Glad I had a lid.

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
smcknighty
Posts: 17
Joined: 2 Dec 2015, 10:28pm

Re: Glad I had a lid.

Postby smcknighty » 16 Mar 2016, 7:44am

Sliding on ice isn't fun, got off lucky not breaking anything. Spring defrost is on its way

Tangled Metal
Posts: 6458
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Glad I had a lid.

Postby Tangled Metal » 16 Mar 2016, 3:49pm

Pro-helmet person slagging off anti-helmet person for banging on about helmets not saving your life in av thread about helmets saving your life.

Put it this way, I read the first page of this thread where a few anti-helmet people put forwards a few ideas about helmet wearing not really "saving your life". Then a pro-helmet person slags them off for always trying to persuade people not to wear helmets and to leave people to make their own choice. All in a thread about helmet saving the original posters life. Kind of pot calling the kettle.

Wake up everyone! Just because you had a spill wearing a helmet you can not prove it saved your life. On the other hand other people can not prove it didn't save your life. It's called anecdotal evidence. It is the lowest standard of evidence. It has very little value. It can not be tested. It can not be exactly repeated or replicated. It is closer to a fairy story than scientific fact (I know there's no facts in science only theories proven or not but you get my point).

Helmet wearing is a a choice of we all have to make for ourselves. We should all accept each other's choice rather than maintaining this division. In this day and age, with all those against cyclists, why do we insist on dividing ourselves in this way? We don't split into a Lycra and non-Lycra camp so perhaps letting helmet wearing divide us is just pathetic. Move on.

BTW to anyone posting a "glad I had a lid" thread or a "helmets don't work" thread, think about the impression you're giving non-cyclists. Is this sort of divisive debate contributing to mitigation of fault/blame in accidents between cyclists and other road users where the cyclist comes off worst? The idea, where well founded or not, that a head injury with a non-helmet wearing cyclist is to their fault irrespective of whether there is any evidence backing it up.

Basically I'm saying what harm is there in these sorts of pointless and divisive threads? IMHO whatever unites us as cyclists makes us stronger, whatever divides us weakens the collective strength that cyclists could have in matters affecting us. These threads do not convince anyone to change their views so what is the point? All well and good tucking them away in their own area but they shouldn't be started, not any more. Anyone wanting to look into it can read.the numerous helmet discussions already in the forum. Any new ones should get moderated out of existence IMHO. Just read the old ones and get angry in private about people who are wrong on the internet.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14988
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Glad I had a lid.

Postby mjr » 16 Mar 2016, 5:10pm

Tangled Metal wrote:Helmet wearing is a a choice of we all have to make for ourselves. We should all accept each other's choice rather than maintaining this division. In this day and age, with all those against cyclists, why do we insist on dividing ourselves in this way? We don't split into a Lycra and non-Lycra camp so perhaps letting helmet wearing divide us is just pathetic. Move on.

Lycra and non-Lycra camps, eh? viewtopic.php?f=1&t=104396 ;-)

I agree with much of what Tangled Metal writes but I feel that there is a big risk that the choice will be removed if the pro-helmeteers keep on promoting an unproven/marginal piece of clothing. Government spokepeople have already said that the low rate of helmet use is a major blocker to them taking the choice away, so it is clearly in the public interest for people who cycle to keep discouraging it.

Also, I feel that my mind was changed partly by some of the past discussions, but maybe there's merit in only allowing new discussions if they're based on some new information, such as a new helmet test or new design or new research, rather than "I crashed because I wore a helmet" or whatever usually triggers them.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10140
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Glad I had a lid.

Postby Cunobelin » 17 Mar 2016, 6:05am

Tangled Metal wrote:Pro-helmet person slagging off anti-helmet person for banging on about helmets not saving your life in av thread about helmets saving your life.

Put it this way, I read the first page of this thread where a few anti-helmet people put forwards a few ideas about helmet wearing not really "saving your life". Then a pro-helmet person slags them off for always trying to persuade people not to wear helmets and to leave people to make their own choice. All in a thread about helmet saving the original posters life. Kind of pot calling the kettle.

