Has your helmet saved your life poll

[Pedrosanchezo]

"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.

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.

So from this post i can deduce that:

A: We both provide stats which the other can debate but yours is right? Interestingly one sided is it not.
B: You term evidence as "irrelevant" if you disagree with it.
C: You base all your decisions on stats and have no thoughts of your own.

​

 

[ufkacbln]

Ok, so how can PedroSanchezo find statistics relevant to children's cycle helmets like that one, if that is NOT one?
Or do you mean comparing statistics of children that banged their head while wearing this kind of helmet and injured/did not injure themselves?
I doubt those statistics exist, btw.
As you know, my agenda is "do what you like, my helmet keeps my hair tidy and my head warm"

The Thudguard is fun because it mirrors the helmet debate so precisely

It is introduced so that you can watch the same people who recognise an argument for cycle helmets proceed to dismiss unequivocally identical quality of evidence when it comes to the Thudguard..... hypocrisy

Big Numbers - both the pro-helmet lobby and the Thudguard over-inflate the figures to scare
Unequivocal evidence of effectiveness - both suffer this
Endorsement by Medical "Authorities" - Both have this, for instance John Heyworth ofthe College of Eergency Medicine (UK CAsualty Doctors Professional Group) endorses both
Endorsement by Safety Groups - again both have these endorsements, in fact RoSPA credits the Thudguard as being of eqal importance in preventing child injuries as cycle helmets.
Endorsement by Paramedics - There for both
Emotional blackmail - Promoters of both cycle helmets and Thudguard resort to the distasteful, "use one or you are a bad parent", or teh "use one or your child will be a vegetable" when the weakness of the other arguments fails

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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?

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.

Wishful thinking.

 

[david k]

So from this post i can deduce that:
B: You term evidence is "irrelevant" if you disagree with it.
.

An attempt to force ones own agenda by saying any evidence is irrelevant if it doesnt suit whilst doing the opposite with 'evidence' that does suit.

Then several posts later claim no evidence exists and round and round we go.........

 

[david k]

Key word there "seems". In fact his veneer of reason is just that, lacking depth. As for respectful dignified and open minded, please. His opening gambit was the precise opposite on each count.

Were as those who are against helmet wearers dont even 'seem' to be reasoned

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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.

I would have liked to learn more but anyone who could have contributed with some thoughtful insights were scared away by the bullish tactics of people like you.

​

​

 

[ufkacbln]

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

Read your own posts and if you don't realise the content of what you have written then I can explain

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

​

It is already a legality... Any dispute involving helmets requires those making the legal decisions to resolve the dispute by applying legal rules that have been declared beforehand, and not to alter the legal situation retrospectively by discretionary departures from established law.

Established law does in these cases does not require a helmet to be worn - simples

These cases have already occurred, and have not really been responsible for changing decisions. Liability was discussed earlier in the thread, and perhaps re-reading this part would be better than placing the same arguments and cases again here.

 

[ufkacbln]

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

​

​

What helmet do you wear and I will provide evidence that here are either doubts or proof about its safety, and even possibly point out how you could improve the head protection.

All part of being informed on the subject

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

What helmet do you war and I will provide evidence that here are either doubts or proof about its safety

I have two for road purpose. Kask K10 Dieci & the Giro Monza helmet.

I am not interested in doubts about these helmets. I will be interested if you can provide concrete proof that they are of no use though. That is the kind of insight i would not only consider valuable but be thankful for. Good luck......

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Read your own posts and if you don't realise the content of what you have written then I can explain



It is already a legality... Any dispute involving helmets requires those making the legal decisions to resolve the dispute by applying legal rules that have been declared beforehand, and not to alter the legal situation retrospectively by discretionary departures from established law.

Established law does in these cases does not require a helmet to be worn - simples

These cases have already occurred, and have not really been responsible for changing decisions. Liability was discussed earlier in the thread, and perhaps re-reading this part would be better than placing the same arguments and cases again here.

It is not a legal requirement to wear a helmet whilst cycling. In a round about way you are agreeing with what i am saying but making it appear as though you are right and i am wrong.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Read your own posts and if you don't realise the content of what you have written then I can explain

I know what i have written, i wrote it!

Either provide the evidence or don't make accusations.

 

[ufkacbln]

So the bit where you state that you favour compulsion for children, that isn't you saying that you favour suppressing their rights?

Stop it!

Next someone will be pointing out statements like

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!

Perhaps we should take a step back and await an explanation as to what this sentence actually meant?

 

[Norm]

So from this post i can deduce that:

A: We both provide stats which the other can debate but yours is right? Interestingly one sided is it not.
B: You term evidence is "irrelevant" if you disagree with it.
C: You base all your decisions on stats and have no thoughts of your own.

From this, I can deduce that
A. You have difficulty with comprehension. I did, at least, serve you the honour of reading and understanding your stats and posting why they were irrelevant, something which I can heartily recommend to you (although it does seem that David also now has issues with this, sadly, as he had engaged previously). You just discount stuff without reading and without anything more than 'it doesn't fit my views' as justification. One sided would appear to be an appropriate phrase, that's for sure.
B. You either didn't read or didn't understand the fairly simple reasons that I posted and would rather discount them because they blow significant holes in your position.
C. You still fail to understand that Adrian, Cunobelin and I all sometimes wear helmets, a decision which we make having taken account of the stats and evidence and giving them due consideration. I would suggest that the ones without capacity for their own thoughts are the blind religious zealots who rely on nothing beyond belittling those who prefer freedom of choice as lacking common sense.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

However how you can really believe that denying the right for parents to choose how they look after their kids is "reasonable" , respectful, dignified or open minded does escape me

If helmets were mandatory for children how would that be any different, regarding parental rights, to the use of booster seats in cars, discipline through hitting a child or sparklers at halloween??

All of which parents may have a differing view on but in the interest of safety may be enforced upon them through law.

Back in the day you could buy your parents cigarettes, not wear a seatbelt in the back, not need a child booster seat, get the belt in school and drink driving was far more common. I wonder why these things became illegal??

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

From this, I can deduce that
A. You have difficulty with comprehension. I did, at least, serve you the honour of reading and understanding your stats and posting why they were irrelevant, something which I can heartily recommend to you (although it does seem that David also now has issues with this, sadly, as he had engaged previously). You just discount stuff without reading and without anything more than 'it doesn't fit my views' as justification. One sided would appear to be an appropriate phrase, that's for sure.
B. You either didn't read or didn't understand the fairly simple reasons that I posted and would rather discount them because they blow significant holes in your position.
C. You still fail to understand that Adrian, Cunobelin and I all sometimes wear helmets, a decision which we make having taken account of the stats and evidence and giving them due consideration. I would suggest that the ones without capacity for their own thoughts are the blind religious zealots who rely on nothing beyond belittling those who prefer freedom of choice as lacking common sense.

Once again you are right and i am wrong purely based on your opinion or biased views. NOT fact. You posts are as confused as your wish to not wear a helmet. Especially if you think a helmet worn "sometimes" is the same as wearing one every time.

Lets agree to disagree.