No helmet

[davidwalton]

The problem is that you are only looking at a part of the full picture.

Perhaps you should take your helmet off so that you are not so blinkered?

Problem is nobody on the anti helmet side is willing to provide real reason.

I made a decision to wear a helmet based on reports and common sense. I am not going to take it off unless there is a good reason to.

 

[davidwalton]

I'd say it was a real reason.
http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/

I'd say that was imagined, until such time as a factual report was done on a number of cyclists doing this with others watching.

 

[dodgy]

You're disputing a piece of research, conducted by a doctor in his field of expertise? I'd say his assessment is more objective than yours seems to be.
http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf
LOL!

Dave.

 

[davidwalton]

you don't need an argument for not wearing or not wearing a helmet, people are exercising their right to choose.
if i decide to go 15 miles to ribble cycles i wear a helmet because i go though busy towns with loads of half asleep motorists..
if i go on a100 mile ride in the country where for 94 of those miles i will probably see less than a dozen cars i don't wear a helmet.
i don't see why people get so wound up about choice.

how can you choose unless you understand the argument?

Right to choose meaning that people choose not to wear a helmet based on the fact that they can, rather than for a safety reason...hmmmmm.

 

[Jaded]

how can you choose unless you understand the argument?

Right to choose meaning that people choose not to wear a helmet based on the fact that they can, rather than for a safety reason...hmmmmm.

The trouble is, david, YOU don't understand the argument.

Until you do, you'll get nowhere. It would help if you'd not try and impose something on others on the basis of your lack of understanding.

Thank you.

 

[davidwalton]

You're disputing a piece of research, conducted by a doctor in his field of expertise? I'd say his assessment is more objective than yours seems to be.
http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf
LOL!

Dave.

I would question anyone reporting on such a thing by themselves, which this appears to be. Doesn't take in to account his own cycling and how he might change when riding with or without a helmet, and as I said....need observers. A general report that without real tests being done over a number of cyclists being watched is showing little other than a possibility of something is happening, perhaps.

Given I am new to cycling, I had no ideas about whether a helmet was either good or bad. I made up my mind base on what I read on the Internet on BOTH sides.

 

[dodgy]

You're new to cycling, yet you're preaching at us all to wear helmets!
This gets better!

Dave.

 

[davidwalton]

The trouble is, david, YOU don't understand the argument.

Until you do, you'll get nowhere. It would help if you'd not try and impose something on others on the basis of your lack of understanding.

Thank you.

and so now the argument is now one that I don't understand What a joke, and next we get to the insults, and then we get to the bunfight, and then it all wasted.

Don't attack me. It does serve anything.

Even though I repeatedly ask for the REAL reasons, I get so little answer.

I think this is a case of I am wrong because I am told I am wrong argument.

I have every right to put over my point, and I have given reason where I think helmets are better than none.

 

[davidwalton]

You're new to cycling, yet you're preaching at us all to wear helmets!
This gets better!

Dave.

Not hiding anything. Seems the argument here though is that only those that have been cyclists for years or more can know what is right....hmmmm.

 

[davidwalton]

Before this gets any worse, I am off.

I am not interested in a bunfight. I only wanted to know why people choose not to give their head any protection.

Until then, I will remain a helmet wearer, and advise other to based on the information that is available; as well as the fact that anything that softens the blow is always going to be better than nothing. Don't need to be a cyclist for years to work that out.

Bye

 

[dodgy]

Not hiding anything. Seems the argument here though is that only those that have been cyclists for years or more can know what is right....hmmmm.

On balance, yes.

Hope this helps,

Dave.

 

[Tynan]

the antis always go on about peds, falling down stairs, why don't I wear body armour, risk compensation, yada yada

very rarely that a helmet is likely going to be a good thing to wear if you fall off your bike and bang your head

I'm up to speed on the arguments and I see merit in both sides, my gut instinct still tells me that if I fall from 6 feet up at 20mph and crack my head into the tarmac I'd rather have a helmet on than not, I've done it a few times with a crash helmet and once in a cycle helmet, I'd really really not wanted to have been bare headed any time

I'm not bothered by people not wearing them at all, personal choice, I do get irritated by the arguments that 'prove' that helmets are more dangerous than not, that's too far imho and the evidence available is too mixed and poor to go that far at all

I'm afraid that some people seem to need to justify their position as the right one, I see no need for that, there's motor cyclists that take the same sort of positon regarding crash helmets and hi viz for motorcyclists, people used to argue against seat belts ('what if the car turned over, what if the car caught fire'), it's human nature

until someone actually proves something, no-one knows and anyone trying to do more than suggest is making it up to suit themselves imho

anyway this has all been done to death with no-one changing their minds one iota

 

[dodgy]

Before this gets any worse, I am off.

I am not interested in a bunfight. I only wanted to know why people choose not to give their head any protection.

Until then, I will remain a helmet wearer, and advise other to based on the information that is available; as well as the fact that anything that softens the blow is always going to be better than nothing. Don't need to be a cyclist for years to work that out.

Bye

That's rubbish mate, you came on here to support a stance that choice should be taken away. Lots of members came forth with valid reasons why they should make the choice and not have it foisted upon them.
I wear a helmet, just wanted to remind you of that.

Dave.

 

[Baggy]

I don't wear one very often, and I don't care if anyone else does. It's down to choice and I'll fight any compulsion order tooth and nail.

I stopped wearing mine after having an inner ear infection which affected my balance - they're heavy enough to make me feel top heavy.

Having had an assortment of clipless moments, you do notice that your body reacts to keep your head off the floor - and the episodes where this has happened and I've been wearing a helmet haven't half given me neck ache.

 

[Alcdrew]

Before this gets any worse, I am off.

I am not interested in a bunfight. I only wanted to know why people choose not to give their head any protection.

Until then, I will remain a helmet wearer, and advise other to based on the information that is available; as well as the fact that anything that softens the blow is always going to be better than nothing. Don't need to be a cyclist for years to work that out.

Bye

I don't think anyone is say to you don't wear one, that is your choice from what you know about the protection it may or may not give you. The only reason there is an argument is that you want everyone to wear one, even though there are studies done that prove they might not be good. Until there is 100% proof that wearing one WILL save your life than the choice has to be left open to poeple.