatantly untrue, wrong and can affect the health of others simply because you are ignorant of the facts should we be accepting this?
Remember your previous claim that we didn't need full face helmets because normal helmets are "wide enough to protect the face". Extremely poor and erroneous advice clearly showing an ignorance of how helmets worked and their capabilities. Hardly a strong position to advise onthe type of helmet someone else should be using?
Do you still stand by that or have you now seen evidence that refutes this and stand corrected ?
Those figures are comparing all cycling accidents/injuries on the roads/pavement with only those accidents in which a pedestrian has been hit by a motor vehicle or bicycle. The inebriated fraternity are therefore largely removed. If you want to add in pedestrians who tripped or fell on the road/pavement, the number is about six times greater but does include the inebriated.
I have suffered three serious head injuries in my life. Yep that explains a lot!
The first was as a baby when I fell out of my bath. The second was as a child when I fell off a wall. The third was as a runner I tripped fell and hit a bollard set up to protect cyclists (oh the irony).
None really qualifies as being a pedestrian and drink was not involved. But I have a very dented bonce. Now if I had worn an effective helmet I would be normal with even stronger anecdotes.
But that's the point - if we want to prevent head injuries we need to look how and when they happened. I'm thinking the results will point to cycling being a very small part - even amongst active cyclists. In other words we need a helmet fitted very soon after birth and removed at death. Actually the amount of km you do cycling or walking is irrelevant. Well that is in your expected lifetime you will be walking/sitting/bathing more than cycling. Given that unless cycling is more dangerous by a magnitude or two then it is irrelevant. You can only die once. If its from a head injury you will be very unlikely to be cycling at the time.
So should you wear a helmet for life? Well yes if our H&S friend is to be believed. But then we find the non-cycling risk to be acceptable. Most cyclists in the UK feel a similar risk on a bike to be unacceptable. That's irrational. I'm comfortable with that as a personal choice. I'm unhappy with that in the ordering of any adult's life by a third party or the state.
The first was as a baby when I fell out of my bath. The second was as a child when I fell off a wall. The third was as a runner I tripped fell and hit a bollard set up to protect cyclists (oh the irony).
None really qualifies as being a pedestrian and drink was not involved. But I have a very dented bonce. Now if I had worn an effective helmet I would be normal with even stronger anecdotes.
But that's the point - if we want to prevent head injuries we need to look how and when they happened. I'm thinking the results will point to cycling being a very small part - even amongst active cyclists. In other words we need a helmet fitted very soon after birth and removed at death. Actually the amount of km you do cycling or walking is irrelevant. Well that is in your expected lifetime you will be walking/sitting/bathing more than cycling. Given that unless cycling is more dangerous by a magnitude or two then it is irrelevant. You can only die once. If its from a head injury you will be very unlikely to be cycling at the time.
So should you wear a helmet for life? Well yes if our H&S friend is to be believed. But then we find the non-cycling risk to be acceptable. Most cyclists in the UK feel a similar risk on a bike to be unacceptable. That's irrational. I'm comfortable with that as a personal choice. I'm unhappy with that in the ordering of any adult's life by a third party or the state.
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
Good morning
Once again confusing (or knowingly falsely claiming) 'advice' with 'opinion'. By simply altering that one word changes the perception of the whole post
Also once again you've dragged up selected words from very old posts, as these are from other threads people havn't followed the thread and therefore the words are out of context. The reason the thread stopped is because it came to a natural end. This is a new thread over a year later. I'm surprised you cannot let it go and dont offer people their right to an opinion (no doubt you will yet again falsely claim it to be advice). My advice (yes advice) to you would be to move on, its not healthy to keep looking back over old posts and to hold these anxieties and anger over old threads.
Anywaaayyyyy,
Your view as I understand it:
You can make up your own mind but you can only do it if you have read all the facts and data (informed) which proves it is therefore dangerous and if you wear one you inadvertently offer advice as people see you wearing a helmet which makes them think cycling is dangerous. If anyone posts anything that can be considered as positive for helmets must be challenged as it is considered advice. Oh yeh, but I am pro choice.
Is there only me can see the hypocrisy?
Despite this I hold no grudge against you, your free to hold any view you like and I wish you no harm whether you wear a helmet or not.
Have a nice day all
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
And we should remember that a commutes by walking are mush less than commutes by bicycle
[QUOTE 2001904, member: 45"]You should no more wear a helmet for the whole of your life than you should for the whole of your cycling. You might consider it for parts of.[/quote]
Indeed I have no problem wearing a helmet when I was rock climbing. No one dreamed it would be of use if you fell or hit by a boulder. It did protect you from falling stones which in themselves would not KSI you - but would prevent you from momentarily losing concentration and hence falling. That is wearing a helmet to prevent a predictable and not uncommon event that had proven and very serious consequences.
Indeed I have no problem wearing a helmet when I was rock climbing. No one dreamed it would be of use if you fell or hit by a boulder. It did protect you from falling stones which in themselves would not KSI you - but would prevent you from momentarily losing concentration and hence falling. That is wearing a helmet to prevent a predictable and not uncommon event that had proven and very serious consequences.
Your saying that that massive number of walking injuries are sustained over a much shorter distance and that walking is even more dangerous than we thought?
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
This post clearly and unequivocally shows that you don't actually read evidence or "do" facts.
Can I suggest that you actually read what was written (evidence)
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
My position is perfectly clear, its on the agenda thread
Your position is clearly demonstrated above - you have no concept of reality!
- Status
