Would You Be Here Today If You Hadn't Been Wearing A Helmet?

[Angelfishsolo]

If it proves to be true that drinking alcohol leads to more injuries is it not right to lobby to have that banned too?

How about giving people the facts and letting them make their own minds up?

The difference is that the government don't actively encourage alcohol consumption.

 

[ianrauk]

If it proves to be true that drinking alcohol leads to more injuries is it not right to lobby to have that banned too?

How about giving people the facts and letting them make their own minds up?

Dan.....quit with this silly sensible talk will ya?

 

[Red Light]

If it proves to be true that drinking alcohol leads to more injuries is it not right to lobby to have that banned too?

How about giving people the facts and letting them make their own minds up?

To say nothing about tobacco where the harm is incontrovertible and yet its not banned by the Gubbermint.

 

[benb]

If it proves to be true that drinking alcohol leads to more injuries is it not right to lobby to have that banned too?

How about giving people the facts and letting them make their own minds up?

+ lots

 

[david k]

alcohol intake can be monitored, bike accident either happens or it doesnt. I dont think the two are considering the same issues or types of issues.

I wouldnt lobby to have alcohol banned, but i wouldnt lobby to have helmet compulsion either. But i am interested in the points raised. So if helmet wearing is more likely to lead to injury than not wearing them, why are people not lobbying for this?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

alcohol intake can be monitored, bike accident either happens or it doesnt. I dont think the two are considering the same issues or types of issues.

I wouldnt lobby to have alcohol banned, but i wouldnt lobby to have helmet compulsion either. But i am interested in the points raised. So if helmet wearing is more likely to lead to injury than not wearing them, why are people not lobbying for this?

I asked earlier. Alcohol is not promoted by the government but is taxed. Is it possible the government are part of a mass conspiracy linked to helmet manufacture and sales or simply that they believe the "wrong" reports?

 

[Red Light]

alcohol intake can be monitored, bike accident either happens or it doesnt. I dont think the two are considering the same issues or types of issues.

I wouldnt lobby to have alcohol banned, but i wouldnt lobby to have helmet compulsion either. But i am interested in the points raised. So if helmet wearing is more likely to lead to injury than not wearing them, why are people not lobbying for this?

Because the risk is trivial and not worth infringing peoples' personal liberties to deal with. Would you lobby against helmets being made compulsory though? Allowing people to make their mind up about trivial risks is not a problem. Taking away their personal freedoms for what are at worst trivial risks, is another matter altogether. 1 in 8 hospital bed days and 1 in 3 A&E and ambulance uses in England and Wales are alcohol related. I wonder what percentage is spent on cyclist related issues?

 

[david k]

i wouldnt lobby against or for

many more people drink alcohol than ride bikes so the stats need addressing to consider this. Thats if your looking to prove something with stats

 

[Angelfishsolo]

i wouldnt lobby against or for

many more people drink alcohol than ride bikes so the stats need addressing to consider this. Thats if your looking to prove something with stats

You can prove anything with the right stats. That is why politician love them

 

[Dan B]

You can prove anything with the right stats.

No. No you can't. You can lie to people by presenting them with the "right" stats, if they are not sufficiently numerate to spot what you're doing, but that does not constitute proof. Statistics is at base a branch of mathematics, and the standard of proof in mathematics is about as high as it gets in any field.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

No. No you can't. You can lie to people by presenting them with the "right" stats, if they are not sufficiently numerate to spot what you're doing, but that does not constitute proof. Statistics is at base a branch of mathematics, and the standard of proof in mathematics is about as high as it gets in any field.

As you know nothing is ever proven. Proofs are put forward and accepted until they are overturned. In the late 1980's and 1990's there was statistical proof that red cars were most dangerous as they were involved in most crashes. There were also more red cars sold than any colour.

 

[Dan B]

The difference is that the government don't actively encourage alcohol consumption.

So what? The question was "why aren't you lobbying to have helmets banned?" The answer is because it ultimately makes so little difference to anything as to not be worth the effort. Even limiting ourselves to the agenda of cycle safety and ignoring the million other things we could usefully be doing, the payback from encouraging sensible driving, or getting more people cycling, or cycle training, or better designed roads and/or cycling facilities, or ... is so much greater than the frankly rather tedious arguments over whether helmets save lives that it makes the latter look more like medieval angelology than useful contributions to the road safety debate. And given that it makes so little difference, not to let people do it - or not to do it - if they want to - or don't want to - is nanny-stating of the highest order when so many much riskier activities are still permitted

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So what? The question was "why aren't you lobbying to have helmets banned?" The answer is because it ultimately makes so little difference to anything as to not be worth the effort. Even limiting ourselves to the agenda of cycle safety and ignoring the million other things we could usefully be doing, the payback from encouraging sensible driving, or getting more people cycling, or cycle training, or better designed roads and/or cycling facilities, or ... is so much greater than the frankly rather tedious arguments over whether helmets save lives that it makes the latter look more like medieval angelology than useful contributions to the road safety debate. And given that it makes so little difference, not to let people do it - or not to do it - if they want to - or don't want to - is nanny-stating of the highest order when so many much riskier activities are still permitted

If the difference is so small why get wound up by the helmet topic at all?

 

[Dan B]

As you know nothing is ever proven. Proofs are put forward and accepted until they are overturned. In the late 1980's and 1990's there was statistical proof that red cars were most dangerous as they were involved in most crashes. There were also more red cars sold than any colour.

No, this is twaddle. There may have been statistical evidence that red cars are involved in most accidents, but there are many possible explanations of this and nobody with even a basic grounding in maths is going to accept that as "proof" that they are more dangerous without asking about confounding factors.

 

[david k]

The suggestions have led us to believe the advantages of not wearing a helmet were more than minimal.

Are we now saying there is an insignificant advantage to not wearing a helmet?