metro article on helmets

[benb]

What an insufferable bellend.

 

[mickle]

And the conclusion: Helmets are OK if you want to wear one.

No they are not.

 

[Boris Bajic]

No they are not.

"Oh yes they are!"

(At last, reasoned and pithy debate on this thread. I think I could get to like this.)

 

[mickle]

"Oh yes they are!"

(At last, reasoned and pithy debate on this thread. I think I could get to like this.)

You made a claim - 'helmets are ok' - for which you have no supporting evidence.

 

[Boris Bajic]

You made a claim - 'helmets are ok' - for which you have no supporting evidence.

Oh Yes I Do!!!

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Oh Yes I Do!!!

Can we cut stright to the "BEHIND YOU!!"?

 

[Boris Bajic]

Can we cut stright to the "BEHIND YOU!!"?

No we can't!!

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Part 9
It only remains to wonder what Mayor Sheen is doing about all this. Perhaps he doesn’t realise what’s going on; but I don’t think so. He is always fairly prompt to move a misplaced helm-bone to the ‘Helm-bones Go Here’ pen.

Perhaps the reality is that Sheen knows that a helm-bone frenzy whilst disturbing for the victim can be quite entertaining for the other residents of Rotonatta. One shredded noo-doggy being a small price to pay for the general gratification of the masses.

Fortunately, my little tale is just a work of fiction!

LETS ALL HOPE THAT ROTONATTA DOESN’T EXIST FOR REAL.

 

[MontyVeda]

25% of car passenger and driver deaths could be prevented if they had worn helmets.

sorry for shouting.

what kind of helmets?

full face motorcycle style, bmx/climbing style or cycling style??

 

[ufkacbln]

Part 9

Fortunately, my little tale is just a work of fiction!

A bit like some of your claims then?

Are you ever going to answer the questions raise by your original posts?

Back in January you stated that :

..As a tax payer, paying for your medical treatment for an injury you could have protected yourself from, but chose not to. Because that would pi55 me off.

Not at all everyone has the opportunity to make decisions about their own protection. If they fail to take the necessary precautions to avoid hurting or injuring themselves then I am entitled to feel peeved if I have to pay to treat or care for them.

With that established I feel fully entitled to take issue with anyone who, being so stupid as to sustain a preventable injury by not wearing a helmet, expects me through the tax system to fund their treatment and recuperation.

Could you please have the common courtesy and decency to answer the question if it is just cyclists without helmets or whether you feel similarly aggrieved by other "preventable injuries" ?

 

[benb]

crap

Hey, while you're still here, before us pro choice people force you to leave the forum, could you please explain why a cyclist who injures their head who was not wearing a helmet is a fool, but a pedestrian who injures their head who was not wearing a helmet is not a fool?

If you don't answer, you're a coward.

 

[ufkacbln]

I suppose we should admire TyT's doggied determination not to clarify the very points that they raised.

I suppose we must therefore draw our own conclusions

TyT cnnot justify the objection to treating helmetless cyclists on the NHS as there are too many similar groups that have "preventable injuries. The position is indefensible, hence the avoidance

TyT realises that the claim that anyone who suffers a preventable injury whilst wearing a halmet is "a fool" whilst others who suffer preventable injuries are not is equally indefensible and again has avoided a reply for tis reason

 

[ufkacbln]

Dear All,

You make your case as you wish to. I'll make mine my way.

Doctors Manitoba, the provincial medical association, has told the government that bike helmet laws reduce the number of head injuries that require hospitalization by as much as 45 per cent.
Rondeau knows that first-hand. He was involved in a collision with a vehicle last year while out riding his bike.
"I went sideways and hit my head and cracked my helmet. I know that if I was not wearing a helmet, I would have had a serious brain injury," he said.


Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120318/manitoba-consider-bike-helmet-law-120318/#ixzz1pY8Z7igs

Regards

TyT :~)

Actually this is totally untrue, Doctors Manitoba have not commented on the legislation and are a little upset that they have been misrepresented in this way

They do NOT support helmet promotion.

No one from the Winnipeg Free Press or any other news media has contacted Doctors Manitoba to verify or update the statistic. It was published without our knowledge, out of context. It appears Mr. Rondeau was referring when interviewed to a letter of support that the Chair of the former Doctors Manitoba Public Health Issues Committee sent to MLAs September 2008 when legislation was proposed at that time.

Unfortunately, I cannot say now, 3 1/2 years later, where the statistic from that letter regarding reduced hospital admissions originated.

So hardy the "proof" that TyT seems to think this was.

Further correspondence did however clarify the situation a little.

The 45% figure appears to be from a paper analysing data from the mid 90's so is almost eighteen years old.The paper was written in 2002

It only looked at 5 - 15 year olds, and was limited in it's analysis. It is hardly applicable to adult or commuting cyclists

For the insomniacs and those who can be bothered to investigate
Link

 

[Titan yer tummy]

I see my ideas are beginning to gain traction!

http://londonist.com/2012/04/the-ma...n=b010a424ee-Londonist+Daily&utm_medium=email


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ufkacbln]

I see my ideas are beginning to gain traction!

http://londonist.com/2012/04/the-mayoral-election-in-dogs.php?utm_source=Londonist Ltd List&utm_campaign=b010a424ee-Londonist Daily&utm_medium=email


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Thus explaining succinctly why you again chose to justify helmets with something that did exactly the opposite?

However true to form I have no real expectation of you actually explaining