The helmet section?

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.
Dave W
Posts: 1483
Joined: 18 Jul 2012, 4:17pm

The helmet section?

Postby Dave W » 3 Sep 2016, 11:49am

Why is the helmet section actually an anti helmet section? Another friend punctured and slid off last weekend - bit of a mess, his words not mine 'thank God I was wearing a helmet'.

Now this post will be moved by a mod, placed in the helmet section for it to be ripped apart by the anti - brigade. I find it baffling that anyone actively encouraging helmet use isn't aloud to speak. Most odd.

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 7413
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Where pasties are crimped at the top!
Contact:

Re: The helmet section?

Postby al_yrpal » 3 Sep 2016, 11:51am

+1 We are the silent and vast majority. Not worth arguing about.

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. CTC gone but not forgotten!

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: The helmet section?

Postby meic » 3 Sep 2016, 11:57am

I find it baffling that anyone actively encouraging helmet use isn't aloud to speak. Most odd.


They most certainly are allowed to speak and even ask to have their will imposed on others.

What you are finding odd is that they have their assumptions and assertions challenged.
Are you calling for this challenging of assertions to be halted, in the name of "free speech"?
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 9202
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: The helmet section?

Postby horizon » 3 Sep 2016, 12:05pm

al_yrpal wrote:+1 We are the silent and vast majority. Not worth arguing about.

Al


Certainly the vast majority "out there" IMV (though mjr usually disputes this). On the forum I think it's about 50/50 from a poll which someone did IIRC.

As regards those who enjoy the helmet debate, AFAIK, I'm in a minority of one! :mrgreen: :lol:
I have two doctors, my left leg and my right leg. (G. M. Trevelyan)
PS I always wondered why the YHA HQ was called Trevelyan House. :)

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 9202
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: The helmet section?

Postby horizon » 3 Sep 2016, 12:09pm

Dave W wrote: Another friend punctured and slid off last weekend - bit of a mess,


Without wanting to go too far off topic, I've had loads of punctures over the years (fewer recently) but never one that remotely threatened my staying on the bike.

Can you say a bit more about it?
I have two doctors, my left leg and my right leg. (G. M. Trevelyan)
PS I always wondered why the YHA HQ was called Trevelyan House. :)

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 7413
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Where pasties are crimped at the top!
Contact:

Re: The helmet section?

Postby al_yrpal » 3 Sep 2016, 12:18pm

horizon wrote:
al_yrpal wrote:+1 We are the silent and vast majority. Not worth arguing about.

Al


Certainly the vast majority "out there" IMV (though mjr usually disputes this). On the forum I think it's about 50/50 from a poll which someone did IIRC.

As regards those who enjoy the helmet debate, AFAIK, I'm in a minority of one! :mrgreen: :lol:


In the pub garden we sometimes used to play count the helmets. Non users about 10℅.

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. CTC gone but not forgotten!

Dave W
Posts: 1483
Joined: 18 Jul 2012, 4:17pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Dave W » 3 Sep 2016, 12:20pm

Friend visited a mate on his new bike. What I think happened was he didn't have enough air in the front tyre, bumped up the kerb, went in, had a coffee and a chat. The tyre punctured (snakebite marks on the tube) unaware he hopped back on to leave downhill and slid off on the first bend in the road probably only twenty yards away.
Yes, most likely his own fault but it happened very quicklyand the damage wasn't far off Mr Bransons high speed crash

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 45538
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Mick F » 3 Sep 2016, 12:29pm

al_yrpal wrote:In the pub garden we sometimes used to play count the helmets. Non users about 10℅.
The only non-user I ever see is when I look in the mirror.

It appears to me that the only people arguing about helmets are the non-helmet wearers. The vast majority of cyclists wear them and are happy and content. Therefore, the Helmet Section is an anti-helmet section because the vast majority of the people who read and contribute to it are anti-helmet.

Me?
I'm ambivalent about it. I couldn't care less what people wear, but I do like a lively debate. :D
Mick F. Cornwall

PH
Posts: 7107
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: The helmet section?

Postby PH » 3 Sep 2016, 12:47pm

Mick F wrote:The vast majority of cyclists wear them and are happy and content.

No, the vast majority of the sort of cyclist you identify with, or who rides in your area, may wear them, but that isn't representative, nor is al_yrpal's pub count.
I counted 37 cyclists on my way to work one day last year, 6 were wearing helmets. Of the 8 people who ride to my works, 3 wear helmets. A section of NCN cycle route passes my home, I'd be surprised if helmet wearers were as much as 10%, yet my local CTC group it's around 90%, about the same as the last Audax I did. The figure you come up with depends where you look.

Back on topic - this discussion has been had again and again, without anything new having been said for many years. That's why it belongs in it's own section.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby thirdcrank » 3 Sep 2016, 12:57pm

meic wrote:[ ... Are you calling for this challenging of assertions to be halted, in the name of "free speech"?


