Has your helmet saved your life poll

[ufkacbln]

Okay, but could Hip priest have suffered cuts, scrapes or bruises without the helmet? Or imagine at the point of impact there was a small sharp stone, would the helmet possibly have saved from further possible injury or do you/others discount any possibility of this having happened?

You mean the type of protrusion that could catch on a snag point and exacerbate the injury?

...or do you discount any possibility of this having happened?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

You may just be wrong Steve. Scientific methodolgy and statistical theory is very different in Perthshire if Pedro is to be believed. Dammit, why am I posting again. Pointless with mutually exclusive worldviews.

(And that dear P is about reasoning. Helmeteering differences are just a consequence of this).

Your right, i am the only one on CC that thinks helmets are of some benefit. Actually in Perthshire. Actually in Scotland. Actuallyt in the Uk. No sorry the only person in the world that thinks helmets are of benefit. Given recent surveys i'd suggest you are simply reaching yet again to back up your choices and views. In a recent survey, over 80% recently backed compulsion in the uk. Do you think i was in the survey and accounted for the 80+%????

I can't believe i am posting again. You (and others who i now can't be bothered replying) are just looking through tinted glasses. Try taking them off, there is whole lot more colour in the world.

Again, lets agree to disagree.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Unless the laws of physics are different across the Atlantic, yes it does.

Incidentally, you mentioned your cited evidence yet again. I take you believe that prayer is an effective cure for cancer and that homeopathic medicines effectively address flu?

So the laws of physics is now the quoted evidence to support your argument. Some countries favour compulsion, including some american states/districts, are you saying that is due to the law of physics too?

Can we also agree to disagree without any comments such as "don't pretend it's an informed decision". Or similar.
Last time i checked i was not the only person who wore a helmet. In fact more cyclists wear helmets than don't. More people call for compulsion than do not. I am clearly not the only person who thinks wearing a helmet is an informed choice. Thats my perspective. It is my choice. I am not asking you to wear one.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Possibly, but some are judged by the company they keep and for every successful David K Yin there is a Yang.

Norm i have to refer back to the not liked so much thing again. Try remember that just because you can't win an argument doesn't mean you have to start insults. All is not lost. I suppose you have your few friends on here. Long live the rebuttal squad.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I didn't discount it because it was detrimental. If you actually used the logic that you feign to assume, you'd realise that it wasn't detrimental at all as it was, by adding cars with peds and adding motorbikes with cyclists, irrelevant.

If there was a shred of logic in your proposed stats, because they actually ranked peds above cyclists, they would be anything but detrimental to my 'argument' (your rather telling phrase). However, even though they might appear to support the position thay walking is more dangerous than cycling, I would not place any store in them because adding cars and motorbikes still makes them irrelevant.

Still at least It appears, by not even offering the weakest of defence, that you agree there was nothing worthwhile in them.

Glad it wasn't a widely reported article then. Ie, global. Should have had you check it over first.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

So the fact that the test is American invalidates gravity?

Sadly a helmet travelling by gravity will be the same on both sides of the Pond....... So if a helmet fails in th US it will fail in the UK

However if you wish to dismiss the fact that Snell is considered the Gold Standard internationally, then feel free... Says a lot about your understanding





You are claiming that ice creams are drop tested at a higher speed in the US than in the UK.

Are there really tests to see how securely a snake fastens to your head?

What "similar" tests are you talking about care to enlighten us?





This has already been explained to you above

Gravity is the basis upon which the Americans find our helmets inadequate? So you agree with all American rulings regarding helmets or do you just pick the ones to suit your argument? Again some states require the use of a helmet on children. Seen as it doesn't make a difference to science where you are globally i assume we will see your support for compulsion in under 16's??

The other points i think you will find show that some laws in America are maybe slightly less than logical. That clear up your condescending point?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

You mean the type of protrusion that could catch on a snag point and exacerbate the injury?

...or do you discount any possibility of this having happened?

You are the expert of dodging questions and yet you actually give me a hard time about it. Answer my question i'll answer yours.

 

[srw]

Pedro - you are walking on a sea of ignorance. You do not understand the meaning of the phrase "an informed decision". The thing about people who walk on seas is that sooner or later they sink. So many people have spent the last 47 pages throwing you lifebelts that it's getting embarrassing. I'm leaving you to drown now.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Pedro - you are walking on a sea of ignorance. You do not understand the meaning of the phrase "an informed decision". The thing about people who walk on seas is that sooner or later they sink. So many people have spent the last 47 pages throwing you lifebelts that it's getting embarrassing. I'm leaving you to drown now.

So yet again just because there are lots of you, you think you are correct and your decisions are informed. Once again you assume that because i am one of 2 people here that you are in fact not the vast minority.
Let me choose whatever i wish thanks and yet again thanks for paying particular attention to my last request. Adios.

​

 

[srw]

Choose what you want. Just do yourself the favour of stopping pretending that you're being intellectually honest.

 

[StuartG]

You (and others who i now can't be bothered replying) are just looking through tinted glasses. Try taking them off, there is whole lot more colour in the world.

Nope. I am merely following the evidence. If it pointed to a significant safety gain I would wear one tomorrow. I might even consider supporting the compulsion option. Are you really questioning my objectivity and if so why?

Just because we have a different view on scientific and statistical methodology? I am intrigued why you think yours is superior to mine (and AFAIK the rest of the scientific and statistical community).

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Choose what you want. Just do yourself the favour of stopping pretending that you're being intellectually honest.

See, it's not about helmets. It's about you being right. I asked you to try resist the urge to use that kind of line on me and you couldn't. Had to do it. "pretending that you're being intellectually honest". What utter tripe. Have we not just clarified that Hip Priest could have cut, bruised, scraped etc his head without a helmet?? I don't care if you can cut the rest of your body. The discussion is helmets!!

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Nope. I am merely following the evidence. If it pointed to a significant safety gain I would wear one tomorrow. I might even consider supporting the compulsion option. Are you really questioning my objectivity and if so why?

Just because we have a different view on scientific and statistical methodology? I am intrigued why you think yours is superior to mine (and AFAIK the rest of the scientific and statistical community).

You clearly think yours is superior to mine so why do me the disservice of assuming i am lesser? You said it yourself. " because we have a different view on scientific and statistical methodology". Can i point out that i am in the majority here not the minority. So this " the rest of the scientific and statistical community" is just another absurd claim. Similar to the whole EVERYONE is against you argument. Maybe on here. Try looking outside.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

bugger this for a laugh. Im off out to enjoy my saturday day/evening. Bike ride then evening out with friends.

Why don't you guys stay here and add some more insults to the page. I don't think you have quite embarrassed yourselves enough yet with your behaviour. Remember anyone with opposing views to yours must be ridiculed and/or vilified.

yours truly

the bad guy.

 

[StuartG]

You clearly think yours is superior to mine so why do me the disservice of assuming i am lesser? You said it yourself. " because we have a different view on scientific and statistical methodology". Can i point out that i am in the majority here not the minority. So this " the rest of the scientific and statistical community" is just another absurd claim. Similar to the whole EVERYONE is against you argument. Maybe on here. Try looking outside.

You are losing all coherence. Attacking me for a claim I never made. That's your problem, not mine.

And are you really serious that your views on proving negatives and concrete evidence (to pluck a couple at random) resonate in any part of the scientific and statistical community? Things may well be very different in Perthshire but you have a lot more to overturn in the philosophy and practice than just my ramblings.

That would take an Einstein. You don't write like one.