Reasons not to wear helmets

[david k]

You are conflating dismissal of the argument with dismissal of the object.
The argument "hitting my head against a wall hurts less when wearing a helmet ergo helmets are good and I shall wear one when cycling" is the same as the argument "hitting my head against a wall hurts less when wearing a melon/fruitbat/dead cat/pillow strapped to my head ergo I shall wear the aforementioned object when cycling."
In other words, if that is your primary reason for wearing a helmet, you would be as well to wear any one of a number of objects that will have the same effect when you hit your head against a wall.
This does not demonstrate that a helmet is a good idea or a bad idea, only that deliberately banging your bare head against a wall hurts.
All of which boils down to: if that's your best reason for wearing a helmet, you need a better argument if you're going to persuade anyone who is dubious, especially those who think it's a far better idea simply to avoid hitting their heads in the first place.
Sam (now adding to the rapidly extending set of conditions necessary to continue this discussion the difference between "argument" and "opinion")

i get you, i know the point your making, but this was in response to why i wish to wear one, not when trying to persuade anyone

 

[ufkacbln]

i get you, i know the point your making, but this was in response to why i wish to wear one, not when trying to persuade anyone

You obviously haven't when you are still posting the following:

Ive already answered to cunos post, just read it again and tell me why a melon having a (claimed) same affect means a helmet is as useful as a piece of fruit, and that aint childish, do me a favour

The point is that the "experiment" itself proves nothing that can contribute to the helmet debate.

The fact that you have chosen to extrapolate this to mean that we should replace all safety equipment with fruit is really your problem, not mine.

 

[david k]

not sure what point your trying to make, once again youve taken posts from different times

you still aint convinced me, your example dont mean much to me, i dont get you

 

[ufkacbln]

I really cannot make it any simpler, and the fact that everyone else seems to understand completely is an indicator as to how simple it really is.

Let me try for one last time.


I pay a bill with a £ 5 note and the bill is settled

I pay a bill with 5 £1 coins and the bill is settled

The result is the same..

It does NOT suggest that one has to replace £5 notes with £1 coins
It does NOT suggest that one has to replace £1 coins with £5 notes
It does NOT suggest that the £5 note is not valid
It does NOT suggest that the £1 coin is not valid.

It simply proves that both achieve the stated outcome of settling the bill.




In the same way the stated outcome of the experiment of banging one's head against the wall is to reduce pain.

Both the Helmet and Canteloupe achieve this result

It does NOT suggest that one has to replace one's helmet with a canteloupe
It does NOT suggest that one has to replace one's canteloupe with a helmet
It does NOT suggest that the helmet is invalid
It does NOT suggest that the canteloupe is invalid

It simply states that both achieve the stated outcome of the experiment

If after all this the point that the experiment itself is so deeply flawed that it does not contribute in any way to proving the properties of a cycle helmet is still not understood then I am afraid that the conclusion is as printed above.

 

[david k]

yep, youe made it simple, i get the £5 thing, just dont accept you are safer without a helmet than with, thats wot it boils down too

 

[david k]

and?

 

[mickle]

Few of us on the 'anti helmet' side of this discussion are genuinely anti-helmet. The point we are trying to make is that what seems obvious on the surface - that cycling safety helmets prevent head injuries - is a very much more complex issue than it first appears.

We would all agree I think, that the wearing of PPE is a personal choice arrived at through an individual's own personal risk assessments. No one is trying to tell anyone else not to wear a helmet.

But we reserve the right to question someone's information, their logic and their motives, when they start to promote the wearing of bicycle safety helmets. Decisions about the wearing of helmets should be made from an informed position - but it seems that many people base such decisions on emotion, on ungrounded fear and on misinformation.

The 'facts' are hard to pin down, but the fact is that simply there is no concrete evidence that bicycle helmets reduce head injuries. It's counter inituitive - safety helmets aid safety surely? Well, if it's so obvious where is the proof?

A truly informed decision about whether or not to wear a helmet must take into account many parameters: risk compensation, variables in helmet standards and testing, the influence of vested interests etc. And, for me at least, what the wearing of a helmet conveys to others.

And the reason we get so het up about it? The vague but ever present threat of compulsion. Those of us who love cycling and want to see it accepted by the general population as a safe, fun, healthful, life-affirming activity and a valid, environmentally benign mode of transport know what compulsion will do.

It would be the worst thing to ever happen to cycling, because it would decimate our numbers.