Wake up everyone! Just because you had a spill wearing a helmet you can not prove it saved your life. On the other hand other people can not prove it didn't save your life. It's called anecdotal evidence. It is the lowest standard of evidence. It has very little value. It can not be tested. It can not be exactly repeated or replicated. It is closer to a fairy story than scientific fact (I know there's no facts in science only theories proven or not but you get my point).

Helmet wearing is a a choice of we all have to make for ourselves. We should all accept each other's choice rather than maintaining this division. In this day and age, with all those against cyclists, why do we insist on dividing ourselves in this way? We don't split into a Lycra and non-Lycra camp so perhaps letting helmet wearing divide us is just pathetic. Move on.

BTW to anyone posting a "glad I had a lid" thread or a "helmets don't work" thread, think about the impression you're giving non-cyclists. Is this sort of divisive debate contributing to mitigation of fault/blame in accidents between cyclists and other road users where the cyclist comes off worst? The idea, where well founded or not, that a head injury with a non-helmet wearing cyclist is to their fault irrespective of whether there is any evidence backing it up.

Basically I'm saying what harm is there in these sorts of pointless and divisive threads? IMHO whatever unites us as cyclists makes us stronger, whatever divides us weakens the collective strength that cyclists could have in matters affecting us. These threads do not convince anyone to change their views so what is the point? All well and good tucking them away in their own area but they shouldn't be started, not any more. Anyone wanting to look into it can read.the numerous helmet discussions already in the forum. Any new ones should get moderated out of existence IMHO. Just read the old ones and get angry in private about people who are wrong on the internet.


However unless the facts and reality are there, and the absurd claims and lies of the pro-helmet lobby are challenged then a new cyclists cannot make an informed choice

That is what these threads do they provide the information and dispel the lies and nyths

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10140
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Glad I had a lid.

Postby Cunobelin » 17 Mar 2016, 6:06am

mjr wrote:
Tangled Metal wrote:Helmet wearing is a a choice of we all have to make for ourselves. We should all accept each other's choice rather than maintaining this division. In this day and age, with all those against cyclists, why do we insist on dividing ourselves in this way? We don't split into a Lycra and non-Lycra camp so perhaps letting helmet wearing divide us is just pathetic. Move on.

Lycra and non-Lycra camps, eh? viewtopic.php?f=1&t=104396 ;-)

I agree with much of what Tangled Metal writes but I feel that there is a big risk that the choice will be removed if the pro-helmeteers keep on promoting an unproven/marginal piece of clothing. Government spokepeople have already said that the low rate of helmet use is a major blocker to them taking the choice away, so it is clearly in the public interest for people who cycle to keep discouraging it.

Also, I feel that my mind was changed partly by some of the past discussions, but maybe there's merit in only allowing new discussions if they're based on some new information, such as a new helmet test or new design or new research, rather than "I crashed because I wore a helmet" or whatever usually triggers them.



However unless the more dramatic claims are challenged the wrong information is there

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3871
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Glad I had a lid.

Postby pjclinch » 17 Mar 2016, 7:10am

Not only the wrong info is there but with the widespread public idea that compulsory helmet laws are a Good Idea will be at least maintained if not pushed forward.

So I'll keep on keeping on about them, because we'll score an own-goal not only against cycling but against public health if we just let it lie.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17909
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Glad I had a lid.

Postby Vorpal » 17 Mar 2016, 7:19am

I don't mind what individuals do. The real problem are the folks who think that helmet = road safety.

Telling other people to wear helmets just spreads the problem.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

Thermostat9
Posts: 268
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 5:38pm

Re: Glad I had a lid.

Postby Thermostat9 » 20 Mar 2016, 5:15pm

Tangled Metal wrote:All in a thread about helmet saving the original posters life.

Really? Banging his helmet on the ground 'saved' the OP's 'life'?