What "anti helmet persuasion'? I don't think anyone is necessarily anti-helmet - they're anti-compulsion...
I'm Anti Helmet......
What "anti helmet persuasion'? I don't think anyone is necessarily anti-helmet - they're anti-compulsion...
I don't get you...2102568 said:Some of us are way ahead of you there and have done both to be sure.
Well, since in my experience they do work, and work well, I will stick with the higher, purer libertarian argument rather than make up these absurd rationalizations.2102571 said:But to be more serious, the libertarian argument might not always work, so the helmets don't actually do what they say on the tin argument is also useful.
A recumbent trike would have also prevented this accident?
Unfortunately you don't get it (but thank you for the nice comments anyway ) . If in a general cycling population sample of 1,000 cyclists, 333 wear a helmet and 667 don't and then you find in hospital 333 of a thousand head injuries were wearing a helmet and 667 weren't then the conclusion is the risk of a head injury is the same with or without a helmet. All you are doing is quoting absolute numbers on which basis you would conclude that driving a Trabant (no-one killed) was far safer than driving a Ford or Vauxhall (thousands killed). But don't worry, quite a few research papers that claim benefits for helmets have made the same mistake and forgotten to compare injury rates with and without helmets with helmet wearing rates in the cycling population.
I know you like to think of it as thinking2102582 said:Some of us are up with both the libertarian argument and that which you dismiss as la la rationalisation, or what we prefer to think of as thinking.
Obviously, that was I thinking?2102597 said:This is Nonsence. Nothing should be red or blue, it shouldbe red and blue.
And your previous comment? What was that?2102608 said:That's right put me down and belittle me for my stupidity. That will always help.
I think maybe you're the one not getting it. They aren't the numbers you quoted, so don't pat me on the head and say "there there, lots of people are thick too".
You didn't say in a sample of 1000 cyclists...blah blah. You said, in in a sample of 1000 head injuries sustained from a fall.... That's a totally different equation.
Sounds a bit like your trying to squirm out of the fact that you told us all that of 1000 head injury's, 600 were helmet less and 300 were with a helmet.
your numbers not mine.
I (emphasis on the word "I" ) see the problem like this:
There are those among our ranks that think helmets are a good thing and so choose to wear one - these people have made the choice for themselves and are wise
There are also those among our ranks that believe helmets to be un-necessary and choose not to wear one - these people have made the choice for themselves and are also wise
Finally there is a faction among us that for some reason wish to make the choice on behalf of others - these people are interfering busy bodies
With the possible exception of parents/carers making the choice for their children, I believe that everyone is entitled to make the choice for themselves. People who preach their beliefs as gospel I (personally) find extremely condescending.
This is, and should be, a persons own choice in just the same way that I may choose to wear red socks or blue ones. Arguing that my choice to wear/not wear a helmet is right/wrong seems about as relevant as telling me I'm wearing the wrong colour socks!
isn't that what you were doing up page a little.2102608 said:That's right put me down and belittle me for my stupidity. That will always help.