Has your helmet saved your life poll

[Pedrosanchezo]

Your friend Pedrosanchezo has asserted several times in this thread alone that compulsion is inevitable, and that he is in favour of compulsion for child cyclists (he may have backtracked on this latter point, I'm not in a position to check back). Unless we're to expect that he can throw these comments out but that nobody is allowed to respond to them, it seems to me that compulsion therefore is under discussion

I actually tried to answer the barrage of questions regarding compulsion. Thought is was rather nice of me considering it wasn't the point at hand.
I have also not back tracked nor changed my opinion.

 

[david k]

Two posts up you wrote "and that informs my decision", which suggests that you consider it to be informed.

You are confused about my wishing for you, along with everyone else, to come to an understanding about the quality of the decision you make, and my not really giving a toss about the decision itself.

I could have easily said "and that leads me to my decision" or anything similar,

My views are still the same. It appears that you only consider a view truly informed if it is the same decision as your own.

 

[Dan B]

It's nothing to do with hypocrisy. It's just maths: cycling deaths are about 35/billion miles which is not very much at all, yet it's somehow still acceptable for people to go round saying "you'd have to be a complete idiot to cycle without a helmet". If you said the same about some other similarly safe activity (e.g. walking, at 41 deaths/billion miles) people would quite reasonably look at you like you were some kind of nutjob.

The point is not to say "it's ok to do X because you do Y and that's worse", the point is to say "X is pretty safe actually, you know, it has a risk of A. And if you can't visualise a risk of A, the similar activity Y has a risk of about A as well, and nobody says that's dangerous"

 

[StuartG]

...if the evidence is inconclusive either way I'm left to make my own decision ... I still believe the risk is greater on a cycle than walking

Do you not see that others may see a contradiction in those two phrases? I hope you don't think I have quoted you too selectively but the point is - if you agree that the evidence is inconclusive then the decision to wear a helmet is logically taken on other grounds. Toss a coin, or to hold a camera, or it makes you look good or even you feel more comfortable and at ease wearing it.

But to BELIEVE (which implies a level of certainty in its usual usage) looks like an error. And as this is an internet forum people find it hard not to correct errors. Especially if it is being propagated in a way so we may endanger ourselves with a belief system that directly or indirectly makes helmets compulsory with the consequent probable downsides for cycling.

That's why the compulsion genie keeps popping out of the bottle even if you disagree with our enthusiasm for trying to put it back.

 

[theclaud]

It's nothing to do with hypocrisy. It's just maths: cycling deaths are about 35/billion miles which is not very much at all, yet it's somehow still acceptable for people to go round saying "you'd have to be a complete idiot to cycle without a helmet". If you said the same about some other similarly safe activity (e.g. walking, at 41 deaths/billion miles) people would quite reasonably look at you like you were some kind of nutjob.

The point is not to say "it's ok to do X because you do Y and that's worse", the point is to say "X is pretty safe actually, you know, it has a risk of A. And if you can't visualise a risk of A, the similar activity Y has a risk of about A as well, and nobody says that's dangerous"

Very well put. Tenner says David K has an epiphany.

 

[theclaud]

Not so, but I do feel that a minimum standard for an informed decision is one that is based on something of substance rather than "I view the risk greater" with apparently nothing behind that statement. Is there anything?

It can't be God. He's in South West London at the moment, and david k is in the North West.

 

[Crackle]

Very well put. Tenner says David K has an epiphany.

I'll take that!

No offence to David K intended.

 

[david k]

Do you not see that others may see a contradiction in those two phrases? I hope you don't think I have quoted you too selectively but the point is - if you agree that the evidence is inconclusive then the decision to wear a helmet is logically taken on other grounds. Toss a coin, or to hold a camera, or it makes you look good or even you feel more comfortable and at ease wearing it.
But to BELIEVE (which implies a level of certainty in its usual usage) looks like an error. And as this is an internet forum people find it hard not to correct errors. Especially if it is being propagated in a way so we may endanger ourselves with a belief system that directly or indirectly makes helmets compulsory with the consequent probable downsides for cycling.
that's why the compulsion genie keeps popping out of the bottle even if you disagree with our enthusiasm for trying to put it back.

Hi Stuart, I dont think that was an unfair quote. I see to you that my decision is a 'toss of a coin' decision. But I just dont see why I have to have stats or evidence to make what is for me a very simple decision, to wear a helmet. I also dont see why I am being pushed inot justifying this decision, if it were the opposite way round there would be uproar on here. I am very comfortable with my decision and still maintain it is the correct decision. That seems to make people frustrated, I really dont see why

I also dont see why my own beliefs and decision, however wrong you feel it is, could in any way contribute to compulsion, thats why I say there are posters who are paranoid about this.

 

[david k]

Not so, but I do feel that a minimum standard for an informed decision is one that is based on something of substance rather than "I view the risk greater" with apparently nothing behind that statement. Is there anything?

Only that it seems logical to me

 

[oldroadman]

The survey question is missing an item - do you onw/use a helmet for anything except competition.
Tha's the one I would have ticked, having been obliged to use one in my competitive days in some countries, not others. But I believe that there is a choice, and I've made mine. Condemn if you wish, 35 years of riding and racing at a good level and only one tap on the head, during a race, in a country with a compulsion to helmet up for racing, result a slight headache. Then again, experience can help when you practice falling off enough (it happens..) you know to keep your head from landing first.

 

[theclaud]

Only that it seems logical to me

Interesting use of the word "logical"...

 

[david k]

The survey question is missing an item - do you onw/use a helmet for anything except competition.
Tha's the one I would have ticked, having been obliged to use one in my competitive days in some countries, not others. But I believe that there is a choice, and I've made mine. Condemn if you wish, 35 years of riding and racing at a good level and only one tap on the head, during a race, in a country with a compulsion to helmet up for racing, result a slight headache. Then again, experience can help when you practice falling off enough (it happens..) you know to keep your head from landing first.

Hi oldroadman

Your decision is based upon your own experiences and what makes sense to you. I have made my decision on what makes sense to me. Neither of us have studies (forgive me if I'm wrong) all the data and evidence prior to this decision, however I am sure you will not be called ignorant or misinformed as your decision concurs with theirs.

I respect your decision and your reasons for it.

Happy riding

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

It's nothing to do with hypocrisy. It's just maths: cycling deaths are about 35/billion miles which is not very much at all, yet it's somehow still acceptable for people to go round saying "you'd have to be a complete idiot to cycle without a helmet". If you said the same about some other similarly safe activity (e.g. walking, at 41 deaths/billion miles) people would quite reasonably look at you like you were some kind of nutjob.

Are the stats above what you base your decisions regarding helmet safety? Do you think they are very specific or do you think they are the best available to you at the time?

 

[david k]

Seems logical to you. On what basis?Look at the figures Dan just gave you which show that that which seems logical to you is in fact not really so at all.

I'm really not sure I can add any more Adrian, Ive tried to make you see my point of view, I'm happy for you to not agree with my decision but I dont really know what you want from me or if I could answer anything that would help us find some common ground other than, okay I wont wear a helmet. And I'm afraid for now that isn't going to happen as Im happy with my decision and it makes sense to me, as I'm sure yours does to you.

Have you never worn a helmet or did you wear one then stop?

 

[theclaud]

Are the stats above what you base your decisions regarding helmet safety? Do you think they are very specific or do you think it is the best available to you at the time?

Got any better ones? Thought not.