Has your helmet saved your life poll

[srw]

I absolutely have left you alone. You interacted with me. Do as you please. I have repeated several times that i couldn't care what you's do. It is the other way about though. What's the worst that can happen if i convince someone to wear a helmet with my posts?? What is the worst that can happen if you convince someone not to with yours?

Exactly the same. If they have a crash they may, or may not, be seriously injured.

Now. Where is that Collins bloke?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

You seriously do not know what you are talking about. Please go away and do some learning.

Adrian, see the quote below all your posts? I am starting to see the sort of person who would put that there. Once again i am through listening to your babble..............

I am interested in continuing chat with anyone else though tbh neither parties minds will be changed. For now though i will go off and learn everything that Adrian knows. Just hope God will let me borrow his book of everything.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Exactly the same. If they have a crash they may, or may not, be seriously injured.

Now. Where is that Collins bloke?

Thats the debatable part SRW. IMO a helmet will help. IYO they will not. Neither of us have conclusive evidence to prove either case.

 

[david k]

I'm afraid that I see this as one of the distractions. And, whether you measure by time or by distance, the two are what I'd consider to be be similar, which was my response to Pedro's question.

Whether falling on the pavement or tripping when walking is more serious is covered by the stats I posted, although they don't really show that. What they say is that 4 times more peds die than cyclists, whereas just under twice as many are seriously injured but only a few more peds are covered by 'other injuries'. That suggests, to me, that peds are more likely to be killed or seriously injured.

Now, given that I wear a helmet most of the time, do you want to rethink the tired old concept that there is any intention to ridicule helmet wearers, because that comment itself could open you up to ridicule.

i didnt mean you were attempting to ridicule Norm, apologies i didnt mean it to read like that. Just the whole 'you wear a helmet on a bike then you should wear one when walking argument' i was referring to in a generalization.

Am i right in thinking from your thread that you consider being a ped more at risk of injury than cyclists?

 

[Norm]

Regarding your response to David K above, i think you may miss the point that whilst every cyclist is also a ped, not every ped is a cyclist. Obviously more peds die each year for whatever reason than cyclists as there is an enormous deal more of them.

All of which is completely irrelevant because the stats include injuries per xxx miles.

Am i right in thinking from your thread that you consider being a ped more at risk of injury than cyclists?

No. For the third time, I consider the stats suggest that the risk is similar.

 

[david k]

All of which is completely irrelevant because the stats include injuries per xxx miles.

but we must consider to time spent 'at risk' 1 mile on a bike is generally 4 times less than walking

 

[david k]

Thats the debatable part SRW. IMO a helmet will help. IYO they will not. Neither of us have conclusive evidence to prove either case.

this seems like a perfectly reasonable and balanced view. I just dont see why people who dont share your views feel the need to give you such a hard time? Its almost a case of those who do not think helmets are a benefit to cycling doth protest too much

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

All of which is completely irrelevant because the stats include injuries per xxx miles.

What about per hour? I'd guess that would be a different stat, but again Norm do you live your life by stats or by your own common sense. If your common sense says helmets don't work then that's the way to go for you. No one should tell you otherwise. If though you choose not to wear a helmet due to insufficient evidence and that overrules your common sense then there is something not quite right there. I think though that you are intelligent enough to make a decision based on a multitude of experience and data.

 

[david k]

Straws firmly clutched there.

It may appear like that Adrian but its a worthy point

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

this seems like a perfectly reasonable and balanced view. I just dont see why people who dont share your views feel the need to give you such a hard time? Its almost a case of those who do not think helmets are a benefit to cycling doth protest too much

IMO it's an attempt to justify something to themselves that they are not completely convinced by. I must point out here though that i only find one or two rude. One of which has been ignored and been previously warned that this would happen.

 

[Norm]

but we must consider to time spent 'at risk' 1 mile on a bike is generally 4 times less than walking

Yes... and that's exactly why I said similar. You can look at reasons for either to be adjusted, such as age, alcohol content, time standing at bus stops, time riding a bike across a mountain... etc.

The point remains that the two have similar risks of injuries.

What about per hour? I'd guess that would be a different stat, but again Norm do you live your life by stats or by your own common sense. If your common sense says helmets don't work then that's the way to go for you. No one should tell you otherwise. If though you choose not to wear a helmet due to insufficient evidence and that overrules your common sense then there is something not quite right there. I think though that you are intelligent enough to make a decision based on a multitude of experience and data.

And this sort of condescending BS is where some evangelists lose, pretending that they have common sense on their side because facts and stats don't support their beliefs.

Apologies, David, but I'm out of this one.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Yes... and that's exactly why I said similar. You can look at reasons for either to be adjusted, such as age, alcohol content, time standing at bus stops, time riding a bike across a mountain... etc.

The point remains that the two have similar risks of injuries.
And this sort of condescending BS is where some evangelists lose, pretending that they have common sense on their side because facts and stats don't support their beliefs.

Apologies, David, but I'm out of this one.

Norm you have shown no stats on helmet safety, or the lack of, whatsoever . Then you say i am condescending. I then pretend i have common sense on my side?? I said "If your common sense says helmets don't work then that's the way to go for you".

You not me!

My beliefs are mine and i enforce them on myself only. Also it is a touch hypocritical to wear a helmet and argue against. Practise what you preach.

 

[gavintc]

It is because helmet compulsion has a proven, measurable dis-benefit on cycling as a whole, so the notion needs to be stamped on whenever anyone raises it.

Sadly, with 'contributory negligence' claims we have effectively got helmet compulsion. I agree with your sentiment that as a nation we lose if bring in compulsory legislation. The benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks. But from a personal perspective I wear a helmet as I do not want any claim I submit to be reduced simply because a piece of plastic and polystyrene was not on my head at the time. Weird, bizarre, wrong - yes; but I live in the real world where judges do not cycle and regard it as a dangerous activity demanding specialist equipment.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

In reflection i actually wonder why people take such offence to wearing a helmet. They are not that bad are they? They cause so much controversy. Do people not like the feel of a helmet? Or is it more they think they don't look the part with a helmet on?

 

[ufkacbln]

I don't applaud it. I am pro choice for adults. I believe all children should have to wear a helmet though.

So you do support the Thudguard then?