Big Bike revival ... yet more helmet normalising!

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
iRider
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 May 2019, 6:07pm

Re: Big Bike revival ... yet more helmet normalising!

Postby iRider » 6 Jun 2019, 5:41pm

mjr wrote:If you'd like me to get it for you, about £1m should make a reasonable start. How would you like to pay?


My point exactly. Those claiming to speak about the facts are using incomplete, insufficient data upon which these experts spout their ‘conclusions’.

My generalisation about commuting and pastime is based upon my personal perception, which you claim is based upon the societal perspective, driven by your experts?

So if you wish to challenge it, it is for you to fund your own research.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15818
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Big Bike revival ... yet more helmet normalising!

Postby mjr » 6 Jun 2019, 6:35pm

iRider wrote:[My generalisation about commuting and pastime is based upon my personal perception, which you claim is based upon the societal perspective, driven by your experts?

So if you wish to challenge it, it is for you to fund your own research.

No, that's not how it works. You made a specific claim, so it's up to you to support it with evidence - else admit that you just made it up, like you just did! :lol: :lol: :lol:
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.

iRider
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 May 2019, 6:07pm

Re: Big Bike revival ... yet more helmet normalising!

Postby iRider » 6 Jun 2019, 6:40pm

mjr wrote:
iRider wrote:[My generalisation about commuting and pastime is based upon my personal perception, which you claim is based upon the societal perspective, driven by your experts?

So if you wish to challenge it, it is for you to fund your own research.

No, that's not how it works. You made a specific claim, so it's up to you to support it with evidence - else admit that you just made it up, like you just did! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Again, you ignore the flaw in your argument. I stand by my assertion based upon what I see. Prove me wrong, oh that’s right you can’t can you.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15818
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Big Bike revival ... yet more helmet normalising!

Postby mjr » 6 Jun 2019, 7:35pm

iRider wrote:
mjr wrote:No, that's not how it works. You made a specific claim, so it's up to you to support it with evidence - else admit that you just made it up, like you just did! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Again, you ignore the flaw in your argument. I stand by my assertion based upon what I see. Prove me wrong, oh that’s right you can’t can you.

That's what I originally pointed out: the data just isn't there to support or reject your claim!

But from the data we do have, I think most people would conclude it seems improbable (but not impossible) that your claim is true because it would mean no more than roughly a third of cyclists go out for other so-called "leisure" purposes by bike: visiting friends, going to the cinema, getting food...

You can cling to your anecdote all you want, but it doesn't prove your claim!
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.

iRider
Posts: 20
Joined: 2 May 2019, 6:07pm

Re: Big Bike revival ... yet more helmet normalising!

Postby iRider » 6 Jun 2019, 9:00pm

mjr wrote:
iRider wrote:
mjr wrote:No, that's not how it works. You made a specific claim, so it's up to you to support it with evidence - else admit that you just made it up, like you just did! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Again, you ignore the flaw in your argument. I stand by my assertion based upon what I see. Prove me wrong, oh that’s right you can’t can you.

That's what I originally pointed out: the data just isn't there to support or reject your claim!

But from the data we do have, I think most people would conclude it seems improbable (but not impossible) that your claim is true because it would mean no more than roughly a third of cyclists go out for other so-called "leisure" purposes by bike: visiting friends, going to the cinema, getting food...

You can cling to your anecdote all you want, but it doesn't prove your claim!


Clearly your argument has run aground, your just talking complete rubbish now. Yet again on these forum, proof we’re it needed that a high post count is no indication of subject knowledge.