Has your helmet saved your life poll

[ufkacbln]

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.

So if the medical profession says something then we should sit up and obey?

 

[Crackle]

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.

They're not a suit of armour, they're a piece of polystyrene, tested to an impact of 12mph with a deadweight, whose effectiveness is unproven despite numerous studies. The rest of the debate is just noise. The debate isn't just about their efficacy though, it's about their impact on cycling and overall, I'd say it was negative, in the same way hiViz is negative because both issues are about addressing the symptom not the cause, that's not to say both don't have a place but it's not at the top of the pyramid.

 

[ufkacbln]

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."

Care to explain why you have posted that one as justification of your claim?

Wiggins (snip) recently came out claiming helmets had played a part in saving their skin.

This article fails miserably and unequivocally to support the claim you made, care to try again?

 

[Pat "5mph"]

As long as it's a genuine question rather than an irrelevant attack, I'm quite patient with non-cyclists, or people unfamiliar with the debate, asking me why I don't wear a helmet - common sense might be cobblers, but it's not going to go away any time soon. I usually just explain that helmets are an irrelevance in terms of safety, that the best thing an individual cyclist can do for her own safety is to use good road positioning, and that the best way we can collectively improve road safety is to reduce and slow down motor vehicles and to make their drivers take responsibility for their actions. They don't always look convinced, but they usually look as if they think it's worth pondering a bit. If, however, someone has deliberately entered the debate and claims to have read the evidence and understood the issues already, I'm afraid they don't have any excuse for falling back on common sense and received wisdom. They ought to do better, and I regard their continued helmet-pushing as a form of collaboration with interests hostile to cyclists. Hence what you call "borderline nastiness" - it isn't nasty, but it is an actual conflict of real-world interests, and not just a difference of opinion.

Ok, that's the best thing (btw, I tried to convince a taxi driver that my being in the middle of the road at that particular stretch was for my own safety, he said I'm an idiot ).
Are we allowed to do the other things also, because they make us feel saf(er)?
Like wearing high viz and helmets?
Without other cyclists telling us we have an agenda?
Without other cyclists dismissing us because we do not quite believe in statistics?
Without indeed other cyclists calling us the enemy because, well, sometimes even though you understand "the evidence" you think "better safe than sorry".

 

[Pat "5mph"]

This is just so rich coming from someone who decries looking at the statistical evidence, preferring to rely on how he feels about the subject.

Me too, I strongly decrie and prefer to rely on my feelings in all things. It's a thing (sorry Pedro!)

 

[ufkacbln]

Ok, that's the best thing (btw, I tried to convince a taxi driver that my being in the middle of the road at that particular stretch was for my own safety, he said I'm an idiot ).

Send the company a copy of the IAM Factsheet and express your concern that they are so totally unaware of such simple driving techniques

Cyclists are advised to take a prominent position in the road well ahead of any manoeuvre to ensure
they are in the right place at the right time. If they ride in the middle of the road it is probably not to
obstruct your path, but to ensure that they are seen by you and by other motorists. Cyclists often ride
at some distance from the kerb to avoid drains and potholes and to discourage motorists from
squeezing them on narrow roads.

Are we allowed to do the other things also, because they make us feel saf(er)?
Like wearing high viz and helmets?

You are allowed to wear what you like.... except socks with sandals!

Without other cyclists telling us we have an agenda?

Telling people they must wear helmets and not wearing them is silly is an agenda....don't do that and there is no issue

Without other cyclists dismissing us because we do not quite believe in statistics?

Reasonable position, but on the other hand when you get statements like "I don't believe in evidence" then there is a real concern

Without indeed other cyclists calling us the enemy because, well, sometimes even though you understand "the evidence" you think "better safe than sorry".

Act as you wish, don't impose your decisions on others.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Pat you are allowed to do what you like. Those who choose not to wear helmets would like to continue to be allowed to do what they like too. What's the problem?

I'd be very interested to see where you have been called 'the enemy' and by whom. Could you quote that post for me?

Well, The Claud said:

If, however, someone has deliberately entered the debate and claims to have read the evidence and understood the issues already, I'm afraid they don't have any excuse for falling back on common sense and received wisdom. They ought to do better, and I regard their continued helmet-pushing as a form of collaboration with interests hostile to cyclists.

Also Adrian thinks that if the government decides to legislate and asks cyclist that are pro helmet in a survey, they (those cyclists) would give an uninformed answer, and thus harm the general cycling community by influencing the government in legislating pro compulsory helmet wearing.


So, even if we mind our own helmets, it seems there is no escape, we are the "baddies" (on this forum anyway)

That's bollox

I distrust all expression in numbers

 

[Alun]

I tried to convince a taxi driver that my being in the middle of the road at that particular stretch was for my own safety, he said I'm an idiot ).

Ahh, nice to see that taxi drivers in Glasgow are no different from those in the rest of the country, expert in all matters

 

[Pat "5mph"]

I give up - I think you haven't understood what this debate is about, Pat. Best take your girlie intuitions elsewhere.

Will do: but I'm not a girlie, I'm almost 50

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

So if the medical profession says something then we should sit up and obey?

When you are sick i take it you don't put your trust in internet chatrooms??

 

[david k]

Oh FFS. It's the idea of being forced to wear one that people are concerned about.

No it isnt, or you would not jump on any post that even suggests helmets may be a benefit. I wish people wouldnt hide behind this. Posters continually jump on posts that suggest helmets may be a benefit, really?
Are you so worried that a person who likes to wear a helmet intentionally or unintentionally means they support compulsion and worse still make a significant contribution to that agenda so much so you have to jump on it?
This is a really paranoid stance and bordering on the bizarre

At the moment yes, and long may this continue. Putting up specious arguments about the protective benefits of helmet wearing undermines this grown-up status quo, and I'm surprised you find this so difficult to grasp (but perhaps I shouldn't be).

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

They're not a suit of armour, they're a piece of polystyrene, tested to an impact of 12mph with a deadweight, whose effectiveness is unproven despite numerous studies. The rest of the debate is just noise. The debate isn't just about their efficacy though, it's about their impact on cycling and overall, I'd say it was negative, in the same way hiViz is negative because both issues are about addressing the symptom not the cause, that's not to say both don't have a place but it's not at the top of the pyramid.

If someone uses a helmet or hi vis as reason not to take up cycling then i suggest they were never that keen in the first place. Go running FFS. In fact better still, go cycling!!! It's not a requirement yet!!

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I give up - I think you haven't understood what this debate is about, Pat. Best take your girlie intuitions elsewhere.

I assume you know each other or are you just extremely rude and sexist??

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Care to explain why you have posted that one as justification of your claim?




This article fails miserably and unequivocally to support the claim you made, care to try again?

How it fails i am sure is only visible to you and your cronies.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I'm a woman. I don't know Pat. Sometimes I can be rude, if I feel like it. Something else, along with understanding how evidence works and not merely relying on 'feelings', that 'girls' aren't supposed to do. This was a response to an earlier post you probably haven't bothered to read. What's it got to do with you anyway?

I think you could probably manage to get your point across without being rude. If not then try harder.
Threads like this get shut down for people acting like tw*ts. Actually that might be a good thing with the way this is going. No focus or likely conclusion, only bitterness and a revolving door of the same tired old story.

Whats it got to do with me? About the same as this thread has to do with you.