metro article on helmets

[col]

I don't, that is down to you.

You will have to be more specific if you want me to say if its dangerous or not?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

...and for this reason, nobody knows what the stats are for a pedestrian and cyclist matching my description, say? I wonder how many fit, healthy, able-bodied, aware 25 year old pedestrians are in that study. I'm willing to bet that it's not so black and white if we were able to look at detailed demographics of those peds and cyclists. You're far more likely to find a wide spread of at-risk peds than at-risk cyclists (based on their age/physical ability/disabilities etc), no?

If there are detailed insights into these numbers I'd be interested in seeing them to help add to the debate, otherwise it just seems that there are some hardcore people on this forum that are continuously spewing ambiguous statistics for god knows what reason.

"ambiguous statistics", remind me again, is that code for "proof I don't like" or "slagging off an argument I'm to lazy to find a way to provide proof against"? I forget which is which sometimes.


You are of course free to supply statistics which are not ambiguous , and which prove your point. You do have a point, don't you?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

No it was a simple straightforward question, you can answer it or not as you see fit, I am not playing stupid games with you.

Good move, you are outclassed!

 

[col]

Do you regard walking about the place as dangerous?

You asked this, but wont say what place? Strange thing to do then say you wont play games?

 

[col]

Good move, you are outclassed!

You tell him LYB

 

[caimg]

If you want to get selective about the figures, the pedestrian v cyclist stats for 95 year old women are going to stuff you.

Hahahahaha touché

point still stands though...

 

[col]

I did say "any and all of the places you go". It was clear and open. As I said you can choose to answer or you can choose to play your stupid games.

I choose .............. games cum oooooooon
ok ok serious for a second, I would say some places are more dangerous than others.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

You tell him LYB

Whoooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[caimg]

"ambiguous statistics", remind me again, is that code for "proof I don't like" or "slagging off an argument I'm to lazy to find a way to provide proof against"? I forget which is which sometimes.


You are of course free to supply statistics which are not ambiguous , and which prove your point. You do have a point, don't you?

Neither, stop being so defensive and chill out. You're good at asking questions but not so great at answering them. If the studies aren't relevant to me (with relation to the demographics of pedestrian injuries), then I'd like to know, that's all. If it shows that I'm at risk as much as a drunk / old / disabled pedestrian, and that it's accepted that these groups could be involved in the study, then the stats are 'ambiguous' by nature. I'm not saying you did these studies so stop being so ultra-protective over them.

 

[ufkacbln]

You're good at asking questions but not so great at answering them.

More irony!

Howzabout answering some from earlier on?

If you haven't already, search back at past discussions and fellow cyclists with near tragic stories about themselves or loved ones who have seen the effectiveness of their helmet first hand. I, like lots of others, am just not willing to brush off those stories in a 'oh but they're in the minority

After several times of asking about the use of this attempt at emotve blackmail I still await the courtesy of an explanation ........

Why you feel that the consequences of a head injury to a cyclists is an argument to wear one, yet somehow are les painful or traumatic for the pedestrian and their loved ones?

Of course if you have realised that this is an indefensible statement and that you cannot explain this, just continue to avoid answering - the silence speaks volumes

 

[caimg]

More irony!

Howzabout answering some from earlier on?





After several times of asking about the use of this attempt at emotve blackmail I still await the courtesy of an explanation ........

Why you feel that the consequences of a head injury to a cyclists is an argument to wear one, yet somehow are les painful or traumatic for the pedestrian and their loved ones?

Of course if you have realised that this is an indefensible statement and that you cannot explain this, just continue to avoid answering - the silence speaks volumes

There's no irony bud, you're just choosing not to listen. Blackmail? Come on, nobody is using 'blackmail'. You need to get it out of your head that I'm sort of 'evangelical' pro-helmet nut with an agenda, because you're one of a few who are now coming across as an evangelical anti-helmet nut with an agenda. Where did I say head injuries are les [sic] painful or traumatic for peds and their loved ones?

I've still had no answer to my question about the stats and demographics.

 

[Red Light]

So none for just falling ?

If you want the figures for injuries on foot from trips and falls irrespective of location, they are massive and include things like falling down stairs, slipping and falling in the bathroom, tripping over kids toys etc etc. I simply restricted it to the more relevant ( to this discussion) and much lower figure of people that tripped and fell on the street. Why you think that is not relevant escapes me (well not actually as you just want to dismiss anything that does not agree with your beliefs and faith)

 

[Red Light]

You need to get it out of your head that I'm sort of 'evangelical' pro-helmet nut with an agenda

I think you put that idea there by calling anyone who didn't wear a helmet an "utter douche" and worthy of less respect on the road.

 

[Cycloslalomeur]

How do you know the places I go?

Good grief. That is beyond absurd.

 

[ufkacbln]

There's no irony bud, you're just choosing not to listen. Blackmail? Come on, nobody is using 'blackmail'. You need to get it out of your head that I'm sort of 'evangelical' pro-helmet nut with an agenda, because you're one of a few who are now coming across as an evangelical anti-helmet nut with an agenda. Where did I say head injuries are les [sic] painful or traumatic for peds and their loved ones?

I've still had no answer to my question about the stats and demographics.

Nice swerve and avoidance

In case you truly don't know what you posted I will quote it again a I have each time I have asked.....

You posted:

If you haven't already, search back at past discussions and fellow cyclists with near tragic stories about themselves or loved ones who have seen the effectiveness of their helmet first hand. I, like lots of others, am just not willing to brush off those stories in a 'oh but they're in the minority

Have I got this wrong and you were arguing for pedestrian helmets as well as cycle helmets with this statement then?

If you are not supporting pedestrian helmets then you need to explain why the head injury is less painful or traumatic for one pedestrians then cyclists!

As for blackmail - that is exactly what it is emotive blackmail.... wear a helmet or die / suck soup through a straw etc.