The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ianrauk]

hi..thats a post by Kevin Alexander

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

It is and of which shows some the pathetic jibes that are thrown around by some helmet compultionists who then wonder why they get a whole heap of flak back.

 

[doog]

It is and of which shows some the pathetic jibes that are thrown around by some helmet compultionists who then wonder why they get a whole heap of flak back.

I said I dont condone that sort of stuff but its pretty rare on here.. views like that are extreme..however I was talking about keithmac who for some reason is getting pilloried .

 

[keithmac]

I have purposely not read this thread for a while now and tried to let it lie.

I would ask everybody to look through all my posts on the entire forum and see if I've ever used the word "twat" nevermind called anybody it..

I've been called a "tosser" on this thread, yet even then not stooped low enought to sling insults back.

This thread really has scraped the barrel, if I hadn't participated in many other threads without being insulted I would probably have not signed in a again. Seems odd me being a cyclists and this being a cycling forum..

I won't be reading back though the posts on this thread either, frankly I haven't got the patience..

 

[doog]

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

Have you find the post by keithmac calling people twats ?

Perhaps an apology is in order ..not just to him but to me for your lack of research and jumping to conclusions.

 

[Scoosh]

MOD NOTE:
It is clear that many contributors to this thread appear to have forgotten the Special Rules that apply to this thread.

I draw your attention to these, which are given in Shaun's first post in this thread, which everyone who wishes to contribute to the Debate should read, mark, learn from and apply to their posting.

This is the only thread on CycleChat where the helmet debate will be allowed to take place. All prior discussion threads have been locked, and any attempts to discuss it outside of this thread or to side-line other helmet related threads will either be removed, locked, edited or merged into this one.


Discussion Rules:

Normal forum rules apply, but these additional rules will take priority in governing The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread:

No personal remarks, dismissive or derisive comments, insults, scorn, mocking, etc. - when replying please focus on the points someone has made. Do not make your reply personal and do not allow your temper to get the better of you if you feel strongly about something someone else has posted. If you feel another post or poster is inappropriate just report it. Responding with personal remarks or trying to moderate the thread will lead to you being excluded from the discussion for a period of 30 days.

No insistence or demands for members to provide evidence or proof - personal experiences and anecdotes are fine in the context of this forum discussion. We're not looking to formulate laws or prove anything scientifically. Insistence will lead to you being excluded for 30 days.

No nit-picking, stirring, goading, circular arguments, etc. - please ensure your posts and replies are substantial and either make a point or address the points you are replying to, and do not debate a specific point ad nauseam. Nit-picking, stirring, goading, and circular arguments, etc. will lead to you being excluded for 30 days.

Moderators are allowed some discretion and may choose to post a request in the thread to bring it back on track before applying any exclusions, but the main point to understand is that you risk losing your right to reply if you do not engage politely and properly with other members.

Please be respectful of other people's opinions and choices and be considerate in your replies.

Thanks,
Shaun

The thread is currently Locked and will be re-opened when I have had a good look through the last few pages.

The Mods have been lenient over the past 10 pages or so, as the discussion had moved on from the specific Helmet Debate to a useful discussion about how the debate could be carried forward, as few new Members would be interested in reading 300 pages before expressing their opinion/ posing their question. Sadly, it has now reverted to a tit-for-tat, argumentative "show me the proof/ give examples" which are grounds for a 30-day exclusion, as stated clearly above.

Sometimes Mods will inform a member why a post has been Deleted, Edited or Moved - but we don't always have time nor inclination. Re-Editing a post to revert to the original pre-Edit will lead to further Moderator action and likely a ban of some sort.

 

[srw]

. People become entrenched

a subject that died a thousand deaths years ago.

The thing is that this thread, and other previous threads on the subject, demonstrate that people can, and do, have their minds changed. And that the subject of what, if any, risk mitigations are useful for cyclists, is still extremely live. About 30 - 40 years ago someone decided, without a great deal of evidence, that cheap polystyrene helmets were a useful risk mitigation. A notoriously bad academic paper was published which purported to support that decision - but it's a paper whose methodology and conclusions have been ripped apart, time and time and time again. Since then more and more evidence has emerged that polystyrene helmets for cyclists have no impact at the individual level, because the situations in which they might be useful are extremely rare and countered by situations, also extremely rare, in which they might be actively harmful for the individual. And evidence has emerged that they can be actively harmful for health at the population level.

