Reasons not to wear helmets

[david k]

DavidK has a history of "agreeing not to discuss further" when it becomes uncomfortable

These discussions should flow, and if that means repeating, clarifying a point etc

Trying to exclude points or areas is really rather silly, and an attempt to avoid rather than inform

another lie to suit your agenda

you purposely mixed up threads and posts, i merely answered the question on the correct topic, something you found difficult. Choosing to use posts from different times to make up a story, which strangely often refers to melons

and if your referring to pro compulsion, you know and everyone else can see that i started a thread on the subject, hardly avoiding it at all, you even posted on there saying i was avoiding it, lol, i did find that funny

 

[david k]

Apologies but I really cannot be doing with ploughing all the way back through every overlapping thread on the subject. Could you possibly link the bit where this was agreed?

The stats show that walking is safer

If you have an hour to exercise you are safer walking than cycling

Head injuries for walkers takes into consideration anybody out walking, the old, the drunks etc

If we exclude those drunks and elderly etc and consider like for like walking is much safer



Now answer me this, do you consider everybody who wears a helmet when cycling but not walking a hypocrite?

 

[david k]

Bicyclists and pedestrians were 2.3 and 1.5 times more likely, respectively, to experience a fatal injury than those who rode in passenger vehicles.


http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/07/19/health-cycling-walking-dc-idUKTON97653220070719

 

[Red Light]

we discussed this some time ago. It was agreed with redlight that the risk of head injury while walking is so minute the wearing of a helmet was not worth it. So your logic is flawed, read over old posts to see why.

But the risk of head injury while cycling is even lower and therefore so minute the wearing of a helmet is even less worth it. But that's where your logic breaks down and you insist a cycling helmet is worth it but a walking one isn't

 

[david k]

But the risk of head injury while cycling is even lower and therefore so minute the wearing of a helmet is even less worth it. But that's where your logic breaks down and you insist a cycling helmet is worth it but a walking one isn't

Not at all, the evidence proves walking is safer than cycling. Im glad we agree that helmets are not worth wearing when walking, and all the public i ever see also agree with us

 

[Red Light]

The stats show that walking is safer

No they don't.

If you have an hour to exercise you are safer walking than cycling

No you're not.

Head injuries for walkers takes into consideration anybody out walking, the old, the drunks etc

Head injuries for cyclists take into consideration anybody out cycling, the old, the drunks etc

If we exclude those drunks and elderly etc and consider like for like walking is much safer

No it isn't

 

[ufkacbln]

The stats show that walking is safer

If you have an hour to exercise you are safer walking than cycling

Head injuries for walkers takes into consideration anybody out walking, the old, the drunks etc

If we exclude those drunks and elderly etc and consider like for like walking is much safer



Now answer me this, do you consider everybody who wears a helmet when cycling but not walking a hypocrite?

Very disingenious... now apply the same measures to cyclists and also remove other contributing factors such as driver negligence and we can cook the figures even further.

Head injuries for cyclists takes into consideration anybody out cycling, the old, the drunks etc

If we exclude those drunks and elderly etc and consider like for like cycling is is also safer

The question is - if a pedestrian fell over would a helmet help - or not?


As for the hypocrisy that is allowing one group the choice, but not the other.... pedestrian helmets would prevent far more injury than cycle helmets.

If I am not elderly, not drunk, well trained, my bike is well maintained and I ride in a safe manner I reduce my risks - surely not allowing me to make a decision is reasonable?

 

[Red Light]

Not at all, the evidence proves walking is safer than cycling.

Lets see your evidence of that then.

 

[david k]

No they don't.
No you're not.
Head injuries for cyclists take into consideration anybody out cycling, the old, the drunks etc
No it isn't

the stats you provided proved walking for an hour was safer than cycling for an hour

head injuries take in consideration everybody, but people at greater risk such as elderly and drunks walk more than they cycle considerably, affecting the data that already proves walking is safer

 

[david k]

Lets see your evidence of that then.

it was your evidence, can you remember were you posted it? if so tell me and ill provide the link im being asked for

 

[david k]

And this was agreed? Please provide the link.

cannot find it at mo, lots of posts, it was redlights evidence, ive asked him to see if he can remember were it is, in the mean time ill keep looking

 

[ufkacbln]

Not at all, the evidence proves walking is safer than cycling. Im glad we agree that helmets are not worth wearing when walking, and all the public i ever see also agree with us

I have already provided evidence from the BMJ suggesting that your claims are at best ill founded, the evidence proves no such thing.... you only need to show now that Wardlaw is wrong

As for the ridiculous claim that the public you see is endorsing this - Surely that also means that all those cycling without helmets are agreeing that they are unnecessary as well?

 

[Red Light]

it was your evidence, can you remember were you posted it? if so tell me and ill provide the link im being asked for

My evidence doesn't show what you are claiming.

My evidence was that walking is six time more dangerous than cycling per km. You in an attempt to discredit it because it made your position untenable insisted on doing it per hour but that still makes it more dangerous per hour walking than cycling. If you then exclude the over 64s it come down to about the same risk. But by any measure the risk of walking is comparable to the risk of cycling. Your problem is you can't accept that and that the risk of cycling is therefore so low as to be not worth wearing a helmet.

 

[david k]

The question is - if a pedestrian fell over would a helmet help - or not?

if anyone fell at any time would a helmet help or not, id say in some cases yes and in some no

but the real question must consider likelihood. Any ppe or helmets or similar Safety precaution depends on risk and likelihood. Even if we considered the risk when walking to cycling as being the same which it is not, the likelihood is greater on a bike. Therefore it is reasonable and logical and majority of people i see appear to agree that a helmet for walking is not required.

 

[ufkacbln]

Bicyclists and pedestrians were 2.3 and 1.5 times more likely, respectively, to experience a fatal injury than those who rode in passenger vehicles.

http://uk.reuters.co...N97653220070719

That is a journalist's interpretation!

How true is it to the original paper?

Again the evidence is dubious at best as substantiation for helmets and their use. If you take the article at face value then only men should wear helmets between the age of 15-24 and over 65.

One could even suggest that we take your previous concept and remove these higher risk groups and cycling could immediately become safer than being in a vehicle!