Petition to the Women's Institute

[Riding in Circles]

They should never have been given the vote or allowed to drive, it's a disgrace.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Have you not considered these statements to be contradictory?

First you accept that there are arguements for (mainly the protection in a collision) and against (the affect on the chance of a collision).

Secondly using the word 'feel' you appear to accept that balancing is subjective rather than objective. I happen to agree with you on that.

Thirdly you say that anyone coming to the opposite conclusion is a fool. You may feel they are wrong but, in the absence of strong objective evidence needed to balance the arguement, then this would be going well against the evidence that we do have.

Hence it is you that is irrational. A word I prefer to fool.

I have considered your comments and I have decided to stick to what I wrote. I considered my words carefully and they convey what I wish to say (with the exception if the obvious typo which you were kind enough to ignore.)

Message edited as it was transmitted before I had completed it on my iPhone which misbehaving.

 

[Paladin - York]

Oh no! We're not going to get the Rylstone WI Calendar Girls again, this time baring all except "cycle helmets"?

 

[growingvegetables]

They should never have been given the vote or allowed to drive, it's a disgrace.

Now there's a man who believes in living dangerously.

 

[the snail]

It's nice that the ladies are so concerned for our safety. I think it would be right to point out the horrific injuries that could be sustained in a jam-making incident, and campaign for compulsory PPE

 

[snorri]

I am not bright enough to access all the evidence on this subject let alone consider it.
I choose to wear a lid. I think anyone who doesn't is a fool.

You admit to not having considered the evidence yet you pass judgement on the wisdom of some of the people who have.

 

[her_welshness]

You admit to not having considered the evidence yet you pass judgement on the wisdom of some of the people who have.

What is your problem snorri? TyT is entitled to his opinion and if he thinks that people are fools for not wearing helmets, let him have his own viewpoint. I could not even follow your earlier counter argument by the way.

 

[Nantmor]

What is your problem snorri? TyT is entitled to his opinion and if he thinks that people are fools for not wearing helmets, let him have his own viewpoint. I could not even follow your earlier counter argument by the way.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they express it in a public forum they can expect to draw disagreement. This is a board for discussion, and those who disagree are equally entitled to point out weaknesses in argument. Ty T should expect criticism when he calls those who disagree fools, and even more when he bases his opinion on his own hunches, and confesses to not reading the evidence.

 

[her_welshness]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they express it in a public forum they can expect to draw disagreement. This is a board for discussion, and those who disagree are equally entitled to point out weaknesses in argument. Ty T should expect criticism when he calls those who disagree fools, and even more when he bases his opinion on his own hunches, and confesses to not reading the evidence.

Sorry, still cannot understand what the original counter argument was about. Is that because I think their riposte is weak or is it because I am slow on the uptake? You decide!

I equally believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and that everyone is entitled to debate and to disagree, it is an entirely healthy thing My beef is what I have described above. I believe in clarity.

 

[Nantmor]

I equally believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and that everyone is entitled to debate and to disagree, it is an entirely healthy thing My beef is what I have described above. I believe in clarity.

What is your problem snorri? TyT is entitled to his opinion and if he thinks that people are fools for not wearing helmets, let him have his own viewpoint.

What Snorri wrote seems to me to be an entirely reasonable expression of disagreement. You wrote "let him (Tyt) have his own viewpoint." Then you wrote "I equally believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and that everyone is entitled to debate and to disagree". Where did Snorri do anything other than disagree?

Sorry, still cannot understand what the original counter argument was about.

.

I am unclear which original counter argument you mean. In this sub thread only you mention it. If we knew which argument it was we might be able to make the meaning clearer.

My post was in reaction to you writing, "What is your problem snorri?" Just what did you mean? What problem prompted you to write this?

 

[snorri]

This sub topic is going nowhere, peace on earth 'tis the Season of Goodwill.

 

[StuartG]

I'm sorry HW but I'm with Nantmor on this.

This part of CC has been one of the more serious sections which, at times, are discussions on life and death subjects. It is a place to come, learn, analyse and contribute. When someone does that honestly, with deep thought and not a little knowledge then it deserves decent discussion especially if you think it mistaken. Anyone who considers unfoundered opinion (I think we used to call that prejudice) as justification for calling people fools can expect a robust reaction. And being this section it was made politely, concisely and logically. What's wrong with that?

This is not about helmets, good or bad, but about ad hominen attacks which, like strawmen, are the enemies of good productive discussion. A shame P&L has gone where we could have joyfully called each other idiots.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

You admit to not having considered the evidence yet you pass judgement on the wisdom of some of the people who have.

Hmmm. That's not quite what I said now is it?

I spoke about access to, and considering, ALL the evidence.

Perhaps you have accessed and considered ALL the evidence. But I doubt it.

I actually doubt that anyone has. This does not mean that I have not found and considered some evidence. One of the things I do think about is who is for and who is against and then consider what evidence they might have found and considered.

That said I still do believe that the decision about compulsion will ultimately be decided by money and those that have to pay out to victims of cycling accidents - insurers.

You will note that I have said nothing about the amount of protection a helmet will provide in a collision.

I have not had a collision where my head or helmet has sustained damage. Only a. fool would believe that a helmet would provide no protection in all situations. Therefore by extension a helmet does offer protection and I choose to afford myself that protection.

I actually think that if I was provided with incontrovertible proof that a helmet provided no protection I would still wear one and think those that didn't fools.

It's my opinion and my decision and I'm quite comfortable with it. I don't ask you to agree, I actually don't care very much provided I don't end up, 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.

With best wishes.

 

[benb]

Only a. fool would believe that a helmet would provide no protection in all situations. Therefore by extension a helmet does offer protection and I choose to afford myself that protection.

I don't think anyone would argue that a helmet offers no protection at all, in any and all situations. But the evidence shows that wearing a helmet doesn't significantly decrease your chances of suffering a serious head injury. In other words, in the situations where it might offer some protection you are very unlikely to suffer a serious injury (it could protect you from a cut, scrape or bruise)

I actually think that if I was provided with incontrovertible proof that a helmet provided no protection I would still wear one and think those that didn't fools.

What a bizarre position to hold.You are a religious zealot. I am quite happy to say that if evidence came to light showing a significant protective effect, I would start to wear a helmet. You have to be rather closed minded to state that you will cling to a position no matter what the evidence is.

It's my opinion and my decision and I'm quite comfortable with it. I don't ask you to agree, I actually don't care very much provided I don't end up, 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.

That's rather callous.

 

[MartinC]

your medical treatment for an injury you could have protected yourself from

There's no robust evidence that a cycling helmet will protect you from an injury requiring medical attention.