Has your helmet saved your life poll

[theclaud]

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,

I'm not especially interested in whether you think it's silly to wear a helmet yourself - it's your noggin, after all, and you may be silly or not as you choose. I asked why do you not think it is silly to advocate generally that cyclists should wear helmets. And, forgive me, but I don't think that being indirect is one of my faults.

 

[theclaud]

If it helps at all, I have a list.

I thought you might. And no it doesn't!

 

[theclaud]

I'll have you know that the claud's only fault is her scintillating good looks that put the rest of us to shame...

That's a fault?

 

[david k]

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.

then dont wear em, simples...........not sure why your trying to convince me not to wear one though?

 

[david k]

Exactly and it is this perception gap that needs to be bridged.

tis your right to try if you wish, but you shouldnt demand that people agree with you

 

[david k]

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

The evidence is not conclusive either way so I don't see how this can be stated with any conviction. And until it can you must allow people to wear helmets if they think it is of benefit as there is no proof it is wrong to do so.
However time and time again this courtesy is not applied, as anyone wishing to wear a helmet or consider them a benefit are challenged continually. Then people try to justify that by saying they are not against helmets but compulsion even thought its not been mentioned, and around we go again

 

[david k]

I'm not especially interested in whether you think it's silly to wear a helmet yourself - it's your noggin, after all[ /quote]

thank you, this is a reasonable response and point of view, others do seem worried that I wear one and challenge me on this?
[quote="theclaud, post: 2186620, member: 1405"
why do you not think it is silly to advocate generally that cyclists should wear helmets. And, forgive me, but I don't think that being indirect is one of my faults.

being indirect makes it more difficult to have a conversation, better to get to your point than go round the houses

 

[david k]

I wasn't aware that I had demanded anything at all.

then accept my apologies, i thought you were expecting me to agree with you. If you happy that my view is as valid as yours i apologise

 

[DooDah]

HEEELLLLLLOOOOO.................I wear a helmet......................but only to cover my bald head

 

[benb]

The evidence is not conclusive either way so I don't see how this can be stated with any conviction. And until it can you must allow people to wear helmets if they think it is of benefit as there is no proof it is wrong to do so.
However time and time again this courtesy is not applied, as anyone wishing to wear a helmet or consider them a benefit are challenged continually. Then people try to justify that by saying they are not against helmets but compulsion even thought its not been mentioned, and around we go again

You've got it completely backwards. I would defend someone's right to wear a helmet, even though I think they are wrong. It's the arguments in favour of helmets that are continually challenged, because they almost always have no evidence to back them up.

No-one is suggesting helmets should be outlawed - it is those of us who wish to not wear a helmet that are always having to justify our choice, and be ever vigilant about compulsion.

 

[david k]

You've got it completely backwards. I would defend someone's right to wear a helmet, even though I think they are wrong. It's the arguments in favour of helmets that are continually challenged, because they almost always have no evidence to back them up.

No-one is suggesting helmets should be outlawed - it is those of us who wish to not wear a helmet that are always having to justify our choice, and be ever vigilant about compulsion.

thats not the case, nobody here has asked you to justify why you dont wear a helmet. Although people who do wear them or think they are a benefit are having to continually justify their choice, having to answer questions such as, why dont wear a helmet when walking etc.

 

[Crackle]

The real question because you don't want to answer mine? I am very aware of the claims made regarding cycling helmets and the effect increased speed may have. What you read did it say "cycle helmets are no use whatsoever after 20 mph??" Just curious as you don't see the average ped going along at 20mph+.

Pedro, this is faith. 20mph is way beyond the design limit and the most likely outcome will be instant catastrophic failure. If you think it won't you simply haven't read enough about the subject. And I'm talking about an optimal crown impact here, not a front or side one.

 

[mickle]

thats not the case, nobody here has asked you to justify why you dont wear a helmet. Although people who do wear them or think they are a benefit are having to continually justify their choice, having to answer questions such as, why dont wear a helmet when walking etc.

People regularly question my decision not to wear a helmet actually, on here and in real life. And, again, you don't need to justify your choice to anybody, but if you're going to participate in a frickin helmet discussion on this or any other internet discussion forum you should be prepared to have the pre-conceived notions upon which you base your beliefs challenged.

 

[ufkacbln]

Your right. Based on this way of thinking i have also justified helmets for about 1000 other applications.
.

At last the penny has dropped... the argument you are using fails for this reason to uniquely justify cycle helmets, what you have to do is explain why this is unequivocal evidence for helmets when it suits you, but can be ignored when it does not....

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]

SRW has given you several clues - try using them?

As for speeding tickets - I wouldn't know as I have never had one!

However my stance on speeding is clear on this website and your littlefantasy could not be further from the truth!

If I was speeding then I am afraid that my personal moral stance is that I was in the wrong and a ticket would be justified... please see my posts elsewhere evidencing this

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?

What the one were you reasonably stated that you weren't going to introduce variables and then unreasonably did?

You answered it clearly yourself when you said there was no difference - that is correct.

The lengths you then went to to try and conjure a situation where there would possibly be a difference speak for themselves and need no further comment

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.

Nope the goal was to demonstrate just how weak the argument that you were using to impose your beliefs on others actually was..

I would however reccomend that if you truly feel the helmets you are using are monstrosities then ( as I have reccomended elsewhere) a good fitting Snell B95 rated helmet with a round smooth shape is the way forward..... increased protection, fewer snag points and less likely to cause a rotational injury.

 

[mrandmrspoves]

Robert Stewart (51)

I wish I hadn't Googled it!!!!