Archie_tect
De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
- Location
- Northumberland
Who needs to agree... either people wear them or they don't. No-one's going to change anyone else's opinion about that on here so who cares.... 
How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?
- Thread starter Cyclopathic
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
classic33
Leg End Member
Well given that the roads may be damp, there may be oil/diesel on the roads as well & they don't mix with well with each other. Less traffic on the roads as its a weekend, but more weekend drivers. Wind isn't expected to be a problem. Fewer roadworks on a weekend.
However if you're planning on going off-road. The rain will mean that you stand a greater chance of the bike sliding out from under you, also taking longer to stop due to possible slides on the mud. Mud that can obscure rocks that the rain had brought to the surface.
So I'll leave the choice to you.
Archie_tect
De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
- Location
- Northumberland
Lukesdad, depends if you're intending to take your bike when you go out.
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
I thought we'd just established that from the relative risks, the determination should be made whether you are on foot or on a bike.
classic33
Leg End Member
lukesdad
Guest
Are you having trouble following ? Im not asking for advice just some evidence to base a descision on, bit early for you is it ?
lukesdad
Guest
Well you ve all run out of time I'm afraid as you cannot produce any evidence it would seem. So a simple opinion will have to do I suppose. In 2 hours time when I ride the black route at Brechfa ( assuming you know what a black route is) would I be wise to wear a helmet.
Its a simple question requiring a simple answer (remember its only an opinion I wont hold you to it ). So
a) yes
b) no
c) I don't know
or
d) I'll answer a completely different question altogether in the hope of deflecting the fact that I don't know.
Its a simple question requiring a simple answer (remember its only an opinion I wont hold you to it ). So
a) yes
b) no
c) I don't know
or
d) I'll answer a completely different question altogether in the hope of deflecting the fact that I don't know.
The flaw in this masterpiece is the bizarre and erroneous belief that head injuries only occur when a cyclist is in conflict with a car!
Anyone with a basic grasp of the facts would know this is simply not the case. When one looks at actual hospital admissions, then the actual facts make your assumption even more absurd.
Then we look at cycle accidents as a whole and the absurdity of the argument becomes even clearer
According to the Sottish Executive ( Extent and severity of cycle accident casualties , 2005)
You are arguing here that cycle helmets should be worn "because of the exposure to cars" when in fact the unequivocal proof shows that this is in fact a minority situation
This is exactly why this is not a "counterpoint" but a serious question.... it shows the lack of a coherent, sustainable or valid argument in favour of cycle helmets.
[QUOTE 2156800, member: 45"]Woah there.
We've been here. My comments like this started in response to the ridiculous claim made on here that it's more dangerous walking than cycling, walking a route rather than cycling it etc etc. It's nonsense because it's a generalisation. And it's a generalisation which is repeatedly and deliberately used to deceive.
The point is that it's not true. What is true is that some situations when you're on a bike present more risk of head injury than when you're on your feet. And vice versa. And a whole unmeasurable number of comparisons in between.
It's an unfortunate situation brought about solely by those who claim simply that if cyclists are being encouraged to wear helmets then so should pedestrians.[/quote]
Wrong,
The question is the motive....
Les assume that cycle helmets would prevent a significant number of head injuries
Then we look at the number of head injuries that occur in reality from hospital admissions
We then find that cyclists are in fact a minority, alcohol being the biggest single causative factor
The only misleading and deception is to refuse to answer the question is why individuals are happy to prevent a few of these head injuries when we could prevent so many more.
Why is a head injury not worth preventing in one person, but not others?
We've been here. My comments like this started in response to the ridiculous claim made on here that it's more dangerous walking than cycling, walking a route rather than cycling it etc etc. It's nonsense because it's a generalisation. And it's a generalisation which is repeatedly and deliberately used to deceive.
The point is that it's not true. What is true is that some situations when you're on a bike present more risk of head injury than when you're on your feet. And vice versa. And a whole unmeasurable number of comparisons in between.
It's an unfortunate situation brought about solely by those who claim simply that if cyclists are being encouraged to wear helmets then so should pedestrians.[/quote]
Wrong,
The question is the motive....
Les assume that cycle helmets would prevent a significant number of head injuries
Then we look at the number of head injuries that occur in reality from hospital admissions
We then find that cyclists are in fact a minority, alcohol being the biggest single causative factor
The only misleading and deception is to refuse to answer the question is why individuals are happy to prevent a few of these head injuries when we could prevent so many more.
Why is a head injury not worth preventing in one person, but not others?
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
Don't worry, Mr P has a set of conditions in his head that all anti compulsionists are using arguments of his choosing. Supply him with any information that doesn't confirm his predefined prejudices he just blankly ignores it then claims people haven't answered his question.
Also ask him for evidence for his assertions (and slights) then he starts claiming that he doesn't need to follow the same conventions of everyone else. I'm trying to determine if he actually has that little grasp of statistics or is simply trying to troll.
Also ask him for evidence for his assertions (and slights) then he starts claiming that he doesn't need to follow the same conventions of everyone else. I'm trying to determine if he actually has that little grasp of statistics or is simply trying to troll.
[QUOTE 2157875, member: 45"]You say that I'm wrong and then agree with me. Interesting.
It's clear, so I don't need to go there again. Except to say that you're comparing cycling with being drunk. That's far more useful than ignoring subsets. And you also know that there is a repeated attempt by some on here to deceive by ignoring subsets.[/quote]
Totally wrong
I am standing at the doors of A&E watching the head injuries go by, and counting them as they do
No subsets , no comparisons , just the individuals going through the door
One then simply asks whether each one would have benefitted
No subsets
It's clear, so I don't need to go there again. Except to say that you're comparing cycling with being drunk. That's far more useful than ignoring subsets. And you also know that there is a repeated attempt by some on here to deceive by ignoring subsets.[/quote]
Totally wrong
I am standing at the doors of A&E watching the head injuries go by, and counting them as they do
No subsets , no comparisons , just the individuals going through the door
One then simply asks whether each one would have benefitted
No subsets
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
Your question Mr P is how to cloud the issue with erroneous subdivisions. I was right before, your understanding of statistics is (possibly willfully) very poor.
lukesdad
Guest
Well I'm back no incidents to report this time so whether I wore a helmet or not is immaterial this time.Any evidence come to light yet mr mcshroom ? Some of the 'tribe' showed a little interest,well 2 seconds worth before they all collapsed on the floor in fits of laughter, no helmets were damaged in the process tho'
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
[QUOTE 2158022, member: 45"]That question comes after deciding whether we just take the all-encompassing data or analyse it a bit more. I don't think we're there yet.[/quote]
Evidence that it has any statistical significance Mr P, or are you subjectively dividing up the numbers to suit your agenda without facts again?
Evidence that it has any statistical significance Mr P, or are you subjectively dividing up the numbers to suit your agenda without facts again?
- Status
