Has your helmet saved your life poll

[mrandmrspoves]

Soooo... who uses condoms?

The only bikes I ever ride are of the wheeled variety......so condoms not required.

 

[ufkacbln]

The only bikes I ever ride are of the wheeled variety......so condoms not required.

Robert Stewart (51)

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Well y'know, I partake but on more of a "I might possibly get lucky" basis than a "it's pretty much guaranteed to save my bacon" standpoint. It certainly won't save me if I don't wear it.

It's like the lottery. I know I'll never win the jackpot but continue to doggedly buy my ticket because I know full well that the first week I don't is when my 6 numbers come up.

A pretty good analogy actually Drago. You might not win the lottery but sure as shoot won't win it if you don't play.

 

[Drago]

Not quite sure why you guys think paediatricians should all wear helmets. Is childbirth that dangerous?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Because you have on several occasions justified pedestrian helmets alongside cycle helmets!

Your right. Based on this way of thinking i have also justified helmets for about 1000 other applications.
You are the sort of guy that gets a speeding ticket and asks the police why you were fined and not the car in front. The policeman will point out that this is not about the car in front. It's about you! See the connection? If not ask SRW, he gives people clues.

I can resist replying to that one, it is all too obvious a reply!



... and then proceeds to prevaricate and add variables again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's almost as if you post these comments with an audience in mind. I suppose it's easy to be high and mighty on an internet forum where you can be anything or anyone.

So after my answering your ridiculous question you now have no reasoned response?? No rebuttal?? Disappointing.
Surely not from someone with so much experience and so wise?

The goal of course is for your superior knowledge and experience to make me see the error of my ways. This debate ends with me thanking you for leading the way and freeing my head from the monstrosity that is the cycling helmet. I will now look so much cooler, be so much lighter and be as safe as every dog walker in the park.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Not quite sure why you guys think paediatricians should all wear helmets. Is childbirth that dangerous?

We will evolve so that in the womb the child actually grows a helmet on the head. True story.

 

[Dan B]

Not quite sure why you guys think paediatricians should all wear helmets. Is childbirth that dangerous?

For the child, the mother or the midwife? I don't have figures but I wouldn't be at all surprised if cycling was safer per hour

 

[benb]

Pedro, the reason helmets for pedestrians keep coming up, is that there is no logically consistent argument in favour of cycle helmets that does not equally apply to pedestrians. Yet only cyclists are singled out for criticism if they do not wear helmets.

Helmet use in pedestrians would almost certainly save many more lives than in cyclists, as there are more of them, so why are there no pressure groups calling on compulsory pedestrian helmets?

The likelihood of getting a head injury as a pedestrian is broadly similar to that as a cyclist. So why is only one group encouraged to wear a helmet?

That is why pedestrians are frequently mentioned: to illuminate the logical inconsistencies and, occasionally double standards, in the pro-helmet arguments.

 

[Licramite]

so I think we are all agreed , helmets are a damned good idea , everyone should wear them pretty much all the time and it would reduce the incidence of head injuries tremendously. be it in cars or as pedestrians , or even as cyclists.

so the real question is why don't we? well we used to , but we called them "hats" in those days , which if you look at the history of hats , many were helmets of a sort, designed to resist a bonk on the head.

so thats cleared that up then, - helmets , good idea, we should all wear them , but don't have to if we don't want to.

yes , all agreed.

good

 

[theclaud]

Shocking. Could never tell. The rebuttal squad are a tight unit.

I guess we were just pondering whether there was any evidence for your belief that Norm is not widely liked, or whether, like the benefit of cycle helmets, it's something you simply expect to assert without challenge. The legions of anti-Normists are free to speak up without fear of reprisal - he's not an especially touchy sort, and I reckon he can handle it.

 

[StuartG]

so I think we are all agreed , helmets are a damned good idea , everyone should wear them pretty much all the time and it would reduce the incidence of head injuries tremendously. be it in cars or as pedestrians , or even as cyclists.

so the real question is why don't we? well we used to , but we called them "hats" in those days , which if you look at the history of hats , many were helmets of a sort, designed to resist a bonk on the head.

so thats cleared that up then, - helmets , good idea, we should all wear them , but don't have to if we don't want to.

yes , all agreed.

good

Having a bad day Boris?

 

[david k]

Pedro, the reason helmets for pedestrians keep coming up, is that there is no logically consistent argument in favour of cycle helmets that does not equally apply to pedestrians. Yet only cyclists are singled out for criticism if they do not wear helmets.

Helmet use in pedestrians would almost certainly save many more lives than in cyclists, as there are more of them, so why are there no pressure groups calling on compulsory pedestrian helmets?

The likelihood of getting a head injury as a pedestrian is broadly similar to that as a cyclist. So why is only one group encouraged to wear a helmet?

That is why pedestrians are frequently mentioned: to illuminate the logical inconsistencies and, occasionally double standards, in the pro-helmet arguments.

I think the point is that proving wearing a helmet for pedestrians would be a benefit is not a valid reason for cyclists not to wear one, in fact it actually supports the argument. The worse thing that can be pointed at a person who wears a helmet when cycling but not when walking is they are hypocritical. It does not prove it is not an advantage.

As for pressure groups I dont think any of us could answer, you would have to ask them

 

[david k]

The point of dragging pedestrians and drivers into the equation is to get a large section of society on our side on this one. All the time it is cyclists being picked on most people will unthinkingly feel that that seems reasonable. If those people can be persuaded that the same justification applies to pretty much everyone, which it does, they will then have to support us in order to stave off the ridiculous alternative conclusion.

So do you think that it should or should not apply to peds?

 

[theclaud]

I think the point is that proving wearing a helmet for pedestrians would be a benefit is not a valid reason for cyclists not to wear one, in fact it actually supports the argument. The worse thing that can be pointed at a person who wears a helmet when cycling but not when walking is they are hypocritical. It does not prove it is not an advantage.

As for pressure groups I dont think any of us could answer, you would have to ask them

I'd just like to point out, in case anyone missed it, that david k seems to think it's perfectly sensible for pedestrians to wear helmets, and Pedro doesn't think Thudguards™ are silly. The reductio ad absurdum is totally wasted on these guys! There's no absurdity or pointless indignity to which they are not prepared to subject cyclists in the name of "safety".

 

[david k]

I don't think any of those three groups should be compelled to wear a helmet, I merely wish to use the other groups to protect the interests of the one that I am concerned about.

Which is the same one we wish to discuss, but others keep being brought up, its either a valid topic or it is not. Using other issue to prove a point and then failing to see it through diminishes the argument, similar to referring to compulsion when it suits.