Has your helmet saved your life poll

[theclaud]

Who are you to decide what is absurd? someone probably went to a lot of time and effort to design the amazing Thudguard!! Children's heads will safe everywhere from now on.

Oh and did i really say they aren't silly or was that one of the Rebuttal squad putting words in my mouth again.
Is there really no length we will go to?? I thought we were just saying helmets were a good idea for ones noggin?? Hmmm......

Knee skates. Absurd or not? Your call.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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

Again "the evidence" and "insignificant".

Really?? I think you should maybe mention that is how you are interpreting the evidence. It is hardly conclusive now is it?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Yeah, but the pros have hats so they are both warmer and cooler.

It's already happened, it's called the skull.

That would be a helmet on the brain no?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I don't quite follow your first sentence. By definition, you can't prove a negative, so what we have is a public health intervention, which is lacking in evidence of efficacy.

To me, the most compelling research that helmets are not statistically significant in reducing head injuries, is that in the places that have introduced a mandatory helmet law, and seen a large increase in the % of cyclists wearing a helmet, the % of cyclists with head injuries hasn't reduced. There's an interesting graph showing this, I think Red Light has it.

I will certainly have a nosy if it's available.

Knee skates. Absurd or not? Your call.

:troll:

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I don't quite follow your first sentence. By definition, you can't prove a negative, so what we have is a public health intervention, which is lacking in evidence of efficacy.

To me, the most compelling research that helmets are not statistically significant in reducing head injuries, is that in the places that have introduced a mandatory helmet law, and seen a large increase in the % of cyclists wearing a helmet, the % of cyclists with head injuries hasn't reduced. There's an interesting graph showing this, I think Red Light has it.

RE not following...

I basically said can you prove it. I am pretty sure i did anyway. Will have a look in a minute.......

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

[QUOTE 2186898, member: 1314"]I spend more time cycling then walking. I’ve just worked out I spend, on average, 13 hours 10 mins per week on my bike. More than I do walking. Can’t be bothered to do the math on time spent walking but deffo less. [/quote]
Haha cmon you are trolling surely. a lifetime of walking compared to overall time spent on bike. I'd be impressed (i think) if you felt more at home on a bike than standing up.

 

[benb]

RE not following...

I basically said can you prove it. I am pretty sure i did anyway. Will have a look in a minute.......

OK, well you can't prove a negative.

What we can say is that the evidence for the effectiveness of cycle helmets is lacking.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Sorry, you're missing my point.

You, I presume, are in favour of helmets for cyclists.
I also presume that you don't think they are necessary for pedestrians.

Seeing as cycle helmets, if they are effective at all, would be at least as effective at reducing head injuries in pedestrians, why is it only cyclists that are being encouraged to use them?

Why are they necessary (or at least a good idea) for cyclists, but not necessary for pedestrians?

I see your point. See mine. A cycle helmet is going to protect my head to some degree. Not other peoples heads, mine. So i am not arguing that ALL cyclists should wear helmets. I am merely arguing that i think they work to some degree. With that in mind, i choose to wear one.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

OK, well you can't prove a negative.

What we can say is that the evidence for the effectiveness of cycle helmets is lacking.

Agreed. The effectiveness of a cycling helmet has not been disproved either.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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.

Okay but who says you would fall exactly one way every time? You could hit the front one day at 20mph then the side the next day at 15mph. The whole helmet is the issue, surely not just the "optimal crown impact"?

 

[benb]

Again "the evidence" and "insignificant".

Really?? I think you should maybe mention that is how you are interpreting the evidence. It is hardly conclusive now is it?

I would call 34 deaths per billion km pretty insignificant. (and that's not even just head injuries, let alone trying to unpick which ones might have been avoided by wearing a helmet)

 

[benb]

I see your point. See mine. A cycle helmet is going to protect my head to some degree. Not other peoples heads, mine. So i am not arguing that ALL cyclists should wear helmets. I am merely arguing that i think they work to some degree. With that in mind, i choose to wear one.

It might. And that's fine, you can wear one if you want, and I won't stop you. What I will do is argue when it is claimed that helmets are effective at reducing head injuries. And you have also said that you support compulsion for children, so you do think that your viewpoint should be forced onto other people.

Agreed. The effectiveness of a cycling helmet has not been disproved either.

That's not how it works: the burden of proof is on the person claiming the effect. As I said, it's impossible to prove a negative.

 

[totallyfixed]

I was going to post [as I do annually] how I have evidence to show that helmets are in fact potentially dangerous, but I see this is a private discussion [I'm being polite] that appears to be going nowhere fast. Shame really.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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....



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



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






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.

Whilst i sometimes find your uppity banter mildly amusing, today i am afraid i do not.

I think at this point i will just not bother conversing with you. Nothing personal. It's just we could do this dance for weeks on end and i don't think you would tire of being (in your head at least) right.

Look on the upside, with me out of your hair you can go and start a private thread of your own. You can even ask and answer all the questions!!! I am sure you could even quote yourself repeatedly and endlessly.

Have a blast.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

That's not how it works: the burden of proof is on the person claiming the effect. As I said, it's impossible to prove a negative.

Ben that's not the case. If you cannot provide concrete evidence that a cycle helmet does not work, to any effect, then you cannot make the claim. claims are substantiated with evidence.

you may argue that there is no reliable evidence to support the use of a helmet, but you would be wrong to conclude its inneffectiveness.