Pro compulsion

[david k]

So we aren't bothered about the "campaigning to get a potentially very flawed product forced on people in the name of safety, and the anything must be better than nothing bollocks" aspects then? Just the pro-compulsion?

to consider a helmet flawed you would have to set that decision against certain standards. as the helmets meet the standards they are not flawed. if you consider the standards less than they should be then you have an issue with the standards

 

[david k]

It is an opinion. Not one that everyone might share.

thats fine, if you or others dont feel it is abusive then thats up to them. i think it is and im sure some agree

 

[Angelfishsolo]

thats fine, if you or others dont feel it is abusive then thats up to them. i think it is and im sure some agree

Such is also the nature of any debate.

 

[david k]

Such is also the nature of any debate.

i prefer to debate applying certain respectful values, as you say others have different values and these are ones i dont really care for. However i realise i must accept these if i am to continue with this debate

 

[david k]

I'll take that as a no then, which demonstrates an important core issue here. If you pro-compulsionists get your way, that which is forced upon everyone will be of lamentable standard, currently lower than it was 15 years ago. Does that not bother you?

id happily see standards rise

 

[Angelfishsolo]

i prefer to debate applying certain respectful values, as you say others have different values and these are ones i dont really care for. However i realise i must accept these if i am to continue with this debate

I mean that whatever is written will be taken in different ways by different people.

 

[ufkacbln]

The fact is that there is a need to accept that there is evidence for and against helmets, and it is important that the correct information is out there to allow an informed decision whether to wear a helmet and the type, standard, construction is suitable to the intended use.

Lets give an example..........

The reply was:



If someone had bough a non full face helmet on this advice for use on a mountain bike with the expectation to prevent facial injuries then they would have been disappointed and misled.

It was then pointed out that firstly this advice was wrong, and that the evidence it was wrong was not a guess but an assessment of helmets from the British Dental Association, a slightly more professional and experienced body in dealing with facial injuries

Now the "Dear Reader" knows that the average cycle helmet will not prevent facial injuries and can look at a type of helmet that does.


Why is this so wrong?

Why should dangerous and unrealistic claims like this be unchallenged and the facts made clear?

Why can we not give evidence and trust individuals to investigate and make up their own minds?

Why (and how) can these discussions be interpreted as "anti-helmet" and "hating people who wear helmets"?

Anyway - back on topic?

Any chance of these points being discussed?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Anyway - back on topic?

Any chance of these points being discussed?

What was it?

 

[ufkacbln]

i have never said they do not have limitations, suggesting i havnt is yet again misleading at best,care to show me were i said cycle helmets have no limitations and will protect you from any impact.

a cycle helmet will not help you if hit by a lorry at 70mph, therefore they are limited, clear enough? probably not, i await the next troll post

Misleading is to take one sentence from a paragraph and then bleat about what you think it says rather than what was actually posted!


Now lets look at what was actually written..... as opposed to the part you selectively chose to take out of context. (The rest of the paragrapht is in a nice friendly green so you don't think I am angry).

You need to get your head around the concept that helmets have limitations and that pointing out claims that are unfounded, unevidenced, or simply untrue is called "debate" and giving individuals the right to make an informed choice.

This does not say that you have stated that helmets have no limitations, as you are (again falsely) claiming. It points out that you are making claims that are unfounded, unevidenced, and in some cases dangerous. It does state that you have a naive and unrealistic idea of what helmets can achieve, and that you (in some cases) have absolutely no clue as to what they are and are not capable of. If you choose to misinterpret rather than face reality then feel free.

However I at least have the courtesy to substantiate this "claim"......


I am prepared to believe that this misinformation is due to an overoptimistic assessment of the capabilities of a helmet.


A prime example that shows this is the post in (nice friendly blue) that raises a fine example of an unfounded, unevidenced and dangerous assessment of the capabilities of a helmet and it's abilities to protect.

Care to discuss this particular example of misleading and erroneous claims about the efficacy of cycle helmets?

 

[david k]

No assumptions at all. I did it on the established fact that you are pro-compulsionist

"I believe in compulsion for things that are a proven safety benefit (H&S etc), As there is a lot of conflicting evidence towards helmets at this moment in time i would argue for frther investigation before any law is passed"

Thank you for that link, saved me the trouble, it also goes some way to answering cunoberlins point, please see above the quote from your link

 

[ufkacbln]

"I believe in compulsion for things that are a proven safety benefit (H&S etc), As there is a lot of conflicting evidence towards helmets at this moment in time i would argue for frther investigation before any law is passed"

Thank you for that link, saved me the trouble, it also goes some way to answering cunoberlins point, please see above the quote from your link

Just so I can't be claimed to be misleading ..... How does this answer any of the following open points?