Dave W

I think you should reply to this question which seems to me to go to the heart of what you are saying. Put another way, are you asking for a section of the forum to be made available to you where the only people who are allowed to post are those who agree with you?

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 9202
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: The helmet section?

Postby horizon » 3 Sep 2016, 1:13pm

PH wrote:
Back on topic - this discussion has been had again and again, without anything new having been said for many years.


Which is maybe why we keep having it. And the fact that we haven't resolved it (except to stick to our own view points) is why it's still interesting (to some). As you may know, my own viewpoint is that helmet wearing has little to do with safety and everything to do with perception. The fact that the debate runs deep is what keeps it going. The bicycle helmet is hugely symbolic of both personal and social beliefs and as such is worth arguing about over and over again IMV until we get it right.
I have two doctors, my left leg and my right leg. (G. M. Trevelyan)
PS I always wondered why the YHA HQ was called Trevelyan House. :)

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: The helmet section?

Postby meic » 3 Sep 2016, 1:29pm

The bicycle helmet is hugely symbolic of both personal and social beliefs and as such is worth arguing about over and over again IMV until we get it right.


I dont see the answer being arrived at through reasoned debate, science or statistical analysis of data.
Faith is more powerful than that, religion is still going strong and that has been debated for over a thousand years.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3655
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: The helmet section?

Postby pjclinch » 3 Sep 2016, 1:42pm

Dave W wrote:Why is the helmet section actually an anti helmet section?


For some values of "anti"... Most of it's telling it like it actually is, according to current science understanding (and I say that as a professional scientist with a medical research library at my fingertips), which boils down to individuals getting about zero effect (plus or minus error bars) regarding their likelihood of a serious injury with/without a helmet.

Of course, if you've bought in to the vibe that you're much better off with a lid then any statement of less than that is relatively "anti", but when groups like the Dutch government don't see fit to encourage them it's time to open the eyes and realise that the anglo-centric/cycling-is-a-risky-sport-centric view that helmets are a no-brainer is actually a localised and limited form of groupthink, and not a medical certainty.

That the Winton Professor of Public Understanding of Risk is happy to ride around without a helmet doesn't suggest helmets are a bad thing, but it does rather suggest that they're not the clear and unambiguous win often stated. What most of the "anti helmet" discussion is about is actually saying they're not an unambiguous clear win, and that you see that as "anti" is simply that you're looking at a fairly neutral stance from the position of clear "pro".

As an analogy, if the idea got about that a daily dose of aspirin cured bone cancer because a few people found they'd gone in to remission, and I stood up and said, "hang on, while it's great you're cured I don't see you have decent evidence to credit the aspirin", would that make me "anti-aspirin"? Of course not, and that I generally ride without a helmet and don't encourage anyone else to and will bother to elaborate on why that is doesn't mean I'm "anti-helmet". Only if you take the intellectually and ethically bankrupt stance that "if you're not for us, you must be against us" is most of what you seem to regard as "anti helmet" actually anti helmet; in reality it's just saying stuff that isn't clearly pro helmet.

The contents of a forum is down to the membership. The membership of CUK's helmet sub forum not entirely surprisingly reflects CUK's basically neutral policy on helmets, because that policy comes from people that really know the subject and it is followed by people that also know the subject. Not going out of one's way to sing helmets' praises is neutral, not anti.

There are some people who are genuinely anti-helmet there, but the vast majority of people who'll disagree with you on how wonderful helmets must surely be are actually taking a neutral fact and scepticism based line, because that's how science is meant to work.

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

Dave W
Posts: 1483
Joined: 18 Jul 2012, 4:17pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Dave W » 3 Sep 2016, 3:58pm

I haven't said how wonderful helmets are but the two friends in the last two months who have had accidents definitely believe that a helmet prevented a much worse injury, in my view that makes them more expert than the person who hasn't.
Yet again the only people who seem to contribute to this section are the so called experts who luckily haven't smacked their head on a kerb or tarmac ........ yet.
Last edited by Dave W on 3 Sep 2016, 4:15pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 7413
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Where pasties are crimped at the top!
Contact:

Re: The helmet section?

Postby al_yrpal » 3 Sep 2016, 4:10pm

Dave W wrote:I haven't said how wonderful helmets are but the two friends in the last two months who have had accidents definaty believe that a helmet prevented a much worse injury, in my view that makes them more expert than the person who hasn't.
Yet again the only people who seem to contribute to this section are the so called experts who luckily haven't smacked their head on a kerb or tarmac ........ yet.

+1

The pub garden I counted from is smack bang on Sustrans cycle route 5. Proves cycle tourists have lots of common sense. :lol:

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. CTC gone but not forgotten!