Wiggins is now pro-compulsion it seems .... Nobber.
- Thread starter Fab Foodie
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Note how the question was avoided by the use of infantile names and diversion.
It is nothing to do with risk compensation at all, but a simple question that is repeatedly avoided.
Two people are admitted after a slow impact head injury, both have similar injuries.
If you assume that helmets work - why not prevent both?
If not explain why one is acceptable
There will be no explanation forthcoming........
It is nothing to do with risk compensation at all, but a simple question that is repeatedly avoided.
Two people are admitted after a slow impact head injury, both have similar injuries.
If you assume that helmets work - why not prevent both?
If not explain why one is acceptable
There will be no explanation forthcoming........
[QUOTE 3709342, member: 45"]That's the explanation. To repeatedly state, for example, that there is benefit in wearing a helmet for "walking in general" shows a juvenile level of understanding.[/QUOTE]
It shows exactly the same level of understanding as to state that there is benefit to wearing a helmet for "cycling in general", which is why people make the comparison
It shows exactly the same level of understanding as to state that there is benefit to wearing a helmet for "cycling in general", which is why people make the comparison
[QUOTE 3709342, member: 45"]It's very, very simple.
In some activities the benefit that wearing a helmet might bring can be enough for the user to decide to wear one. In others, not so. That's really all there is to it. Really.
That's the explanation. To repeatedly state, for example, that there is benefit in wearing a helmet for "walking in general" shows a juvenile level of understanding. So a person who does that brings no value to the discussion and can be rightly ignored.[/QUOTE]
.. a bit like choosing to ignore the rest to use one example try and prove your fixed argument:
Walking when drunk? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Walking when old and frail? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Walking across the road? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Walking in general? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Cycling on a cycle track? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Cycling on a road? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Driving a car? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Passenger in a car? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Now please answer the question:
Two people are admitted after a slow impact head injury, both have similar injuries.
If you assume that helmets work - why not prevent both?
If not explain why one is acceptable
In some activities the benefit that wearing a helmet might bring can be enough for the user to decide to wear one. In others, not so. That's really all there is to it. Really.
That's the explanation. To repeatedly state, for example, that there is benefit in wearing a helmet for "walking in general" shows a juvenile level of understanding. So a person who does that brings no value to the discussion and can be rightly ignored.[/QUOTE]
.. a bit like choosing to ignore the rest to use one example try and prove your fixed argument:
Walking when drunk? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Walking when old and frail? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Walking across the road? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Walking in general? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Cycling on a cycle track? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Cycling on a road? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Driving a car? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Passenger in a car? Is there a benefit - Yes.
Now please answer the question:
Two people are admitted after a slow impact head injury, both have similar injuries.
If you assume that helmets work - why not prevent both?
If not explain why one is acceptable
[QUOTE 3709412, member: 45"]Do grow up. You've been in on these cyclical helmet threads on here for years. Most of the regulars have matured past the same retort they were coming out with years ago, have moved on and are prepared to discuss the detail. You're not capable of doing that. Approaches like yours are the reason that these threads are predictably identical to those from way back. That's why your contribution doesn't deserve or require any credit.
Now, to prove it, here's where you either dismiss those facts as playground, or you paste in another of your set in stone questions that some of us passed a long long time ago.
You have an influence in these threads. While you continue with your tedious methods you'll continue to be responsible for holding thing back.[/QUOTE]
Once again a somewhat ironic post
Read what is written ... What is dismissed is your playground name calling
You may find it contributes, but for me it is pointless immature and say s much about the poster
Now, to prove it, here's where you either dismiss those facts as playground, or you paste in another of your set in stone questions that some of us passed a long long time ago.
You have an influence in these threads. While you continue with your tedious methods you'll continue to be responsible for holding thing back.[/QUOTE]
Once again a somewhat ironic post
Read what is written ... What is dismissed is your playground name calling
You may find it contributes, but for me it is pointless immature and say s much about the poster
[QUOTE 3709412, member: 45"]Do grow up. You've been in on these cyclical helmet threads on here for years. Most of the regulars have matured past the same retort they were coming out with years ago, have moved on and are prepared to discuss the detail. You're not capable of doing that. Approaches like yours are the reason that these threads are predictably identical to those from way back. That's why your contribution doesn't deserve or require any credit.
Now, to prove it, here's where you either dismiss those facts as playground, or you paste in another of your set in stone questions that some of us passed a long long time ago.
You have an influence in these threads. While you continue with your tedious methods you'll continue to be responsible for holding thing back.[/QUOTE]
... Which again totally avoided answering the question
Now, to prove it, here's where you either dismiss those facts as playground, or you paste in another of your set in stone questions that some of us passed a long long time ago.
You have an influence in these threads. While you continue with your tedious methods you'll continue to be responsible for holding thing back.[/QUOTE]
... Which again totally avoided answering the question
[QUOTE 3708857, member: 45"]Walking when drunk? Yes.
Walking when old and frail? Yes.
Walking across the road? Yes.