A lot of people, having understood that, have understandably changed their minds. Me included.

 

[srw]

Just for the record @stearman65 and others, because it wasn't pointed out in that thread before it got locked....

"Conform to legislation" isn't the same as "provide real on-road crash protection".

Legislation demands a small series of very artificial and very soft tests, supposed to simulate very simple crashes at no more than 12mph.

And @User - I'm afraid you'll have to look somewhere else to satisfy your strange Wagner fetish. During the only Wagner I've ever watched (on the telly) I fell asleep.

 

[benb]

I'd just like to apologise for mixing posters up earlier. Sorry.

 

[mjr]

It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to ask them to substantiate it, because it is a crucial point in the whole issue. People do not as a general rule exert pressure on other people not to wear helmets. People don't tend to practice emotional blackmail on helmet wearers to get them to stop doing so. This sort of stuff is near universally one way traffic.

On another UK cycling forum, a parent reported having a neighbour knock on the door and inform them that they'd spotted his daughter cycling without a helmet, he explained that he was OK with it. The neighbour's children no longer cycle. Now he was dreading a knock on the door to say "I told you so" if his daughter fell and bumped her head.

I replied to say that that is the underlying helmet problem: the neighbour probably would see nothing wrong with doing so, just as he decided it worth reporting she was riding traditionally. And the non-wearer was entirely too reasonable and polite in reply. I think he should have told the neighbour he was a sad self-gratification artist who had already put his own kids off cycling and should shut the fornicate up before he puts any more children in the fast lane to the fat lane and an early grave and if he doesn't like it, he can just micturate off!

Giving facts is good for a few people but we also need to fight fire with fire and fight the emotion and outrage of the plastic fetishists with our own celebration of the joys of cycling and outrage at their exploitation of crashes and injuries to harm cycling.

 

[Scoosh]

It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to ask them to substantiate it, because it is a crucial point in the whole issue. People do not as a general rule exert pressure on other people not to wear helmets. People don't tend to practice emotional blackmail on helmet wearers to get them to stop doing so. This sort of stuff is near universally one way traffic. As such the claim was outlandish and stood to be questioned or ignored.
As we have reached a position where it is considered unreasonable to expect anyone to read the thread, the only page that counts is the current one. If an outlandish claim is not challenged, it is the current truth. Ignoring a claim would have given tacit credence to something that is plain wrong.
So what do you want us to do?

I take your point and get your confusion.

My personal Modding take is that it is clearly OK to ask for proof/ substantiation and challenge a position. When this is done repeatedly in when it is obvious to most that it is being done to taunt/troll/niggle, then it is not acceptable. This is my position on this point in the Special Rules : No insistence or demands... It's the insistence that is for me, the key issue.

I hope this clarifies things a bit ... and please don't insist on further clarification ! (publicly at any rate)

 

[rvw]

Apologies @coffeejo I misread @srw 's opera tastes.

According to this link the idea came from 19th century Swedish romantic art: it did get picked up for Wagner's Ring cycle (by the designer rather than the composer) and has never gone away. Neither has Wagner, which is also a shame...

 

[mjr]

Meanwhile, over in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cycling-cap-or-other-headgear-for-winter.205886/ - helmet users are discussing how to ignore helmet manuals and reduce (negate?) protection in winter. Maybe this cavalier disregard for instructions is part of why helmet users are injured more according to some measurements? Either directly or because they take the same attitude to traffic signs giving instructions?

 

[stearman65]

Did another search today, came up with this one. If you put safety helmet in Ebay's search box there are quite a few on there that my be a better alternative to the traditional cycle helmet?

 

[User169]

Meanwhile, over in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cycling-cap-or-other-headgear-for-winter.205886/ - helmet users are discussing how to ignore helmet manuals and reduce (negate?) protection in winter. Maybe this cavalier disregard for instructions is part of why helmet users are injured more according to some measurements? Either directly or because they take the same attitude to traffic signs giving instructions?

Do you know which manufacturers say this? I've only ever had Giro helmets and they sell caps/hats which they say may be worn under a helmet.

http://www.giro.com/eu_en/products/accessories/caps.html/

 

[srw]

Did another search today, came up with this one. If you put safety helmet in Ebay's search box there are quite a few on there that my be a better alternative to the traditional cycle helmet?
View attachment 140831

If you want to get your child to wear something that is absolutely guaranteed* to break their neck when they snag the ears on a low branch, feel free.

*This post may contain sarcasm.