Has your helmet saved your life poll

[david k]

I think Adrian is right in saying the helmet wearing while cycling will be compulsory at some point or other.
Not because some of us wear it now......

.....or because some of us type on a forum that we wear them and think they may be a benefit

, but because the government needs to be seen to regulate activities when they become mainstream.

Yes, I suspect they will have to at least consider this action if there are more reports in the local and National press about accidents with cyclists such as our main man Bradley

Good night all.

Good morning

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

It was your imperious and egotistic claim that you know better than others and wished to remove the choice over whether helmets are worn by children that opened a parenting debate, now a more reasonable alternative that children and parents have a basis for choice is offered you don't want to continue?

Fine by me......

Maybe you are a night creature Cunobelin but i went to bed. I got tired. In several ways............

Just because someone doesn't agree with you (and there are plenty who don not) does not make them arrogant or egotistic. Does that make you seditious, dissident and irrational??

Just another fine example of several on these forums attempting to bully their way through hot topics with nothing more than useless rebuttals and a serious lack of evidence (even after claiming said evidence exists).

If you think i am wrong then fine. I may not agree with everything that comes out of your mouth. Once again though without concrete evidence, the kind which is undeniable by either party, then i suggest we stop the game of rebuttal tennis.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

PedroSanchezo

"Until it is made a legal requirement and that will not be too far away, be it good or bad. "
"Though like it or not it will be a legal requirement soon."
"Regarding your illegal point, it will be of little relevance soon as helmet wearing will be mandatory."

You seem to think that legislation will soon make helmet wearing whilst cycling compulsory.
Can you give some timescale to your prediction?

I can't see in to the future Alun but yes i am pretty sure it will happen in the next 2-5 years. Do you disagree?

 

[david k]

But pedro never said he was forcing compulsion, you keep hiding behind that because your argument has no substance without it

 

[mickle]

Maybe you are a night creature Cunobelin but i went to bed. I got tired. In several ways............

Just because someone doesn't agree with you (and there are plenty who don not) does not make them arrogant or egotistic. Does that make you seditious, dissident and irrational??

Just another fine example of several on these forums attempting to bully their way through hot topics with nothing more than useless rebuttals and a serious lack of evidence (even after claiming said evidence exists).

If you think i am wrong then fine. I may not agree with everything that comes out of your mouth. Once again though without concrete evidence, the kind which is undeniable by either party, then i suggest we stop the game of rebuttal tennis.

Cunobelin is an old hand at this. And you join this discussion late. He's simply trying to help you see around some of your preconceived notions. Your anecdotes and arguments in favour of helmet use arent very convincing. They'd be very much more credible if you could provide evidence that helmets provide some measure of protection. I bet you cant.

 

[david k]

Cunobelin is an old hand at this. And you join this discussion late. He's simply trying to help you see around some of your preconceived notions. Your anecdotes and arguments in favour of helmet use arent very convincing. They'd be very much more credible if you could provide evidence that helmets provide some measure of protection. I bet you cant.

So in your opinion do helmets not "provide some measure of protection"?

 

[david k]

Oh and what on Earth do you mean "hiding behind"? Have I not made it as clear as a clear thing over a long period of time that it is the only issue that concerns me?

since you argue with anyone who comes on here and says they feel helmets may help, you have an issue with anyone who wears a helmet, then when pushed you say you are only against compulsion,, make your mind up

 

[david k]

My mind is perfectly made up thank you. I have stated it clearly.
I have no issue whatsoever with people who wear helmets per se. In fact, as I have also made perfectly clear on many occasions I wear one myself some of the time. You must know that because you yourself commented on it.

If you wish to contest any comment that may be considered 'pro helmet' you must admit helmets are your agenda
If you wish to contest compulsion I could agree with your comments that compulsion is your only agenda.

