Petition to the Women's Institute

[Little yellow Brompton]

But you are prepared to pass comment and be pissed off when cyclists don't wear one. Why is this?
Forgive me for going on about this, but the thinking behind it facinates and horrifies me equally, and would love to be able at least to understand It.

There is no "thinking" behind it, it's just a knee jerk reaction. He's been told there is a "cure" ( cycle helmets) , he religously believes in the "cure" , but the "cure" hasn't been suggested for any other user group hence he doesn't need to believe in it's use for them. It's a religous belief, the only courses of action are to ignore it or ridicule it, there is no point asking him to explain it, it can't be explained.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

But you are prepared to pass comment and be pissed off when cyclists don't wear one. Why is this?
Forgive me for going on about this, but the thinking behind it facinates and horrifies me equally, and would love to be able at least to understand It.

It pi55e5 me off because it costs me money through the taxation system. Do you not resent paying out money for someone else's stupidity?

(I am a little concerned that these matters horrify you, they are serious but I would suggest not horrific!)

Regards.

 

[ufkacbln]

It pi55e5 me off because it costs me money through the taxation system. Do you not resent paying out money for someone else's stupidity?
Regards.

Exactly why drinking helmets should be worn!

Especially when the failure to wear a helmet is exacerbated by the choice to impair and compromise one's ability to make rational decisions.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

It pi55e5 me off because it costs me money through the taxation system. Do you not resent paying out money for someone else's stupidity?

(I am a little concerned that these matters horrify you, they are serious but I would suggest not horrific!)

Regards.

Helmets cost you more money!

 

[Titan yer tummy]

There is no "thinking" behind it, it's just a knee jerk reaction. He's been told there is a "cure" ( cycle helmets) , he religously believes in the "cure" , but the "cure" hasn't been suggested for any other user group hence he doesn't need to believe in it's use for them. It's a religous belief, the only courses of action are to ignore it or ridicule it, there is no point asking him to explain it, it can't be explained.

I'd be grateful if you would resist the temptation to discuss me with other forum members in open forum. If you wish to make a point to me by all means do so and I will answer as best I can (as I believe I have done). But ridicule is cheap it is also contrary to the rules of the forum.

Thank you.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Helmets cost you more money!

I'm not sure I understand this.

Regards

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I'd be grateful if you would resist the temptation to discuss me with other forum members in open forum. If you wish to make a point to me by all means do so and I will answer as best I can (as I believe I have done). But ridicule is cheap it is also contrary to the rules of the forum.

Thank you.

You can't answer , you haven't the tools to do so.
As for discussing you with other forum members, you are a religous fool , a subset of fools , you yourself have decided that people who cycle and are fools are eligible for discussion because you made them so , and I hope you are not trying to restrict who I can discuss fools with? As for ridicule, it's very difficult not to ridicule someone that bases their decisions on religion, and instead of considering their first position simply either ignores evidence/questions or tries to fit them into their belief system. It's so difficult to do that, that even the religous fool finally ends up making themselves obviously ( to all but them) ridiculous , as they twist and turn , trying to ignore ( or smartly answering) questions they don't like whilst at the same time exposing their obvious ignorance in another direction. I won't ridicule you, I might ask you questions , or point out that your answers are inconsistent, but you will end up either dropping the subject or ridiculing yourself(or more likely I will get bored and wander off until the next religous fool wanders along)

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I'm not sure I understand this.

Regards

Of course you don't . You have come into a complicated field with a narrow perspective based upon religion and without the full facts.

 

[Andy84]

As I have mentioned above there are classes of pedestrians who wear helmets, if there is a wider case for pedestrians to wear helmets more regularly (and there may well be) I am not proposing to make it for them.

Best wishes.

Can I ask why you don't believe all pedestrians should wear a helmet?

 

[Norm]

It pi55e5 me off because it costs me money through the taxation system. Do you not resent paying out money for someone else's stupidity?

What is the basis for saying that it costs you money? Costs you money compared to what? Stupidity compared to who?

I hope you'll excuse me re-posting something I wrote a few days ago, with a few additions to make it more relevant here.

