helmets from Why wear black?

[Mick F]

Strawman argument

ANSWER THE QUESTION

Why is that funny?
Not a funny question in the slightest.

Have a look at this chart.

helmet_causes.jpg (16.67 KiB) Viewed 261 times

Which scenario would you rather be wearing a helmet for?

Not a silly or funny question.
Please answer.

[reohn2]

MickF
Is that graph's percentages of all people in the UK or people doing each activity?
If it's all people in the UK it's skewed

[Mick F]

I pulled that graph of this very forum a couple of years ago.
I don't think it should be taken as FACTS, but it's illustrative of the relative situation regarding head injuries for various activities.
It's a chart to make you think and contemplate.

If you zoom into bottom right, it's a chart of German origin.

It is a fact though, that car occupants are by far the greatest admissions to A+E with head injuries, though there is no appetite for helmets in cars. Odd situation IMHO.

[reohn2]

I pulled that graph of this very forum a couple of years ago.
I don't think it should be taken as FACTS, but it's illustrative of the relative situation regarding head injuries for various activities.
It's a chart to make you think and contemplate.

If you zoom into bottom right, it's a chart of German origin.

It is a fact though, that car occupants are by far the greatest admissions to A+E with head injuries, though there is no appetite for helmets in cars. Odd situation IMHO.

I'm not arguing the facts of it as it stands only whether it's truly representative eg, if say 100,000 people drive and 48% of them have head injuries in crashes that's a high number,whereas if it's 48% of all people in the country that's higher still IYSWIM.

[Oldjohnw]

Surely miles travelled should be part of this to have any relative value.

[BlueRider]

I have no idea why you continue with these strawman arguments.

The only thing of any relevence in a discussion of helmet use when cycling is the use of helmets when cycling.

[reohn2]

Surely miles travelled should be part of this to have any relative value.

I think time travelled more relevant especially for cycling and walking.

[reohn2]

I have no idea why you continue with these strawman arguments.

The only thing of any relevence in a discussion of helmet use when cycling is the use of helmets when cycling.

It's down to exposure time to risk,and how high that risk is during that time.Someone riding 12 hours a week at high speed is more at risk than someone spending 4hours ride time per week at low speed.
EDIT; just to clarify,where someone cycles is equally relevant eg;fast MTBing in wooded and or rocky terrain isn't 10 to 12 mph an quiet roads.

[mattheus]

I have no idea why you continue with these strawman arguments.

The only thing of any relevence in a discussion of helmet use when cycling is the use of helmets when cycling.

They're not strawman(s). Because:
- that's not really what the term means. And
- they are issues that YOU don't see the relevance of. Plenty of people do.

[Mick F]

I have no idea why you continue with these strawman arguments.

The only thing of any relevence in a discussion of helmet use when cycling is the use of helmets when cycling.

Taking the argument that you should wear a cycling helmet when cycling normally, MUST mean that they are safer thing to wear rather than not wearing one.

If a helmet is a safer thing to wear when cycling in a normal environment, why are they not used other normal environments?
If it's a pointless argument, it's a pointless argument for cycling also.

Wear one if you want to. It's your choice.
I choose not to wear one, because I don't believe in them in the slightest for normal everyday cycling.

[Oldjohnw]

Surely miles travelled should be part of this to have any relative value.

I think time travelled more relevant especially for cycling and walking.

Both.

[niggle]

I have no idea why you continue with these strawman arguments.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Please point out where anyone has done this, because I cannot see any examples.

The only thing of any relevence in a discussion of helmet use when cycling is the use of helmets when cycling.

If the wearing of helmets has consequences, positive or negative, then the consequences are relevant, whether intentional or not. The relevance is e.g. to whether an individual chooses to wear one, whether the wearing of them should be encouraged, or even made compulsory.

[The utility cyclist]

As with "why wear black", the answer is simple.

Because we have freedom of choice on if/when we wear helmet. Long may it remain a choice, it is a personal assessment of the risks.

Parents decide what is best for their child, it is not for others to interfere.

