The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

At the end of the day are the threads productive?

Perhaps

There are people who have altered their mind over the efficiency of helmets, those who have made an informed decision over their use

I can think of one participant here who used to claim that helmets gave facial protection, but now recognises that is not the case

 

[doog]

In this thread I think you'll find I've only ever responded when people have waded in with the usual 'you'd be an idiot not to wear a helmet stuff'. Elsewhere on the forum you might have a point.

Interesting point about people wading in.

The truth is many don't. They post elsewhere on the forum and without knowledge of this thread (and no chance to read 20 pages let alone 300) their post is moved here. Many are simply telling their own little story which under normal circumstances might be countered / debated and would then die a death. However its placed into this shark tank of a thread, they suddenly get alerts and its then fight or flight.

The same happened to me. A post of mine was placed into a previous helmet thread without my knowledge. The first response from a regular poster was 'we have a live one here' and so it started....

The most recent example was keithmac who a few weeks ago posted an innocuous post....it was moved here and the whole thing kicked off again.

Many forums don't entertain this subject in a thread, for the very reasons as displayed here. People become entrenched and issues arise. I'm of the firm belief this thread should be closed down as the personalities and ego's from some on here have developed to such an extent they literally think they run the place.

 

[glenn forger]

That would be keithmac, who frankly admitted he hadn't bothered to read the thread yet demanded we answer his sarcastic questions?

 

[velovoice]

People become entrenched and issues arise.

Nope. People come in entrenched views and create issues with their very first posts. Some then engage with the subject matter and change their minds.

I'm of the firm belief this thread should be closed down...

So you're all for freedom of choice and/or opinion and/or speech, then. Glad we got that cleared up.

MOD EDITED

 

[doog]

Nope. People come in entrenched views and create issues with their very first posts. Some then engage with the subject matter and change their minds.

So you're all for freedom of choice and/or opinion and/or speech, then. Glad we got that cleared up.

Many don't come here by choice..their post is lumped in here without their consent or knowledge. (As I clearly explained above :-)

As for freedom of speech...take a look at my post above which has been edited without anyone explaining to me why.

If you think Glenns contribution is constructive for example (the post above you) then I'm sorry I disagree. The mere fact the pair of us are debating this is adding nothing to a subject that died a thousand deaths years ago.

 

[velovoice]

Many don't come here by choice..their post is lumped in here without their consent or knowledge. (As I clearly explained above :-)

Acknowledged. It must be a shock. Which should perhaps serve as a wake up call. The prudent thing to do would be to get the lay of the land before walking out into the open with all guns blazing. In other words, educate yourself and get your proverbial together before pursuing the line of thought in the post that got dumped here.

As for freedom of speech...take a look at my post above which has been edited without anyone explaining to me why.

Suggest you take that with the moderators. Any discussion about that here with the rest of us punters will get you nowhere.

If you think Glenns contribution is constructive for example (the post above you) then I'm sorry I disagree. The mere fact the pair of us are debating this is adding nothing to a subject that died a thousand deaths years ago.

You should have realised by now that in this thread more than any other, inaccuracies will be challenged and corrected. Glenn in this instance did exactly that.

ETA to correct 2 small typos (a missing letter in one word and a missing word in another sentence). Hope that's okay with you @doog

 

[benb]

The most recent example was keithmac who a few weeks ago posted an innocuous post

When he called people who didn't wear helmets "twats"
Yeah, innocuous.

 

[glenn forger]

keithmac's the worst example of an open mind you could have chosen.

 

[doog]

I don't judge other people who choose not to wear a helmet and would hope they would return the same courtesy..

When he called people who didn't wear helmets "twats"
Yeah, innocuous.

Same bloke who said the above..can you find the "twats" post and link it...

As I said..he didnt post his original in this forum...when it was lumped in here the vultures thought they 'had a live one'.

 

[doog]

keithmac's the worst example of an open mind you could have chosen.

who said he was open minded ...?

 

[Mugshot]

What exactly are you trying to debate @doog? Cos it don't look like helmets to me.

 

[doog]

What exactly are you trying to debate @doog? Cos it don't look like helmets to me.

Im doing what everyone else has done in the last week and discussing the thread itself

am I precluded or is it a closed shop ?

 

[ianrauk]

That is your opinion that the marketing industry is fleecing people for these useless plastic hats.

My opinion is that people who don't wear a £50 helmet which MAY reduce the risk of head trauma are twats.

End of.

 

[Mugshot]

Im doing what everyone else has done in the last week and discussing the thread itself

am I precluded or is it a closed shop ?

Oh, is that what you're doing?

 

[doog]

hi..thats a post by Kevin Alexander

Keithmac is the guy people are referring to. Obviously I wouldnt condone that sort of stuff.