The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[MontyVeda]

I am not accusing you of hypocrisy, just tediousness.

Justin's allowed repeatedly restate his opinion just as anyone else is.

If i had a shilling for every time I'd repeated myself in this thread i'd have £1.45p.

 

[martint235]

Justin's allowed repeatedly restate his opinion just as anyone else is.

If i had a shilling for every time I'd repeated myself in this thread i'd have £1.45p.

If I had a shilling for every time Adrian used the word "moderation" in reply to one of my posts, I could retire. Just sayin'.

 

[snorri]

Wonder if they'd go so far as not letting cyclists board sans helmet?

That leaflet, or one very similar was in circulation last year but none of the crew appeared to be interested in enforcing the headgear rule.
There is some sense in not riding the bike off and on, and the crew were signalling cyclists to walk over the ramp.
That was my experience last summer.

 

[snorri]

I agree with you, I was just telling it like it was.

 

[growingvegetables]

Here you go - first line in my google search

http://m1ek.dahmus.org/?p=356

Mind you, 2nd line of the search was my own post above

Ummm ........... maybe.

As it turned out, though, you were also able to use the same data from this study to ‘prove’ that wearing a bicycle helmet reduced your likelihood of getting a leg injury by a similarly high percentage. Again, the guys with broken legs went to the hospital no matter what; but the non-helmeted guys with cuts and bruises just went home and sprayed Bactine while the helmet-wearers were more likely to go to the hospital; and the helmet-wearers were more likely to be leisurely riding through a park and suffer their falls in the grass rather than be hit by a motor vehicle on the roadway.

I think that suggests helmet wearers are a bunch of wusses, who fall off in the grass, and scuttle off blubbering to the nearest casualty dept with their scratches.

Whereas "real men" ride helmetless, and get hit by cars! Lose a leg, and stitch it back on using their spare spoke! Then ride on home. ....................... and daren't tell the missus, for fear she'll ground them!



Sorry - couldn't resist

 

[ufkacbln]

Ummm ........... maybe.

I think that suggests helmet wearers are a bunch of wusses, who fall off in the grass, and scuttle off blubbering to the nearest casualty dept with their scratches.

Whereas "real men" ride helmetless, and get hit by cars! Lose a leg, and stitch it back on using their spare spoke! Then ride on home. ....................... and daren't tell the missus, for fear she'll ground them!



Sorry - couldn't resist

Appalling practice.... everyone knows that Gaffer Tape is the correct way to re-secure severed limbs

 

[ufkacbln]

He is but why do it? This thread dies down then someone new comes in and makes extravagant claims about helmets and their efficacy, people engage with that. Justin pops up to say he likes to wear a helmet. It is of no use whatsoever.

Things have improved, he has stopped some of his more bizarre claims about helmets

 

[MontyVeda]

He is but why do it? This thread dies down then someone new comes in and makes extravagant claims about helmets and their efficacy, people engage with that. Justin pops up to say he likes to wear a helmet. It is of no use whatsoever.

...and your cry of 'tediousness' is how much use?

Be fair, add to the debate, even if it means repeating one's self... it's better than having a little dig at someone with a differing POV.

 

[Justinslow]

He is but why do it? This thread dies down then someone new comes in and makes extravagant claims about helmets and their efficacy, people engage with that. Justin pops up to say he likes to wear a helmet. It is of no use whatsoever.

Errrr

You could make it greater if you like, maybe start by answering @benb s question post 3021, the poor bugger asked it ages ago and he's been roundly ignored.

Just as I trot out the same lines so do you......now that is tedious.

 

[Justinslow]

Justin does not debate. He just likes to troll this thread.

Why is my opinion or that of any other person inferior to yours, seriously?

 

[newfhouse]

Why is my opinion or that of any other person inferior to yours, seriously?

Seriously? Not all opinions carry equal weight. Inferior isn't the best word here, I prefer right and wrong. Or, more nuanced, evidenced and "obvious, innit?".

 

[benb]

This reply of yous is very interesting, so here's mine:

Source: National Travel Survey - Table NTS0305 - Average distance travelled by mode, Great Britain.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
==============================================================
Kilometres walked 311 316 294 301 290
Kilometres cycled 68 73 68 79 85
==============================================================

PEDESTRIANS (per 100 million kilometres walked)
==============================================================
Killed 3.0 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.4
Seriously injured 31.8 28.6 28.8 29.5 31.2
KSI 34.8 31.2 31.0 31.9 33.5
Slightly injured 114.4 107.6 112.0 109.7 107.9
All casualties 149.2 138.8 143.0 141.7 141.5
==============================================================

PEDAL CYCLISTS (per 100 million kilometres cycled)
==============================================================
Killed 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.3
Seriously injured 59.0 57.9 63.5 63.9 61.9
KSI 61.8 60.2 66.1 66.2 64.2
Slightly injured 330.9 319.1 343.9 332.1 302.8
All casualties 392.7 379.4 410.0 398.3 367.0
==============================================================

So, is a risk of 2x more likely to be seriously injured big enough a difference?

Did you even read my post?
Even if cycling was relatively twice as risky as walking (and it's not, as @mjray pointed out in post 4265921) you need to look at absolute risk if you are considering where an intervention will do the most good.

Imagine you can either spend some money on bulletproof vests for the population of London, or a new magic air cleaner that would improve air quality by 50%. Being shot is certainly relatively more risky than your risk of suffering premature death by poor air quality, but in absolute terms, improving air quality would save many more lives than the bulletproof vests.

Similarly, even if cycling was more risky than walking, helmets for pedestrians would still do more good (assuming they are effective) because there are so many more of them.

So again - why are you only suggesting helmets for cyclists when helmets for pedestrians would do a lot more good? Why are you only interested in protecting cyclists from head injuries and not pedestrians?

 

[Profpointy]

Justin does not debate. He just likes to troll this thread.

i don't think that's at all fair. He has debated, listened, not listened, made (some) good points and daft ones, and some banter. Trolling is malignley posting to cause annoyance and discord. Merely being (mostly) wrong is not trolling. We've plenty of proper trolls on here, so let's not devalue the epiphet

 

[Mugshot]

Just as I trot out the same lines so do you......now that is tedious.

Which lines have I trotted out?
Where have I mentioned tedious?
Any chance of you answering a question? (In fairness I've probably trotted that out a few times)

 

[MontyVeda]

Justin does not debate. He just likes to troll this thread.

Personally i think he's engaged with this debate and changed his stance somewhat... from helmets 'saving lives' to 'might do some good'. He's entitled to his choice and is entitled to repeat his opinion just as much as anyone. I don't consider him a troll either... but then again, I apparently am