Has your helmet saved your life poll

[mickle]

I try ever so hard to stay out of these debates but will post this just for those who say there is no evidence pro helmet. I must point out at this time that i don't give two hoots if you are against lids, i do however think it would be misleading for someone to stop wearing a helmet because they believe some of the arguments against posted above. Anyway......

"The results are consistent with an approximate 3-fold increase in the risk of death from head injuries for people who do not wear helmets compared with those who do".

Fail!
"In addition, the OR we calculated would underestimate the risk of not wearing a helmet if cyclists who do not wear helmets are more likely to be involved in fatal collisions, because this tendency would increase the number of cyclists not wearing a helmet in both the case and control groups, thereby lessening the difference between groups."

 

[Licramite]

Some of the ways in which people on here have argued that helmets are a good idea have been so rude and arrogant it's taken my breath away. And the standard of understanding and debate from that side is so poor that I feel admiration for anyone who can be bothered with it at all.[/quote]

Some of the ways in which people on here have argued that helmets are a bad idea have been so rude and arrogant it's taken my breath away. And the standard of understanding and debate from that side is so poor that I feel admiration for anyone who can be bothered with it at all.

 

[mickle]

But you cannot be both, if its compulsion people are against then why are they posting when compulsion is not under discussion, wearing helmets is.
What continually happens is somebody posts that they think helmets are a benefit, or they like helmets, or they wear them all the time and they then face the wrath of those against. Only to say, 'oh we are not against helmets, we are aginst compulsion' Stop hiding behind it, if you dont like helmets have the courage to say so

I dont like helmets.

 

[david k]

They don't just say that though, do they. They go on to insist that anyone who doesn't wear one is mad because cycling is dangerous - and that's the point of contention.

Some of the ways in which people on here have argued that helmets are a good idea have been so rude and arrogant it's taken my breath away. And the standard of understanding and debate from that side is so poor that I feel admiration for anyone who can be bothered with it at all.

Well I havnt seen that to the same degree that those opposing it take it. If there are some who take that hard view then that justifyes the response to them, but your applying it to all.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Fail!
"In addition, the OR we calculated would underestimate the risk of not wearing a helmet if cyclists who do not wear helmets are more likely to be involved in fatal collisions, because this tendency would increase the number of cyclists not wearing a helmet in both the case and control groups, thereby lessening the difference between groups."

I have failed?? Bummer.

This is factual evidence?

No one has concrete proof. I can tell you that around half of my cycle club are all sort in the medical profession and they ALL say people who don't wear lids simply don't know what they are talking about. Their personal and professional experience speaks volumes and certainly is more relevant than those on a forum coming to conclusions based on assumptions.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

On the other hand Wouter Weyland was wearing one when he was killed pretty much instantly.

Anecdotes are worthless.

Of course not wearing a helmet would have saved his life? No so what had he to lose by wearing one?
They might not be a suit of armour but if they even provide 1% more protection then that could be the difference between life and death. That is my opinion.

 

[david k]

Please try to understand this before one or other of us dies. At any given moment there are people who think, "cycle helmets, that is a good idea they will make cycling safer so cyclists should be made to wear them for their own good". The problem is that their, let's call it thinking for want of a better word, is in fact just intuition, much the same as yours and Pedro's. The worse problem is that one day they may get their way and get a law passed compelling cyclists to lid up. In doing this the opinions of cyclists may be listened to and some of those opinions will be yours and Pedro's. In other words uninformed but well meaning people could be responsible in part for making a very bad decision.
For that reason it is important that the uninformed are encouraged actually to think about their opinions, if possible, so that if that day comes they might not just trot out the unthinking bollocks based on fear and intuition but might be better placed to present a more balanced and, dare I say it, reasonable point of view.
So, in conclusion, all that you see as attacks on helmet wearers are in fact gentle encouragement to engage in thinking.

But you consider anyone with a different view to your own as uninformed, why is your view so much more informed than anyone elses? Lots and lots of data has been presented much of which is inconclusive either way, lots of anecdotes that people firmly believe in yet they are dismissed quickly and in fact often ridiculed. In the absense of anything conclusive one view does not represent a higher ground than somebody elses. And in such a position it is up to people to make up their own minds to whether or not they wish to consider helmets a benefit. But if they have a different opinion to yours................and around we go again..................
Gentle encouragement is fine, but much on here as we all know is not gentle encouragement. If it were I'm sure nobody would take issue

 

[ufkacbln]

Typical that you would highlight one part of my post an become pedantic.

I say i am not interested in doubts and i am interested in anything concrete you can come up with. So just for a change you take something out of context and spin your web in an attempt to discredit what i say.

OK- how should I have interpreted the statement "I am not interested in doubts about these helmets."?