1) No proof that they reduce death or injury statistics
2) Even if a piece of polystyrene on the head might help, it is only in limited circumstances and only, obviously, helps with head injuries
3) Risk transference, with evidence that cars pass closer to helmeted cyclists
4) The possibility that the increased size of a helmeted head might mean it would hit something that a bare scalp would miss
5) Helmets have snag points, which might make injuries worse
6) Many helmets are badly fitted, thus rendering them even more likely to be useless or dangerous
7) Helmets make cycling appear dangerous, and it isn't as cyclists live longer, on average, than non-cyclists. Making helmet use compulsory could, therefore, increase the population mortality by putting people off cycling.
8) Helmets help most with single-vehicle accidents. Involve anything motorised and the chances of any actual benefit are reduced because of the chance of other fatal injuries
9) The dangers on the road, to cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders come from motorised vehicles. Making cars and lorries safer, through design, training and a new attitude to those who use them as weapons.

Further to point 1, do you have anything that can show it is anything other than a "religious belief"? Any real evidence other than a few apocryphal one-sided tales?

Further to points 2, 4 and 5, what would you do, titan, for those cyclists who have injuries which were caused by or exaccerbated by their wearing a helmet?

Further to points 3, 8 and 9, should your wrath not be targeted at those who actually create the danger?

Further to point 6, will you also excluse those who have face or neck injuries because their helmets were incorrectly fitted?

Further to point 7, will you give all cyclists tax refunds because we live, on average, 10 years longer than non-cyclists?

Does your solution also exclude from NHS care anyone who takes a risk greater than you consider acceptable? I know a fisherman who is quadraplegic because he stumbled on a rock underwater, is he to be excluded? Sailors? Windsurfers? Anyone who takes part in competitive sport? Anyone who goes out for a drink? All of those are more risky than riding a bike without a helmet.

 

[ufkacbln]

The worst form of evangelism is the "believe in my faith or you are stupid and a fool"

You will never get beyond a certain limited argument because there is no reasoned support.

Hence the drinking helmets being studioulsy avoided.

They fulfill all the requirements (and more) for "stupidity".

All we need is a simple answer - if a cyclist not preventing a head injury is unacceptable then why is it acceptable for someone drinking in the pub.

A far greater saving in NHS time, effort and cost would be achieved....why should we not have even greater objections to paying for these even more preventable injuries.

 

[Norm]

The worst form of evangelism is the "believe in my faith or you are stupid and a fool"

The thing that gets me is that I'm a helmet-wearer, yet even I find such evangelism beyond comprehension.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

The thing that gets me is that I'm a helmet-wearer, yet even I find such evangelism beyond comprehension.

You are making the mistake of thinking that religion can be understood, it can't . If you believe then it doesn't need to be understood, and if you don't believe, then you are " stupid and a fool" and so can't understand!

 

[Titan yer tummy]

You will be aware the 60% of head injuries requiring admission and / or treatment are related to alcohol?.......

This is a vacant half statistic and cannot be answered in its current form. Are you referring to cyclists or all road users or something else? 60% seems a nice convenient round number where has this been plucked from. Please see my earlier comments about stats being twisted to fit an argument.

These injuries could easily be prevented with full face helmets (with an aperture for a straw) being worn when drinking alcohol!

Anyone choosing not to prevent such injury ..........

So where do you stand with unprotected drinking?

If you are referring to, and it is far from clear, excessive consumption of alcohol then I am against it. It is also illegal and a matter for which a person in a public place can be arrested and taken to a place of safety. So helmets: probably not because other safety measures are in place. And you can take it as read that I am not happy to have to finance state intervention for those who have hurt themselves or rendered themselves incapable through intemperance.

With best wishes.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

You can't answer , you haven't the tools to do so.
As for discussing you with other forum members, you are a religous fool , a subset of fools , you yourself have decided that people who cycle and are fools are eligible for discussion because you made them so , and I hope you are not trying to restrict who I can discuss fools with? As for ridicule, it's very difficult not to ridicule someone that bases their decisions on religion, and instead of considering their first position simply either ignores evidence/questions or tries to fit them into their belief system. It's so difficult to do that, that even the religous fool finally ends up making themselves obviously ( to all but them) ridiculous , as they twist and turn , trying to ignore ( or smartly answering) questions they don't like whilst at the same time exposing their obvious ignorance in another direction. I won't ridicule you, I might ask you questions , or point out that your answers are inconsistent, but you will end up either dropping the subject or ridiculing yourself(or more likely I will get bored and wander off until the next religous fool wanders along)

Please would you delete this or I shall refer it to moderation.

Thank you