Even if one of those choices is proven to be detrimental not just individually but has an overall detrimental affect on society including the likes of you and me?
This is why I am so anti helmet and think that those wearing and more so those pushing for hi-vis garments and helmets have a direct negative effect on a societal level, such that laws are broken without any action by the police or justice system, such that laws that apply to one group are bent to protect criminals. This is the reality of hi-vis and helmets and the normalising of it, including that by CUK, British cycling, Bikeability, lcal and national government, police and other groups such as headway.

The bottom line is that personal choices for matters that have direct and indirect negative consequences, that are excluding, persecuting, discriminating, removing freedoms and ultimately costing thousands of lives should be taken out of the hands of the general population.

Having laws that ban helmets and hi-vis and push the focus of not getting killed/injured back onto those that are doing the harm, as it is in pretty much every aspect of life when criminals/people don't obey the law/rules, would be massively beneficial to everyone.

[horizon]

Which is still not an answer to my simple question

You have missed your vocation as an interrogator.

I think I made it clear that I think that banging my head is extremely unlikely, and if it were to happen I believe that a helmet does not give a worthwhile amount of protection.

May I demand a answer? If you were to be struck by lightning, would you rather be carrying a lightning conductor, or not?

You seem to think your silly question tells us something worthwhile.

Still not answering the simple question in a simple and striaght forward manner huh?

Ok,

Scenario: You are falling off your bike. You know not the speed, or circumstance, but you will be sustaining a impact to the head. You have the following options at this point:

A) Wearing a helmet
B) Not wearing a helmet.


Which option would you choose?

BlueRider: I see the sense in what you are asking and also appreciate your frustration in not getting straightforward answers to a simple question.

So, to give its due, my answer would be yes, but with the proviso that there is some concern I believe that the helmet may cause a twisting injury.

However, I still wouldn't generally wear a helmet because (as others have said, I think) I don't believe it offers that much protection and the risk of head injury while real isn't enough to put me off cycling (helmet or not).

BTW, I know that people get annoyed by the comparison to say bathing or walking but cyclists who don't wear helmets are genuinely puzzled by this fixation on cycling rather than lots of other human activities - this gives rise to a lot of doubt and questioning.

[BlueRider]

You have missed your vocation as an interrogator.

I think I made it clear that I think that banging my head is extremely unlikely, and if it were to happen I believe that a helmet does not give a worthwhile amount of protection.

May I demand a answer? If you were to be struck by lightning, would you rather be carrying a lightning conductor, or not?

You seem to think your silly question tells us something worthwhile.

Still not answering the simple question in a simple and striaght forward manner huh?

Ok,

Scenario: You are falling off your bike. You know not the speed, or circumstance, but you will be sustaining a impact to the head. You have the following options at this point:

A) Wearing a helmet
B) Not wearing a helmet.


Which option would you choose?

BlueRider: I see the sense in what you are asking and also appreciate your frustration in not getting straightforward answers to a simple question.

So, to give its due, my answer would be yes, but with the proviso that there is some concern I believe that the helmet may cause a twisting injury.

However, I still wouldn't generally wear a helmet because (as others have said, I think) I don't believe it offers that much protection and the risk of head injury while real isn't enough to put me off cycling (helmet or not).

BTW, I know that people get annoyed by the comparison to say bathing or walking but cyclists who don't wear helmets are genuinely puzzled by this fixation on cycling rather than lots of other human activities - this gives rise to a lot of doubt and questioning.

I would agree with the concern about twisting. No PPE is without fault (A safety harness can kill you in 15mins!)

I also understand that lots of other human activities would warrant PPE, but i feel for my own use, riding in traffic, at speed sometimes in the dark, wet, wind and rain justifies some protection.
Riding a bike is not a good position for you should you fall or be hit. You are elevated off the floor, somewhat away from a natural balance and for the most part, your continued safety if paramount on having hold of the handlebars meaning your hands which protect you from falling normally, are of no use.
You are in effect, a head-down missile.

But i don't understand the obsession with looking at non cycling activites for justification or not of helmet use. Judge it on its own merits.