The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[srw]

Ben comes onto the forum

No he doesn't. @Mugshot copies and pastes Facebook posts.

and proves his helmet saved his life,

No he doesn't. He displays a destroyed helmet and displays that he is alive. He then makes a causal link between the two. There is no evidence of a causal link, only a correlation.

So helmet wearing whilst horse riding disproportionately portrays horse riding as a dangerous activity.
Helmet wearing whilst canoeing disproportionately portrays canoeing as a dangerous activity.
Helmet wearing whilst rock climbing disproportionately portrays rock climbing as a dangerous activity.
Bt engineers working in the green boxes at the corner of the street wear helmets, does that mean it disproportionately portrays being a BT engineer as a dangerous activity.
the list goes on.

No - to all of those assertions. Take out the word "disproportionately" in each case and you have a statement of fact which no-one should disagree with.

You then need to do a completely separate exercise to work out whether each activity is, in fact dangerous, and therefore whether the display of danger is disproportionate. To the best of my knowledge:

• Horse riding is moderately dangerous.
• Canoeing on flat water is very very safe; white-water canoeing is very dangerous.
• Rock climbing is extremely dangerous, but the danger isn't well mitigated by helmet wearing; helmets are mainly there to avoid uncomfortable and distracting head blows rather than dangerous ones.
• Being a BT engineer and working on a box in the corner of the street is very very very very safe.

So it turns out that your first, second and fourth "disproportionatelys" are correct.

On the scale I've just invented cycling is very very very safe. So "disproportionately" is correct.

 

[srw]

Ok so looking at the state of his helmet do you think he would have survived without it?

Who knows? None of us know the cause of his injuries. None of us know how badly he is injured despite the helmet. None of us know how badly he is injured because of the helmet. The only thing we know about his injury is that his head bled a lot and that he suffered some sort of brain trauma.

 

[ufkacbln]

Bit nasty that isn't it, the first responder will have given first aid and done his best to ensure ben was protected from further injury, I'm willing to bet there's more than a few of us on this forum who wouldn't have had a clue what to do under those circumstances.

Not at all, what professional knowledge do you think the average First Responder has on head injuries and the efficacy of helmets?

Secondly, what Health Care worker would post a picture of a patient's episode, apparently without their consent .. AND to suit a personal agend by making a point that was not the patient's

I am becoming more and more concerned about this individual and whether he should be suspended and investigated for his inappropriate actions, and taking a stance that is "supported" by ignorance and a lack of knowledge, yet claims credence for his role as an FR

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 4279871, member: 45"]First Responders are usually Advanced First Aiders. Often found running an ambulance.[/QUOTE]

Some, not all, that is why throwing "average" was used

 

[steve50]

Why not?

Suggesting that pedestrians should wear a helmet would be plain ridiculous

 

[Mugshot]

Copyright @ianrauk

 

[Tim Hall]

Having read your list I suspect there are some that will never carry malt loaf again.

It was the unfortunate juxtaposition of "sodomy" and "gooey" that did it for me.

 

[steve50]

Precisely, to an order of magnitude, as ridiculous as suggesting cyclists wear a helmet.

pedestrians do not walk at speeds in excess of 25mph or walk among moving traffic on our public roads other than to cross the road.We as cyclists put ourselves in a situation where it is possible to become the victim or the cause of an RTA or simply become the victim of our own misjudgement .
the comparison of a wallking pedestrian to a swiftly moving cyclist is a non starter.

 

[srw]

pedestrians do not walk at speeds in excess of 25mph or walk among moving traffic on our public roads other than to cross the road.We as cyclists put ourselves in a situation where it is possible to become the victim or the cause of an RTA or simply become the victim of our own misjudgement .
the comparison of a wallking pedestrian to a swiftly moving cyclist is a non starter.

You have actually reviewed accident statistics, haven't you? There might have been one or two references in the thread so far.

 

[steve50]

Have you read all of this thread? If so, you should know that this stuff has been dealt with already. Pedestrians can and do acquire head injuries in exactly the same way as cyclists, in both cases very rarely. Despite this we get told the idea of a pedestrian helmet is ridiculous but a cycling one is essential. It is a disproportionate and hysterical response.

so if it has all been "deat with" before why then does this discussion continue to go around in circles, yes pedestrians do sustain head injuries and no a cycling helmet is NOT essential. As I stated earlier in this thread wearing a helmet is personal choice, i do however stand by the comparison of cyclist and pedestrian as being somewhat ridiculous .

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 4279886, member: 45"]You said First Responders aren't ambulance crew. You're wrong. They can be.[/QUOTE]


They can also be quantum physicists, does that mean that they are?

 

[ufkacbln]

and the above answers are exactly what I would expect from all of you who debate strongly against wearing helmets.
Ben comes onto the forum and proves his helmet saved his life, his helmet has been destroyed completely by the impact but he survived albeit with head injuries but he survived nontheless. But all of you who are so strongly opposed to wearing helmets choose to mock and make sarcastic comments, how very mature (sarcasm intended).

When did Ben come on to the Forum and "prove" that his helmet saved his life

I cannot recall seeing Ben posting here.

 

[ufkacbln]

so if it has all been "deat with" before why then does this discussion continue to go around in circles, yes pedestrians do sustain head injuries and no a cycling helmet is NOT essential. As I stated earlier in this thread wearing a helmet is personal choice, i do however stand by the comparison of cyclist and pedestrian as being somewhat ridiculous .

What is the difference between a life changing pedestrian head injury and a life changing cyclist head injury?

No-one has yet given a valid reason why one hurts less, is less traumatic, or one should be "prevented' and not the other

We get lots of dismissal as it is far easier than facing the difficult point that there is no coherent argument for one being prevented and not the other.

 

[theclaud]

so if it has all been "deat with" before why then does this discussion continue to go around in circles, yes pedestrians do sustain head injuries and no a cycling helmet is NOT essential. As I stated earlier in this thread wearing a helmet is personal choice, i do however stand by the comparison of cyclist and pedestrian as being somewhat ridiculous .

Because Lid Evangelists cannot respect other people's decisions to ride bare-headed?

 

[steve50]

When did Ben come on to the Forum and "prove" that his helmet saved his life

I cannot recall seeing Ben posting here.

I had not realised it was someone else copying Bens posts and copying them to the forum.