Which is why, if you are going to extol the virtues of helmet wearing on a public forum, you should be prepared to stand up for your beliefs.

The main reason I oppose helmets is this: Cycling is a safe activity - not cycling is more dangerous than cycling. Any danger inherent in the act of pedaling a bicycle comes not from the activity itself but from other road users. The expectation that cyclists should wear helmets to protect them from the danger posed to them by others is perverse and grossly unfair. You fire a bullet in my direction and expect me to don a vest? The danger posed by motorists isn't aimed at cyclists any more than anyone else - pedestrians and other road users are victims of it too. It's the system that's at fault. And it's the system which needs fixing. Plonking a lump of polystyrene on your head is a sticking plaster on a war wound.

 

[benb]

Few of us on the 'anti helmet' side of this discussion are genuinely anti-helmet. The point we are trying to make is that what seems obvious on the surface - that cycling safety helmets prevent head injuries - is a very much more complex issue than it first appears.

We would all agree I think, that the wearing of PPE is a personal choice arrived at through an individual's own personal risk assessments. No one is trying to tell anyone else not to wear a helmet.

But we reserve the right to question someone's information, their logic and their motives, when they start to promote the wearing of bicycle safety helmets. Decisions about the wearing of helmets should be made from an informed position - but it seems that many people base such decisions on emotion, on ungrounded fear and on misinformation.

The 'facts' are hard to pin down, but the fact is that simply there is no concrete evidence that bicycle helmets reduce head injuries. It's counter inituitive - safety helmets aid safety surely? If it's so obvious where is the proof?

A truly informed decision about whether or not to wear a helmet must take into account many parameters: risk compensation, variables in helmet standards and testing, the influence of vested interests etc. And, for me at least, what the wearing of a helmet conveys to others.

And the reason we get so het up about it? The vague but ever present threat of compulsion. Those of us who love cycling and want to see it accepted by the general population as a safe, fun, healthful, life-affirming activity and a valid, environmentally benign mode of transport know what compulsion will do.

It would be the worst thing to ever happen to cycling, because it would decimate our numbers.

Which is why, if you are going to extol the virtues of helmet wearing on a public forum, you should be prepared to stand up for your beliefs.

The main reason I oppose helmets is this: Cycling is a safe activity - not cycling is more dangerous than cycling. Any danger inherent in the act of pedaling a bicycle comes not from the activity itself but from other road users. The expectation that cyclists should wear helmets to protect them from the danger posed to them by others is perverse and grossly unfair. You fire a bullet in my direction and expect me to don a vest? The danger posed by motorists isn't aimed at cyclists any more than anyone else - pedestrians and other road users are victims of it too. It's the system that's at fault. And it's the system which needs fixing. Plonking a lump of polystyrene on your head is a sticking plaster on a war wound.

Nice post, very eloquently put.

 

[benb]

I've got a question.

Being a pedestrian is at least as likely to result in a head injury as cycling.

People that choose to wear a helmet when cycling, do you also wear one when walking or running? If not why not?

No-one has answered this satisfactorily.

 

[Red Light]

Nice post, very eloquently put.

Seconded

 

[Red Light]

And there we have the core of the issue. Discussing the logic of a faith based decision. It is not likely to have any sort of satisfactory outcome any time in the near to middle future.

Other than perhaps recognising that when people start to proselytise.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

and?

The point people are tying to make is that you need to find a better reason to wear a helmet than preventing you head from hurting. Anything that provides a 1/4" of "padding" will reduce head pain relating from a collision. Hence the fruit and veg analogies.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I've got a question.

Being a pedestrian is at least as likely to result in a head injury as cycling.

People that choose to wear a helmet when cycling, do you also wear one when walking or running? If not why not?

No-one has answered this satisfactorily.

My best guess is that no one has successfully marketed walking and running helmets.

 

[ufkacbln]

The point people are tying to make is that you need to find a better reason to wear a helmet than preventing you head from hurting. Anything that provides a 1/4" of "padding" will reduce head pain relating from a collision. Hence the fruit and veg analogies.

I have given up, he obviously doesn't want to recognise this, the fact that everyone else does is the important factor

 

[Red Light]

My best guess is that no one has successfully marketed walking and running helmets.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/08/walking-helmet-is-good-helmet.html
http://www.thudguard.com/

The critical issue is "successfully" mainly because almost everyone would think it a crazy idea. So why don't they, you included, think it a crazy idea for cycling and moreover why are so many people, most of them non-cyclists, trying to get us to wear one?