thinking of getting a helmet after what ive seen!!
- Thread starter flying start
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
dogfood, I'm afraid this argument will still not be settled long after the Israelis and Palestinians are holding joint street parties. You simply can't persuade those who refuse to believe there is any benefit to wearing a helmet, or those who just argue against them for fun and to wind people up.
You can't make a bloody minded cyclist wear a helmet any more than you can stop a fat lass eating chips.
You can't make a bloody minded cyclist wear a helmet any more than you can stop a fat lass eating chips.
Sambot
New Member
- Location
- Sunderland
[quote name='The Velvet Curtain' timestamp='1301939784' post=.
You can't make a bloody minded cyclist wear a helmet any more than you can stop a fat lass eating chips.
[/quote]
Tidied.
You can't make a bloody minded cyclist wear a helmet any more than you can stop a fat lass eating chips.
[/quote]
Tidied.
downfader
extimus uero philosophus
- Location
- 'ampsheeeer
@Dogfood
On the basis of your assumption anyone partaking in a "risky" activity should be removed from the right to use the NHS. This is wrong on several counts.
1. Define risk. As I have already said the risks are very, very low. You're fine to wear a helmet, that is your choice, but please dont slag off those that choose not to. IIRC you're something like 5 times more likely to suffer a severe head injury in a car.
2. Other "risky" activities we subject ourselves to through choice include eating poor quality foods, smoking and drinking alcohol. Should these people be forced to pay for private healthcare? They carry far more in the way of risk of disease or injury than cycling. You want to see A&E on a friday night through the weekend.
3. The point is we've paid our taxes, its not means tested because there are just too many variables. We're entitled to treatment if something does happen.
4. Are we really qualified to say what a helmet has contributed, given the very spurious nature of some of the research (esp that used by BHIT and Headway)? Personal anecdotes should always be taken with a pinch of salt, and even when a doctor says it "saved your life" you have to weigh up if this is just a bedside manner to put your mind at ease after a really rather shocking incident.
5. As I said earlier - turn your concerns into something positive and make your voice heard on road safety measures. Educate yourself on other countries and how their roads and safety measures work. This is the most important thing, its no good sitting back and whinging at others on a forum, YOU have to take positive steps and let the authorities know that you're not happy with the way things work.
Even if a helmet is or was proven to have stopped an injury the sad fact would be that it would have been far better to have prevented the behaviour that lead up to the crash in the first place rather than dealing with the result.
On the basis of your assumption anyone partaking in a "risky" activity should be removed from the right to use the NHS. This is wrong on several counts.
1. Define risk. As I have already said the risks are very, very low. You're fine to wear a helmet, that is your choice, but please dont slag off those that choose not to. IIRC you're something like 5 times more likely to suffer a severe head injury in a car.
2. Other "risky" activities we subject ourselves to through choice include eating poor quality foods, smoking and drinking alcohol. Should these people be forced to pay for private healthcare? They carry far more in the way of risk of disease or injury than cycling. You want to see A&E on a friday night through the weekend.
3. The point is we've paid our taxes, its not means tested because there are just too many variables. We're entitled to treatment if something does happen.
4. Are we really qualified to say what a helmet has contributed, given the very spurious nature of some of the research (esp that used by BHIT and Headway)? Personal anecdotes should always be taken with a pinch of salt, and even when a doctor says it "saved your life" you have to weigh up if this is just a bedside manner to put your mind at ease after a really rather shocking incident.
5. As I said earlier - turn your concerns into something positive and make your voice heard on road safety measures. Educate yourself on other countries and how their roads and safety measures work. This is the most important thing, its no good sitting back and whinging at others on a forum, YOU have to take positive steps and let the authorities know that you're not happy with the way things work.
Even if a helmet is or was proven to have stopped an injury the sad fact would be that it would have been far better to have prevented the behaviour that lead up to the crash in the first place rather than dealing with the result.
corshamjim
New Member
- Location
- Corsham
One thing's for sure. If we get the legislation then most of this bickering will stop. 
gbb
Squire
- Location
- Peterborough
No...no, not getting involved 
...nnnggg....gahhhhh.....gahhhhhhb 
, yeah but what if !!!, noooooooo 
...nnnggg....gahhhhh.....gahhhhhhb , yeah but what if !!!, noooooooo 
Clandy
Well-Known Member
One thing's for sure. If we get the legislation then most of this cycling will stop.