Why is the fact that the two helmets do not pass the "Gold Standard" irrelevant, and do you really feel it is appropriate to dismiss the evidence of ejection in accidents as unimportant

I suppose the entire peloton feel the same way as you but are forced to wear helmets that are not safe. Just like my Kask helmet which is also worn by members of team sky. Maybe team Sky don't care about rider safety.

You are aware that the make, model and type of helmets worn are more to do with Sponsorship than any safety consideration?

You are also aware that the requirement for sale in the UK (EN1078) is not allowed to be used in racing or triathlon events in the US as it is considered to be too weak?

Or it could be that they don't care what they look like, they would just rather protect their heads. I am aware that it is a requirement to wear a helmet in a race before you misquote me there too.

They care so much that riders did not wear helmets until they became compulsory, even then it was resisted, and in fact there was strike in 1991 where riders refused to race if they had to wear them that led to the UCI repealing the rules and not reinstating them until 2003.You are also aware that the initial legislation allowed riders to remove their helmets at certain points. The use of helmets has only become mandatory in more recent times.

So to claim the riders are doing this because they want to is a little naive

There was also talk earlier this year (April 1st) about full face helmets due to the higher speeds.

Wiggins and Sutton recently came out claiming helmets had played a part in saving their skin. Though what would they know they only live and breath cycling. You would know better............

Nice try - Wiggins hurt his ribs, and dislocated a finger.....and has not commented on helmets in connection with this accident!

 

[david k]

I dont like helmets.

Then your agenda is clear, its not compulsion but helmets you dislike

 

[david k]

As you previously said to me............
Nice swerve.
Regarding my OPINION on children wearing helmets when cycling, it is my opinion and needs no justification. Just as you do not feel the need to disclose reasons for all your opinions. My opinion is not enforcing and nor does it remove choice. I encourage choice. You are the one who has set a challenge to disprove the effectiveness of my own cycle helmets.
I find it tiresome to be asked the same questions repeatedly, especially if you just looked at my posts as you would see the answers already there.

It reminds me of a spoilt child, if they dont get the answer they want they keep asking. Its almost "I'm right and I'll keep bleating until everyone tells me I'm right"

Odd that somebody would insist on evidence and facts to back up somebodies opinion and belief? Also I find it a shame that these people dont have their own minds and dont trust their own judgement, need constant reassurance from data, evidence and facts to make the most simple of decisions.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Nice try - Wiggins hurt his ribs, and dislocated a finger.....and has not commented on helmets in connection with this accident!

Really?

http://www.theweek.co.uk/transport/48281/wiggins-trouble-backing-compulsory-cycling-helmets

"You can get killed if you don't have a helmet on."

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

It reminds me of a spoilt child, if they dont get the answer they want they keep asking. Its almost "I'm right and I'll keep bleating until everyone tells me I'm right"

Odd that somebody would insist on evidence and facts to back up somebodies opinion and belief? Also I find it a shame that these people dont have their own minds and dont trust their own judgement, need constant reassurance from data, evidence and facts to make the most simple of decisions.

Much better to trawl the internet and find the stats that suit the way you want to live your life. Ignore the rest.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Over several posts i have claimed and repeated that i don't care what you do and i am pro choice!!!!!!

Please refer to my previous post regarding "tiresome".

Except for children of course, which makes you a compulsionist but a compulsionist who only picks on people smaller than himself.

Adrian, you are an anarchist! I think I called you that before
Helmets, drinking, seat belts, smoking: all this and more in life, of course somebody must set rules for the young ones!
I agree with Pedro that not all parents are capable to make the right decisions for their children but
rules from our elders and from the law is all we got before we are of an age to make informed decisions regarding our lives.
So, until there is a law about helmets (and I don't really care if there will be, but I suspect it will be soon, within the next 2/3 years) the kids must do what the parents decide.

 

[mickle]

Then your agenda is clear, its not compulsion but helmets you dislike

Well yes. Helmets and the threat of compulsion.

 

[david k]

Do I? Care to back that one up.

I take it from these posts that you take issue with anyone who makes a statement that helmets may be a benefit. And that you will challenge anyone who wishes to suggest they may work to any degree.

As every statement that helmets work is a tool for one compulsionist or another they all need to be challenged

In other words uninformed but well meaning people could be responsible in part for making a very bad decision. For that reason it is important that the uninformed are encouraged actually to think about their opinions

And you go on to discuss the uninformed.

So the only conclusion is the ones who dont agree with you are not 'informed'. If this is wrong then please point it out, however be sure before you do that you understand the consequences of this, you will be agreeing that some people who wear or like or consider helmets a slight benefit are 'informed' and you cannot try to have this both ways like you do with your anti helmet sorry compulsion stance