The fact is that there is a need to accept that there is evidence for and against helmets, and it is important that the correct information is out there to allow an informed decision whether to wear a helmet and the type, standard, construction is suitable to the intended use.

Lets give an example..........

The reply was:



If someone had bough a non full face helmet on this advice for use on a mountain bike with the expectation to prevent facial injuries then they would have been disappointed and misled.

It was then pointed out that firstly this advice was wrong, and that the evidence it was wrong was not a guess but an assessment of helmets from the British Dental Association, a slightly more professional and experienced body in dealing with facial injuries

Now the "Dear Reader" knows that the average cycle helmet will not prevent facial injuries and can look at a type of helmet that does.


Why is this so wrong?

Why should dangerous and unrealistic claims like this be unchallenged and the facts made clear?

Why can we not give evidence and trust individuals to investigate and make up their own minds?

Why (and how) can these discussions be interpreted as "anti-helmet" and "hating people who wear helmets"?

Misleading is to take one sentence from a paragraph and then bleat about what you think it says rather than what was actually posted!


Now lets look at what was actually written..... as opposed to the part you selectively chose to take out of context. (The rest of the paragrapht is in a nice friendly green so you don't think I am angry).





This does not say that you have stated that helmets have no limitations, as you are (again falsely) claiming. It points out that you are making claims that are unfounded, unevidenced, and in some cases dangerous. It does state that you have a naive and unrealistic idea of what helmets can achieve, and that you (in some cases) have absolutely no clue as to what they are and are not capable of. If you choose to misinterpret rather than face reality then feel free.

However I at least have the courtesy to substantiate this "claim"......


I am prepared to believe that this misinformation is due to an overoptimistic assessment of the capabilities of a helmet.


A prime example that shows this is the post in (nice friendly blue) that raises a fine example of an unfounded, unevidenced and dangerous assessment of the capabilities of a helmet and it's abilities to protect.

Care to discuss this particular example of misleading and erroneous claims about the efficacy of cycle helmets?

 

[david k]

You seem to be quoting from somewhere else there. As pointed out a week ago your post containing

"i think its clear to say im pro helmet, i always wear one and make the kids wear theirs. i cycle with a friend who usually doesnt wear one, he knows i think he should but hes a grown up and i cannot tell him what to do so thats as far as it goes."

Shows that you are an active compulsionist who can manage it with children but not adults.

my own children who i take responsibility for, i stand by that. i cannot help if you dont like the fact i take responsibility for my own children

as for my friend, im in no position to force him to do anything, so care to explain how this is active compulsionist? maybe you think because i wear a helmet i must force people to wear one, this is not my view as proven with my previous quote

 

[david k]

Just so I can't be claimed to be misleading ..... How does this answer any of the following open points?

your all over the place aren't you, very difficult to follow any point you may or may not be making or alluding too with your edited posts, multi quotes, differing colours, misleading suggestions etc etc. Ask a straight question you will get a straight answer, continue to waffle on for pages and pages ill just keep getting bored with your circular points and answer other people who are straight to the point

 

[ufkacbln]

your all over the place aren't you, very difficult to follow any point you may or may not be making or alluding too with your edited posts, multi quotes, differing colours, misleading suggestions etc etc. Ask a straight question you will get a straight answer, continue to waffle on for pages and pages ill just keep getting bored with your circular points and answer other people who are straight to the point

Adrian's prophecy is showing to be sound!

What and show some genuine respect to those people engaged in a debate? Somewhere between no hope and Bob Hope I'd say, although I will gladly apologise for this if proved wrong.

 

[ufkacbln]

OK - lets make this very, very simple!

Redlight asked:

So you wear a full face helmet when cycling then?

You replied:

no, with the helmet being wider than my face im guessing that will take the impact if i fall

I then pointed out that this was simply untrue

Once again the claims do not match up with the reality.... The British Dental Association has expressed concerns over these injuries and id pressing for improved design to increase facial protection as the present helmets fail to do so adequately

But hey, they are only the professional medical experts.....

The claim you made was wrong, and dangerously so

With me so far?