Has your helmet saved your life poll

[david k]

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".

sigh

 

[theclaud]

sigh

Oh I'm sorry - are you not getting the response you hoped for?

 

[benb]

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

No, you're missing the point.

One group of people are constantly encouraged to wear helmets for their own safety.
A second group are not - because the risk is so low that wearing a helmet is pointless.

Why are pro-helmeters only pro for cyclists? Don't they care about the head injuries in pedestrians? Or, are they making an argument without the evidence to back it up?

The "benefits" of helmet wearing are so minuscule as to be statistically undetectable, so why are they constantly pushed onto cyclists, but not pedestrians?

 

[Alun]

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 don't think it does support the argument, cycle helmets are designed to protect at speeds more associated with pedestrians than cyclists ie up to 12 mph.

 

[david k]

Oh I'm sorry - are you not getting the response you hoped for?

As I'm sure you are aware it was in response to your false claims:

"david k seems to think it's perfectly sensible for pedestrians to wear helmets" and "There's no absurdity or pointless indignity to which they are not prepared to subject cyclists in the name of "safety".

Difficult to take your comments seriously when your only contribution is to make false claims about other posters, its such an obvious tactic hence the "sigh"
Now, as I've said earlier, you lose your respect immediately when you make these false claims, if you care to read other posters comments on this thread you would be in a better position to make a reasonable contribution, but when you sink this low theres really nothing I can do but continue to sigh.

 

[david k]

No, you're missing the point.

One group of people are constantly encouraged to wear helmets for their own safety.
A second group are not - because the risk is so low that wearing a helmet is pointless.

Why are pro-helmeters only pro for cyclists? Don't they care about the head injuries in pedestrians? Or, are they making an argument without the evidence to back it up?

The "benefits" of helmet wearing are so minuscule as to be statistically undetectable, so why are they constantly pushed onto cyclists, but not pedestrians?

Sorry benb but its a weak argument to say if you believe in helmets for cyclist you must agree with them for peds. If you think it is hypocritical to support one and not the other then so be it, a ped not wearing a helmets does not mean a helmet would not be a benefit for a cyclist.

So mentioning peds does nothing, unless you prove it is a benefit for peds and then it supports the cycling helmet agenda

 

[theclaud]

As I'm sure you are aware it was in response to your false claims:

"david k seems to think it's perfectly sensible for pedestrians to wear helmets" and "There's no absurdity or pointless indignity to which they are not prepared to subject cyclists in the name of "safety".

Difficult to take your comments seriously when your only contribution is to make false claims about other posters, its such an obvious tactic hence the "sigh"
Now, as I've said earlier, you lose your respect immediately when you make these false claims, if you care to read other posters comments on this thread you would be in a better position to make a reasonable contribution, but when you sink this low theres really nothing I can do but continue to sigh.

I'm sorry - I thought I had you right. So you agree, then, that it is beyond ridiculous to suggest that pedestrians should wear helmets? Just trying to clear that up...

 

[david k]

I don't think it does support the argument, cycle helmets are designed to protect at speeds more associated with pedestrians than cyclists ie up to 12 mph.

The average walking speed is 3mph. Most cyclists average around 12mph (some good ones faster obviously). but even so, this issue would be design. If its design that is under question then this is what we should be discussing

 

[david k]

I'm sorry - I thought I had you right. So you agree, then, that it is beyond ridiculous to suggest that pedestrians should wear helmets? Just trying to clear that up...

No need to apologise for keeping getting it wrong.

By peds do you mean simply somebody walking down the street? if so yes i dont see why they should wear helmets. I only mentioned it as people kept saying they should, if you agree they shouldnt then we both agree and we can get back on topic.

 

[theclaud]

No need to apologise for keeping getting it wrong.

By peds do you mean simply somebody walking down the street? if so yes i dont see why they should wear helmets. I only mentioned it as people kept saying they should, if you agree they shouldnt then we both agree and we can get back on topic.

Yes - people walking about, from one place to another. from home to work, for example. Well, I'm glad we've got that sorted - it's silly to suggest that pedestrians should wear helmets. Now you just have to explain why it isn't similarly silly to suggest that cyclists should wear them.

 

[benb]

Sorry benb but its a weak argument to say if you believe in helmets for cyclist you must agree with them for peds. If you think it is hypocritical to support one and not the other then so be it, a ped not wearing a helmets does not mean a helmet would not be a benefit for a cyclist.

So mentioning peds does nothing, unless you prove it is a benefit for peds and then it supports the cycling helmet agenda

No, you don't understand.

The risks of a head injury as a pedestrian is similar to that of a cyclist.

However, despite the fact that pedestrians would also benefit from a helmet, if they are effective at all, no-one is encouraging pedestrians to wear helmets, only cyclists. Why are they only interested in reducing head injuries in cyclists, and not in pedestrians?

If it is ridiculous to suggest a helmet for a pedestrian, then it must also be ridiculous to suggest it for a cyclist.

 

[david k]

Yes - people walking about, from one place to another. from home to work, for example. Well, I'm glad we've got that sorted - it's silly to suggest that pedestrians should wear helmets. Now you just have to explain why it isn't similarly silly to suggest that cyclists should wear them.

It took you a long time to get to this point, why didnt you just ask in the first place, sigh....

Once again you have taken to making an assumption, it must be your style to go round the houses rather than be direct.

The question would be better suited, why do I not consider it silly to wear a helmet? Well its due to all the same reasons given before, and you know what they are, they are clearly stated on the agenda thread,

 

[david k]

No, you don't understand.
The risks of a head injury as a pedestrian is similar to that of a cyclist.

This is debatable

However, despite the fact that pedestrians would also benefit from a helmet, if they are effective at all, no-one is encouraging pedestrians to wear helmets, only cyclists. Why are they only interested in reducing head injuries in cyclists, and not in pedestrians?

You would have to ask the groups you suggest why they support one and not the other, I cannot talk for them

If it is ridiculous to suggest a helmet for a pedestrian, then it must also be ridiculous to suggest it for a cyclist.

You consider it ridiculous that people wear helmets when cycling but not when walking, then fine, think every cyclist with a helmet on is ridiculous, I support your right to have your own view, even if I disagree

On the whole people don't encourage wearing of helmets for walkers as the risk is deemed insignificant to that activity. That isn't the same perception for cyclists, but I think you knew that already.

 

[Alun]

The average walking speed is 3mph. Most cyclists average around 12mph (some good ones faster obviously). but even so, this issue would be design. If its design that is under question then this is what we should be discussing

You discuss what you want.
What I am saying is that "cycle" helmets are of more use to pedestrians than cyclists as their speed is within the design "envelope". I think most cyclists average above 12mph, I certainly do and have never been described as fast.
Cycle helmets may benefit below 12mph impacts, they are not designed or tested at speeds above this, AFAIK.

 

[benb]

On the whole people don't encourage wearing of helmets for walkers as the risk is deemed insignificant to that activity. That isn't the same perception for cyclists, but I think you knew that already.

Exactly. And the evidence shows that the risk is also insignificant for cycling, regardless of what the perception is.