Reasons not to wear helmets

[Ravenbait]

Well since we havn't made the claims you note you have not need to ask us to prove it, just because i wear one it does not mean i have said you are a moron for choosing not too, so no need to come in with made up suggestions have you?

Haven't you? It's that old selective comprehension at work again.

PLEASE PLEASE, always wear a helmet.


Anyway, take care all and please always wear a good well fitting lid.


I can't believe people are taking an anti helmet slant here!!|??? You must have banged your head in a past cat accident or something!


To me cycling is potentially a dangerous activity, be it falling off on a road, skidding on a root on a trail or getting hit by another vehicle.

Helmets not only make sense but they look cool too.

There is a dangerous, irrational movement who hate helmets and will make up any old crap to avoid looking cool in a made for purpose protective helmet.

And yourself, David:

i want to wear a helmet, i think they are of benefit, i think others should for the same reason

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.
We are both adults so can happily have different views and respect each other opinions, we just enjoy our cycling... ps. he is wrong of course

To be quite honest I see no reason to subject myself to the full horror of scanning each and every helmet thread there has ever been on CC to come up with an example of each one of the various claims listed in my post, although I note that you have been vociferous in your insistence that by pointing out various studies that show helmet benefits are unproven, or that helmets may cause injury, some members here are attempting to have them banned. Which makes no sense, for the record.

So you have said that people who don't wear helmets are wrong. You have said that you make your children wear helmets.

Tigger has implied that those of us who wish to counter the helmets are a panacea argument are brain-damaged (and yes, I know it was meant to be a joke -- it didn't work, we've heard it before). Numbnuts said something delightful along the lines of "anti-helmet people make most noise" -- a joke several of you enjoyed, from the responses, which is an implicit suggestion that those choosing not to wear helmets are fools and idiots.

Quite simply, several forum members with infinitely more patience than I have been trying very hard to make the point that there are a number of population-level studies showing that helmets have dubious efficacy and helmet compulsion may lead to an increase in the rate of serious head injury per head of cycling population. There has also been an attempt to make the point that if "just one life saved" is enough then there are any number of other activities in which "just one life" could theoretically be saved by wearing helmets, and yet there is no wider suggestion that people engaging in those activities should wear a helmet.

At no point has anyone said that those cyclists who choose to wear a helmet in their everyday cycling are morons, brain-damaged or just plain wrong.

Previously I said I would continue the discussion with you when you demonstrated a capacity to understand the difference between a single personal experience and a population-level trend. I now extend that to include being able to tell the difference between compulsion, prohibition, and an argument that something might work in limited circumstances but isn't all that brilliant really.

Sam

Edited for unruly formatting. Repeatedly.

 

[Red Light]

I didn't want to confuse anyone

You've already confused david k as it is. He thinks you were having a go at him for wanting to wear a helmet

 

[ufkacbln]

You've already confused david k as it is. He thinks you were having a go at him for wanting to wear a helmet

He thinks anyone who dares to suggest that helmets are not omnipotent in saving injury and lives is having a go at him!

 

[Ravenbait]

You've already confused david k as it is. He thinks you were having a go at him for wanting to wear a helmet

Apparently I'm good at confusing people. Tigger thinks I'm a bloke.


Sam

 

[yello]

[QUOTE 1486835"]
Against: I love the feel of the wind rushing through my hair when I'm descending at speed. In fact sometimes I come over all *different* and am in a rush to find the nearest place where I can have some me time.

For: They save lives


[/quote]

Oh you tease

 

[Red Light]

He thinks anyone who dares to suggest that helmets are not omnipotent in saving injury and lives is having a go at him!

That's consistent. He prefers his beliefs over the evidence remember

 

[ufkacbln]

Apparently I'm good at confusing people. Tigger thinks I'm a bloke.


Sam

I have bad news for you.....

1. Your evidence was considered flawed and hence ignored
2. Personal opinion shows that you are a bloke

You therefore have just had a sex change!

Welcome to the world of blokes..

A training manual is enclosed:

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMoaNYv94os&feature=related[/media]

 

[Smokin Joe]

it makes a mess of my hair

*Snigger* Leave it out, you old slaphead.

 

[ufkacbln]

*Snigger* Leave it out, you old slaphead.

... Slapheads also get a comedy sunburn pattern

As kindly illustrated by this gentleman

 

[lukesdad]

Haven't you? It's that old selective comprehension at work again.

[/font][/color]

And yourself, David:

[/font][/color]

To be quite honest I see no reason to subject myself to the full horror of scanning each and every helmet thread there has ever been on CC to come up with an example of each one of the various claims listed in my post, although I note that you have been vociferous in your insistence that by pointing out various studies that show helmet benefits are unproven, or that helmets may cause injury, some members here are attempting to have them banned. Which makes no sense, for the record.

So you have said that people who don't wear helmets are wrong. You have said that you make your children wear helmets.

Tigger has implied that those of us who wish to counter the helmets are a panacea argument are brain-damaged (and yes, I know it was meant to be a joke -- it didn't work, we've heard it before). Numbnuts said something delightful along the lines of "anti-helmet people make most noise" -- a joke several of you enjoyed, from the responses, which is an implicit suggestion that those choosing not to wear helmets are fools and idiots.

Quite simply, several forum members with infinitely more patience than I have been trying very hard to make the point that there are a number of population-level studies showing that helmets have dubious efficacy and helmet compulsion may lead to an increase in the rate of serious head injury per head of cycling population. There has also been an attempt to make the point that if "just one life saved" is enough then there are any number of other activities in which "just one life" could theoretically be saved by wearing helmets, and yet there is no wider suggestion that people engaging in those activities should wear a helmet.

At no point has anyone said that those cyclists who choose to wear a helmet in their everyday cycling are morons, brain-damaged or just plain wrong.

Previously I said I would continue the discussion with you when you demonstrated a capacity to understand the difference between a single personal experience and a population-level trend. I now extend that to include being able to tell the difference between compulsion, prohibition, and an argument that something might work in limited circumstances but isn't all that brilliant really.

Sam

Edited for unruly formatting. Repeatedly.

If its not too much trouble could you supply a link to one of of these "complete" population-level studies ?

 

[Canrider]

If its not too much trouble could you supply a link to one of of these "complete" population-level studies ?

Perhaps you should first show us where Sam used the term 'complete'? You could follow that up by explaining to the others exactly why you added that particular term to your question?

 

[lukesdad]

She didn t I did ! ( this isn t P&L ) When someone uses the term population - level it infers a study that i know nothing of.

 

[Canrider]

Right, she didn't (use the term 'complete'). So why did you?

 

[lukesdad]

Population - level indicates to me, that a study would supply a result that would give me a complete level of inccident as regards to a complete level of population. would it not ?

If not ,what does it tell me ? Its a cross section or a snapshot of the population and inccident.

From what ive read on helmet studies this is certainly the case.

 

[Red Light]

Population - level indicates to me, that a study would supply a result that would give me a complete level of inccident as regards to a complete level of population. would it not ?

If not ,what does it tell me ? Its a cross section or a snapshot of the population and inccident.

From what ive read on helmet studies this is certainly the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_studies

Its now clear why you haven't wanted to discuss the evidence when you don't understand some of the basic concepts.