Peter F wrote:profpointy wrote:Peter F wrote:
No. This isn't about whether a helmet is safe for climing trees. Many rock climbers wear head protection. It is about whether the helmet is appropriately fitted and fit for purpose. The point is that tree climbing is insufficiently popular as a sport so no one really thinks about it.
I'm not really arguing whether helmets are or aren't desirable for climbing trees as that's not the point at all. My point is that here we have a specific example of unintended harm caused by a helmet. You can't really deny the thrust of the cycle helmet advocacy is based on the "it's obvious" argument rather than statistics. Yet here we have an example of an equally obvious scenario for helmet wearing which has led to a child's death.
You have unintended harm caused by a helmet not being used for it's intended purpose. It is not obvious that wearing a cycle helmet for climbing a tree is a good idea. This is a non sequitur.
Yebbutt the point we often see be made is that it is "obvious" that cycle helmets make cycling safer.
You yourself may or may not be claiming this, but it is a tediously frequent argument, usually followed by calling those who question this stupid.
There's precious little actual evidence that helmets do make cycling safer after all, which is why people revert to the "it's obvious" argument.
To me, it's equally obvious that wearing a helmet makes climbing trees safer as it makes cycling safer - so hardly a non-sequiter.
As it happens it appears that helmets do not make cycling safer - but the jury's out on whether they make climbing trees safer, but as this tragic incident shows, it's no clear cut.