More fuel for the helmet debate

[Recycler]

My "ridiculously contrived question" is one of the main reasons why most bike share schemes don't have a helmet share scheme attached to them and the ones that do have a damage inspection and sterilisation regime for all returned helmets. But you live in your fantasy world where the parents and kid are well informed on such issues. The real question though is why you are so keen for the kid to have a helmet on its head without regard to whether it is going to cause them health problems, whether it actually fits or whether its integrity has been compromised by accidents or misuse.

As I said, you had better ask Accy about your view of his health.

Why are you so keen that a kid doesn't have a helmet on his head? Despite all your conjecture you have no idea if the gift was not a good fit etc. etc. Maybe you should ask Accy? Maybe the helmet has already saved the kids life?

 

[Norm]

To me, it reads more like a "I don't like helmets" posting than a genuine attempt at being helpful.

Possibly your complete failure at comprehension is a result of your blinkers about helmets.

Being critical of one incident doesn't make someone "I don't like helmets". Similarly, wearing helmets under certain circumstances doesnt mean that you should be blind to their negatives.

With a little bit of thought, you can turn a well-intentioned but potentially fatal act into one that is more positive.

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1894233, member: 45"]There are hygeine issues associated with wearing someone else's helmet, but "quite serious scalp diseases" is rather dramatic language for what should be an objective discussion.[/quote]

http://dermnetnz.org/fungal/kerion.html

 

[ufkacbln]

By the way....what does your signature mean? I can't understand what you are attempting to say.

A while ago one poster totally failed to understand that helmets have limitations and compulsion is not the way forward.

His entire defence was that if you posted anything that was not glowing in praise of helmets then it was rabidly anti-helmet and should be dismissed. Every reply was a variation of the mantra "You are only saying that because you hate helmets and hate me because I wear one"

(Funnily enough one of his claims was that cycle helmets prevent facial injuries, and in response when asked how came up with the fact that they are "wide enough" to prevent the face hitting the road... )

The considered opinion of this individual was that "If you are anti compulsion which is the same as wearing a helmet you are anti helmet!"

Seems an appropriate signature as it describes completely the inability of some people to understand the arguments about compulsion

 

[ufkacbln]

As I said, you had better ask Accy about your view of his health.

Why are you so keen that a kid doesn't have a helmet on his head? Despite all your conjecture you have no idea if the gift was not a good fit etc. etc. Maybe you should ask Accy? Maybe the helmet has already saved the kids life?

The problems with second hand helmets is pointed out and you immediately conclude that the child should not wear a new one?

Could you explain the logic, as it is yet another complete distortion of what has actually been posted!

 

[Red Light]

Maybe the helmet has already saved the kids life?

Probably several million kid cyclists out there of which about 12 get killed a year and only one or two from head injuries alone. I wonder if that kid really is one in a million?

 

[Recycler]

With a little bit of thought, you can turn a well-intentioned but potentially fatal act into one that is more positive.

Oh, dear. So now the gift of a helemt to somebody who doesn't have one is "potentially fatal" even though you have no idea of the condition of the helmet or Accy's personal health issues. It obviously hasn't occured to you that NOT giving the helmet could be a fatal thing to do.

 

[Red Light]

It obviously hasn't occured to you that NOT giving the helmet could be a fatal thing to do.

Yes, they could be the one in a million fatalities but they're much more likely to be the 999,999 in a million non-fatalities.

 

[Recycler]

A while ago one poster totally failed to understand that helmets have limitations and compulsion is not the way forward.

His entire defence was that if you posted anything that was not glowing in praise of helmets then it was rabidly anti-helmet and should be dismissed. Every reply was a variation of the mantra "You are only saying that because you hate helmets and hate me because I wear one"

(Funnily enough one of his claims was that cycle helmets prevent facial injuries, and in response when asked how came up with the fact that they are "wide enough" to prevent the face hitting the road... )

The considered opinion of this individual was that "If you are anti compulsion which is the same as wearing a helmet you are anti helmet!"

Seems an appropriate signature as it describes completely the inability of some people to understand the arguments about compulsion

It's nonsense though isn't it? Is that what he said or is it your take on it? Whatever it is it's complete gibberish and I'm surprised that somebody would elect to put their name to it and use it as their signature.

 

[ufkacbln]

Oh, dear. So now the gift of a helemt to somebody who doesn't have one is "potentially fatal" even though you have no idea of the condition of the helmet or Accy's personal health issues. It obviously hasn't occured to you that NOT giving the helmet could be a fatal thing to do.

It is becoming of increasing concern that you seem unable to actually interpret the posts outside your own narrow agenda.

I am still awaiting the explanation as to how you managed to interpret this statement from what has been posted

Why are you so keen that a kid doesn't have a helmet on his head?

If you feel that is too difficult to explain, just say so

 

[ufkacbln]

It's nonsense though isn't it? Is that what he said or is it your take on it? Whatever it is it's complete gibberish and I'm surprised that somebody would elect to put their name to it and use it as their signature.

I must apologise if MY signature fails to meet your approval!

 

[Recycler]

Probably several million kid cyclists out there of which about 12 get killed a year and only one or two from head injuries alone. I wonder if that kid really is one in a million?

You need to check your figures and look at not just fatalities but all KSI and lesser accidents.

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1894283, member: 45"]Yup, that's an infection. Well done.[/quote]

And one that is readily passed on by shared helmets inter alia. So would you like to revise your comment on scalp diseases?

 

[Recycler]

I must apologise if MY signature fails to meet your approval!

There's no need to apologise but, if you choose to use gibberish, don't be surprised if peeps ask what on earth you are trying to say. Using it like that does say a lot about you though.

 

[Red Light]

You need to check your figures and look at not just fatalities but all KSI and lesser accidents.

Why? You've been talking continually about saving the kid's life so fatalities is what I considered. But it is common amongst helmet promoters to consider the most trivial of accidents as certain fatalities without a helmet so I can understand your confusion on this.