But since you currently argue with anyone who even mentions helmets you cannot claim that compulsion is your only agenda

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Cunobelin is an old hand at this. And you join this discussion late. He's simply trying to help you see around some of your preconceived notions. Your anecdotes and arguments in favour of helmet use arent very convincing. They'd be very much more credible if you could provide evidence that helmets provide some measure of protection. I bet you cant.

As i bet you can't provide any evidence that my wearing a helmet will not be beneficial regarding my safety.

​

Edit: Also worth noting that i have previously entered the helmet debate but soon got frustrated with the constant out of context quotes and smart ar*ed one liners. From pretty much the same people on this thread funnily enough.

​

​

​

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Cunobelin is an old hand at this. And you join this discussion late. He's simply trying to help you see around some of your preconceived notions. Your anecdotes and arguments in favour of helmet use arent very convincing. They'd be very much more credible if you could provide evidence that helmets provide some measure of protection. I bet you cant.

Also there is evidence to suggest helmets help protect your head whilst cycling. I have provided some which took a simple google search. There is also evidence to suggest a helmet may not protect your head whilst cycling. This is also available at the drop of a hat via a simple google search.

 

[ufkacbln]

Also there is evidence to suggest helmets help protect your head whilst cycling. I have provided some which took a simple google search. There is also evidence to suggest a helmet may not protect your head whilst cycling. This is also available at the drop of a hat via a simple google search.

Yet you have clearly stated that you wish to remove an individual's right to weigh up this information and act according to their own assessment!

"Do not what?" Obviously you "do not" support it's use.

I have not researched the helmet nor have i any prior knowledge regarding this helmet. There are other helmets though that are approved and yes i think a child should wear one. They are not able to choose for themselves so an adult must do so for them. I do not believe that ALL parents should be given that decision. Certainly not after reading some of the against arguments on here!

It is egotistical to assume you have any better knowledge or validity in your decision making processes to exclude others evaluating the same information.

The whole point of this "debate" is to promote an informed choice, the one thing you are trying hard to surpress.

 

[Norm]

I have provided some which took a simple google search.

"evidence" which took about 3 seconds of logic to prove irrelevant.

Unlike the DfT stats from the UK which you have discounted as they don't show what you want.

Edit: Also worth noting that i have previously entered the helmet debate...

It's a shame you didn't learn anything from your last visit then, as your frustration would be mitigated if you could only spend a few minutes looking at proper stats rather than your "simple google search" which actually showed pedestrians in the highest category.

 

[ufkacbln]

But pedro never said he was forcing compulsion, you keep hiding behind that because your argument has no substance without it

So you don't equate removing a parent's right to decide whether their children should or should not wear a helmet as compulsion then?

 

[david k]

My argument with Pedro here is about the arrogant way in which he joined this debated dismissing it as pointless whilst simultaneously offering a load of inconclusive reports as evidence that helmets work.
As every statement that helmets work is a tool for one compulsionist or another they all need to be challenged in the sane way as though they are actively pushing compulsion.

If this doesn't make sense please accept my apologies now because I really don't think I can ever make it significantly clearer.

Fair comment.

As far as I can see pedro seems to apply a reasoned approach.

Many who contest helmet use/benefit, do so in a pig headed way using ridicule to dismiss others and refusing to accept any opinion that doesn't suit their agenda. This doesn't need to be the case, but as long as this continues, those on that side of the debate will continue to look arrogant and as such lose the argument.

Far better to approach this in a respectful, dignified and open minded way, such as pedro has demonstrated (as far as I have seen), then a reasonable debate can be had.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Yet you have clearly stated that you wish to remove an individual's right to weigh up this information and act according to their own assessment!



It is egotistical to assume you have any better knowledge or validity in your decision making processes to exclude others evaluating the same information.

The whole point of this "debate" is to promote an informed choice, the one thing you are trying hard to surpress.

Provide me with the evidence that i have tried to "suppress" and/or attempted to "remove an individuals right".

Tell me will you wear a helmet if it becomes a legality?

​