Walking in general? No.[/QUOTE]
1. Limit your agenda to your areas of choice
[QUOTE 3709222, member: 45"]Yes you could, and I do. It's those like comebellin who don't understand risk assessment.[/QUOTE]
2. When someone disagrees use playground names and claim they don't understand
[QUOTE 3709414, member: 45"]Is it that time for a thudguard pic?[/QUOTE]
3. Avoid the question by diverting the subject
[QUOTE 3709414, member: 45"]Is it that time for a thudguard pic?[/QUOTE]
It is simple, and no matter how much use of diverting tactics, claiming people udon't understand, trying to close the topic down to your own agenda or using playground names...... that wil not change
Each individual has their own risk and has the right to assess that risk
That is why the two similar patients is important and why so much effort is being made to avoid the question.
Squealing that no-one understands risk assessment is a red herring
The two head injuries could be from patients with identical risks, highly different risks or similar risks.... that is why it is being avoided as it is impossible to justify preventing one and not the other
Walking when old and frail? Yes.
Walking across the road? Yes.
Walking in general? No.[/QUOTE]
1. Limit your agenda to your areas of choice
[QUOTE 3709222, member: 45"]Yes you could, and I do. It's those like comebellin who don't understand risk assessment.[/QUOTE]
2. When someone disagrees use playground names and claim they don't understand
[QUOTE 3709414, member: 45"]Is it that time for a thudguard pic?[/QUOTE]
3. Avoid the question by diverting the subject
[QUOTE 3709414, member: 45"]Is it that time for a thudguard pic?[/QUOTE]
It is simple, and no matter how much use of diverting tactics, claiming people udon't understand, trying to close the topic down to your own agenda or using playground names...... that wil not change
Each individual has their own risk and has the right to assess that risk
That is why the two similar patients is important and why so much effort is being made to avoid the question.
Squealing that no-one understands risk assessment is a red herring
The two head injuries could be from patients with identical risks, highly different risks or similar risks.... that is why it is being avoided as it is impossible to justify preventing one and not the other
Last edited:
The real point is that each individual has their own risk
The BMJ and other sources point out that (much to the dismissal of some) that the risks of cycling and walking are similar, yet this is always dismissed as "silly"
This is where the two patients become important
Both have similar injuries from similar impacts
Yet the no-one understands "risk assessment" argument assumes that one has less risk than the other.... and that is why it is a dangerous red herring
Patient A is an elderly male with a risk far greater than patient B who is a trained and experienced cyclist... yet the latter is expected to wear a helmet, the former is not - but that is dismissed out of hand because it is inconvenient
If patient A is an inexperienced cyclist their risk is greater than patient B who is an experienced cyclist... yet both are expected to wear helmets
If patient A is a drunk elderly pedestrian then their risk is greater than a novice cyclist .. yet the latter is expected to wear a helmet, he former isn't
Cyclists will vary in risk according to a whole range of factors, so will pedestrians, there is a massive overlap where the risk to some pedestrians is greater than the risk to some cyclists
Inconvenient his may be but dismissing it, or simply refusing to recognise it and being in denial is failing to come to terms with reality
The BMJ and other sources point out that (much to the dismissal of some) that the risks of cycling and walking are similar, yet this is always dismissed as "silly"
This is where the two patients become important
Both have similar injuries from similar impacts
Yet the no-one understands "risk assessment" argument assumes that one has less risk than the other.... and that is why it is a dangerous red herring
Patient A is an elderly male with a risk far greater than patient B who is a trained and experienced cyclist... yet the latter is expected to wear a helmet, the former is not - but that is dismissed out of hand because it is inconvenient
If patient A is an inexperienced cyclist their risk is greater than patient B who is an experienced cyclist... yet both are expected to wear helmets
If patient A is a drunk elderly pedestrian then their risk is greater than a novice cyclist .. yet the latter is expected to wear a helmet, he former isn't
Cyclists will vary in risk according to a whole range of factors, so will pedestrians, there is a massive overlap where the risk to some pedestrians is greater than the risk to some cyclists
Inconvenient his may be but dismissing it, or simply refusing to recognise it and being in denial is failing to come to terms with reality
[QUOTE 3710248, member: 45"]You had the answer many times, beginning long ago and included in this thread. We've moved past that, you blithering plum-tree.
So yes,...
[/QUOTE]
Toys back in the pram time?
I think that once again the decision to resort to the playground rather than actually address the points raised is a testament to the strength of your position
So yes,...
[/QUOTE]Toys back in the pram time?
I think that once again the decision to resort to the playground rather than actually address the points raised is a testament to the strength of your position
Last edited:
[QUOTE 3710287, member: 45"]The point has already been addressed. On this very thread and many times before.
Keep up, Rodney...
[/QUOTE]
You are absolutely right... your "need" to resort to the immaturity of the playground rather than answer the question has been addressed before on other threads... and indeed many times before
Keep up, Rodney...
[/QUOTE]You are absolutely right... your "need" to resort to the immaturity of the playground rather than answer the question has been addressed before on other threads... and indeed many times before
- Status