BROOKES HELMETS

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.
AdamS
Posts: 146
Joined: 22 Apr 2010, 4:06am
Location: Lancs

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby AdamS » 5 Oct 2017, 1:23pm

Roadster wrote:The OP must...
...
Accordingly, he should...

...or just form his own opinion based upon the available information. I, for one, am not telling anyone whether or not to wear a helmet but it is important for people "pressured" into wearing one that the matter isn't as clear cut as they or the pressurisers might imagine. Maybe that might be a liberating notion which frees the OP from something he doesn't want to wear. Maybe it allows him to reassure his family with the evidence. Or maybe helmets are "common sense" to him and any suggestion that they're not a good thing is ridiculous. Tediously rehashing the same helmet debate is unnecessary, but letting people know that there is a debate is not.

As above, there is nothing particularly special about the advice on helmets here. Ask a question about any purchase you're not sure about and if it is contentious you will get suggestions about what other people think you should buy, whether you need it at all, whether its safe etc. It could be a helmets, cycle capes, "safety levers", hi-viz, cleated shoes, etc.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby mjr » 5 Oct 2017, 1:30pm

Roadster wrote:Accordingly, he should immediately reverse his decision to buy a helmet and reprimand, nay punish his family for their unwarranted interference in his cycling affairs.

I don't think anyone's claimed that. I'd love it if he explained to his family why what's probably a "common sense" request isn't as simple as they've been led to believe by the usual dodgy emotional propaganda of helmet zealots, but I can quite understand why some helmet-neutrals don't want to have that discussion. Heck, even I found it so tedious, I wrote a discussion-starter that I link to when relatives tell me off on facebook http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/cyclynn/helmets
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.

Roadster
Posts: 443
Joined: 26 Jul 2016, 2:12pm
Location: E.Lancs/W.Yorks border

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby Roadster » 5 Oct 2017, 1:37pm

But the OP's decision to buy a helmet has already been taken. The issue is no longer "whether", but "which".

AdamS
Posts: 146
Joined: 22 Apr 2010, 4:06am
Location: Lancs

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby AdamS » 5 Oct 2017, 2:03pm

Roadster wrote:But the OP's decision to buy a helmet has already been taken. The issue is no longer "whether", but "which".

Decisions can be reappraised because of new information. When I was just starting out, the bike shop talked me out of buying a carrier panniers and full mudguards (heavy and cumbersome). Under this advice I had decided to buy clip on guards and bag (lightweight). I was rather glad for the knowledgeable friend who gave a rather different view and caused me to change my decision. Still my decision of course, but acting on more information.

Roadster
Posts: 443
Joined: 26 Jul 2016, 2:12pm
Location: E.Lancs/W.Yorks border

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby Roadster » 5 Oct 2017, 2:10pm

I may or may not agree with the OP's decision, but I can at least respect it.

AdamS
Posts: 146
Joined: 22 Apr 2010, 4:06am
Location: Lancs

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby AdamS » 5 Oct 2017, 2:35pm

I respect a person's right to self-determination. It is for them to assess their own decisions. Providing a person with additional information helps them make informed decisions and facilitates their self-determination. If they think they made the right decision in the first place they will make not change it in light of more information.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby mjr » 5 Oct 2017, 2:41pm

Roadster wrote:I may or may not agree with the OP's decision, but I can at least respect it.

Are you the same Roadster who didn't respect the decision to get a mountain bike in viewtopic.php?p=1165432#p1165432 or have the body-snatchers been? ;)
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.

crs1953
Posts: 13
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 7:28pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby crs1953 » 6 Oct 2017, 1:56am

Roadster wrote:It really is intolerable when close family members engage in emotional blackmail to persuade a cyclist to wear a helmet against his better judgement :roll: - there ought to be a law against it!
The OP must dismiss the trivial concerns of his wife, daughter and grandchildren as totally unfounded, and instead adopt the views of better-informed strangers who regard the wearing of helmets as not only unnecessary but also undesirable. Accordingly, he should immediately reverse his decision to buy a helmet and reprimand, nay punish his family for their unwarranted interference in his cycling affairs.


Yes ! I like this one ! :lol:
Seriously though, I obviously DO realise that their concerns for my safety are valid and genuine. I've agreed to begin wearing a helmet for that very reason. It was not my intention to start a debate about the rights and/or wrongs of helmet wearing, simply to elicit views / opinions on the lid in question. Having said that I really have enjoyed reading all your responses and thank you all for them :)

Roadster
Posts: 443
Joined: 26 Jul 2016, 2:12pm
Location: E.Lancs/W.Yorks border

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby Roadster » 6 Oct 2017, 2:40am

mjr wrote:Are you the same Roadster who didn't respect the decision to get a mountain bike in viewtopic.php?p=1165432#p1165432 or have the body-snatchers been? ;)

Yes, that's me as well, and unfortunately not - I don't get my body snatched nearly as often as I'd like!

There is no inconsistency between that reply and this as you suggest: in that thread, I advised that OP to look at alternative bikes to mountains bikes, but I did not advise him against getting a bike at all; similarly in this thread, I advised this OP to look at an alternative helmet, but again I have not advised him against getting a helmet at all.