FTFY.
One thing's for sure. If we get the legislation then most of this bickering will stop.
No it won't. Cyclists and pedestrians will continue to be killed. So, what next? Full Face helmets? Body armor?
How about we go after the cause and not just try and mitigate the problem.
Sorry, I know your post was in jest, but this debate is starting to annoy me now.
Once again..... ill informed and emotive tripe.... the only joke (sadly) is that you eally appear to believe this!
Given the example of the pedestrian (3 times as many pedestrians will be admitted with serious head injuries as cyclists)- why should we contribute to the cost of his care when he chose not to wear a helmet?
Why do we allow people to walk around without helmets?
Thornhill's paper on head injuries shows alcohol to be a factor in 60% of all hospital admissions for head injuries. WHy should we bear the costs of their head injuries. Do you support pub helmets?
Now add the falls, and other causes
Less than 6% of head injuries are cycle related - why are you objecting for some obscure reason to treating these patients yet willing to acceptthe costs of the other 94% which would also be preventable if helmets were worn?
What a weird concept you have of saving money on the NHS?
So....
If I provided evidence that head injuries occurred - you would unequivocally support the use of a helmet to prevent these?
If I provided medical evidence that the helmet prevented injuries - you would unequivocally support their use?
If I provided endorsement for RoSPA or similar you would endorse the product fully?
Would you consider an argument against such a protective helmet a puerile argument?
Clandy
Well-Known Member
So we've gone from 'If I hadn't been wearing a helmet I'd be DED!' to 'If I hadn't been wearing a helmet I might have needed some stitches'. Just out of curiosity, how many broken bones did you suffer, and how many stitches were required, in the rest of your body?
If you are not willing to take on the information given to you freely, and retort by throwing back insults at those who have been polite to you, then I have no interest in engaging you in discussion until you are willing to apologise.
Smokin Joe
Squire
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
The Undead continue to walk among us. "If I hadn't been wearing a helmet I'd have been..."
Helmet Nazis remind me of those mums with high pitched voices who want every male approaching within 50 metres of a school or children's playground arrested as a suspected paedophile, the danger they see is contained only in their own self-righteous minds.
Helmet Nazis remind me of those mums with high pitched voices who want every male approaching within 50 metres of a school or children's playground arrested as a suspected paedophile, the danger they see is contained only in their own self-righteous minds.
HLaB
Marie Attoinette Fan
Once again..... ill informed and emotive tripe.... the only joke (sadly) is that you eally appear to believe this!
Given the example of the pedestrian (3 times as many pedestrians will be admitted with serious head injuries as cyclists)- why should we contribute to the cost of his care when he chose not to wear a helmet?
Why do we allow people to walk around without helmets?
Thornhill's paper on head injuries shows alcohol to be a factor in 60% of all hospital admissions for head injuries. WHy should we bear the costs of their head injuries. Do you support pub helmets?
Now add the falls, and other causes
Less than 6% of head injuries are cycle related - why are you objecting for some obscure reason to treating these patients yet willing to acceptthe costs of the other 94% which would also be preventable if helmets were worn?
What a weird concept you have of saving money on the NHS?
Given the example of the pedestrian (3 times as many pedestrians will be admitted with serious head injuries as cyclists)- why should we contribute to the cost of his care when he chose not to wear a helmet?
Why do we allow people to walk around without helmets?
Thornhill's paper on head injuries shows alcohol to be a factor in 60% of all hospital admissions for head injuries. WHy should we bear the costs of their head injuries. Do you support pub helmets?
Now add the falls, and other causes
Less than 6% of head injuries are cycle related - why are you objecting for some obscure reason to treating these patients yet willing to acceptthe costs of the other 94% which would also be preventable if helmets were worn?
What a weird concept you have of saving money on the NHS?
- Status