Other contributors, however, have questioned this OP's decision to buy a helmet at all, despite the fact that he didn't ask for their advice on the matter and despite it being none of their business anyway. Clearly, they're more interested in their own agendas than they are in his.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby [XAP]Bob » 6 Oct 2017, 8:10am

Or they are more interested in evidence led safety than unsupported propaganda...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3875
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby pjclinch » 6 Oct 2017, 8:41am

Roadster wrote:There is no inconsistency between that reply and this as you suggest: in that thread, I advised that OP to look at alternative bikes to mountains bikes, but I did not advise him against getting a bike at all; similarly in this thread, I advised this OP to look at an alternative helmet, but again I have not advised him against getting a helmet at all.


I'm afraid the Bad Analogy Police are coming for you here, with Overt Rationalising citations on their warrants. Different types of bike would be comparable to different types of headwear (where "none at all", "beanie", "cycling cap" etc. would all be other valid choices commonly seen).

Roadster wrote:Other contributors, however, have questioned this OP's decision to buy a helmet at all, despite the fact that he didn't ask for their advice on the matter and despite it being none of their business anyway. Clearly, they're more interested in their own agendas than they are in his.


I suspect the agenda is having a nice time on his bike with a family happy that he's reasonably safe. Whether that feeling of safety is based on widely held misapprehensions or facts may be significant (or indeed may not: as long as he knows what he's at he should be safe enough whatever he wears on his head).

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

Roadster
Posts: 443
Joined: 26 Jul 2016, 2:12pm
Location: E.Lancs/W.Yorks border

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby Roadster » 6 Oct 2017, 12:50pm

It wasn't me who made the analogy in the first place, Pete: it was MJR, and it's far from clear to me what his analogy was or why he made it. Apparently, he was sarcastically accusing me of hypocrisy and seems to have earned your warm approval and support...
That's all very noble and praiseworthy in your own view but please, discuss it between yourselves and desist from hijacking the OP's thread in the pursuit of your own agendas. Try to remember that his decision to wear a helmet is his and his alone to make and not for you, me or anyone else to question here. As has already been pointed out, there is a completely separate section of the forum for those sorts of discussions and if the OP had intended to enter into them, he would have posted there instead of here.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby mjr » 6 Oct 2017, 1:43pm

Roadster wrote:It wasn't me who made the analogy in the first place, Pete: it was MJR, and it's far from clear to me what his analogy was or why he made it. Apparently, he was sarcastically accusing me of hypocrisy [...]

That's pretty much it. While we can't have the helmet debate repeat every time the accursed things are mentioned, it's unreasonable to expect it to go completely unchallenged, if not because everything else seems to be challenged - waterproofs, bike types, you name it - by a wide range of different people - including Roadster.

Roadster wrote:Try to remember that his decision to wear a helmet is his and his alone to make and not for you, me or anyone else to question here.

First, that would be very cosy and allow most of the forum to look like a haven of helmet-use, compared to the reality where only a minority of cyclists use them. I forget who's a helmet fan or not, but I suspect that's the sort of approach that mainly helmet fans would like - not even freedom-of-choice non-users and definitely not opponents.

Secondly, you're not a moderator.
Roadster wrote:As has already been pointed out, there is a completely separate section of the forum for those sorts of discussions and if the OP had intended to enter into them, he would have posted there instead of here.

The OP did specifically ask for the cons, which surely must include the mammoth flaw in the whole concept. Reading the first page again, it looks like landsurfer referred him to that section of the forum in a bit of a jokey way, pjclinch referred to the official CUK briefing and then the helmet fans piled in, including UNNECESSARY SHOUTING, and it went downhill.
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.

AdamS
Posts: 146
Joined: 22 Apr 2010, 4:06am
Location: Lancs

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby AdamS » 6 Oct 2017, 2:37pm

As has already been pointed out, there is a completely separate section of the forum for those sorts of discussions and if the OP had intended to enter into them, he would have posted there instead of here.

Yes. New forum members who post helmet questions in Does Anyone Know (General cycling advice NOT technical !) are all coming in fully informed and are definitely making a deliberate choice not to hear about the helmet debate and sub-forum. It's definitely not that they didn't know the issue was controversial or that there was a special sub-forum to disccuss that controversy hidden away in the Campaigning and Public Policy section of the board.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3875
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: BROOKES HELMETS

Postby pjclinch » 6 Oct 2017, 3:38pm

Roadster wrote:It wasn't me who made the analogy in the first place, Pete: it was MJR


But it was you who subsequently picked it up and compared types of bike to flavours of helmet rather than types of headgear, so it's you the BAP are coming for.

Roadster wrote:That's all very noble and praiseworthy in your own view but please, discuss it between yourselves and desist from hijacking the OP's thread in the pursuit of your own agendas. Try to remember that his decision to wear a helmet is his and his alone to make and not for you, me or anyone else to question here. As has already been pointed out, there is a completely separate section of the forum for those sorts of discussions and if the OP had intended to enter into them, he would have posted there instead of here.


I said it was worth reading the CUK briefing on helmets, I didn't tell him what he should be deciding. But you seem to have some strange agenda saying otherwise...

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