Helimeds.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Marcus Aurelius
I don't normally post in the helmet ghetto but decided to comment on TUC's post.
TBH AFAIC you or anyone else can wear whatever they like,but please don't fall into the trap of thinking your 'common sense' is everyone else's.
I like the free choice and long may it remain that way.
The science isn't in your favour and no amount for saying it is will change that.

The ‘science’ is in my favour. No amount of shouty minority wrong’uns will change that. If your head hits something solid, and it’s protected by a lid, the outcome will be more favourable, than if it hits something solid, unprotected. It’s your choice whether or not you want to find out what that entails, I’m not trying to make people’s minds up for them on that score, it’s their circus, it’s their monkeys. But if anyone tries to tell people that there’s ‘no point’ in wearing a lid, because they don’t do anything, and use a bunch of half cocked, trimmed down, edited to suit their own ends bullcrap, I’m going to get the right royal buttock, and do my damnedest to point out why they need to shut up. It’s beyond stupid to try and deny it. Really almost criminally insane thinking, which needs addressing. The ‘choice’ thing, well that’s everyone’s right, but see you next Tuesdays who actively use bullcrap to persuade people to definitely not wear a lid, because they are obviously mentally deficient, well that’s not good in my book.

<Edited by Mick F to remove disguised swearing.>

[Mike Sales]

Marcus Aurelius
I don't normally post in the helmet ghetto but decided to comment on TUC's post.
TBH AFAIC you or anyone else can wear whatever they like,but please don't fall into the trap of thinking your 'common sense' is everyone else's.
I like the free choice and long may it remain that way.
The science isn't in your favour and no amount for saying it is will change that.

The ‘science’ is in my favour. No amount of shouty minority wrong’uns will change that. If your head hits something solid, and it’s protected by a lid, the outcome will be more favourable, than if it hits something solid, unprotected. It’s your choice whether or not you want to find out what that entails, I’m not trying to make people’s minds up for them on that score, it’s their circus, it’s their monkeys. But if anyone tries to tell people that there’s ‘no point’ in wearing a lid, because they don’t do anything, and use a bunch of half cocked, trimmed down, edited to suit their own ends bullcrap, I’m going to get the right royal buttock, and do my damnedest to point out why they need to shut up. It’s beyond stupid to try and deny it. Really almost criminally insane thinking, which needs addressing. The ‘choice’ thing, well that’s everyone’s right, but see you next Tuesdays who actively use bullcrap to persuade people to definitely not wear a lid, because they are obviously mentally deficient, well that’s not good in my book.

Still no attempt to explain why helmet laws have never reduced injury rates.
Still no evidence, only unreasoning conviction and silly abuse.

You should write to the British Medical Journal, pointing out in your inimitably coherent way, that they have published bullcrap.

[Vorpal]

The ‘science’ is in my favour.

Show me the science. I'm happy to discuss it.

[tim-b]

Hi

tim-b wrote:
Hi
Mike Sales wrote, It is helmeteers who want to remove choice

Mike Sales also wrote, I want to see Britain becoming more like the mass-cycling countries, where everyone cycles to school, work or the shops bareheaded and relatively safe

Regards
tim-b

Mike Sales wrote, That is what I would like to see. Wouldn't you?

Relatively safe should be a given, it's a basic human right. I'd put freedom of choice ahead of the rest, i.e..."where everyone has the freedom to choose to cycle to school, work or the shops and the freedom to choose to be bare-headed
Regards
tim-b

[tim-b]

Hi

Mike Sales wrote, Helmets are not banned in those countries, it is just that cycling there feels safe and a part of everyday life, like walking.
The only wearers in NL are wannabe racers, and they have a higher injury rate than the average Dutch rider.

I'd expect the wannabe racers to have a higher injury rate; they're cycling faster and probably in faster traffic on faster roads. Helmets won't influence the injury rate unless they're head injuries, perhaps you have the relevant figures?
Regards
tim-b

[tim-b]

Hi
The anti-helmet dystopians appear to think that helmet wearers are against them. I'm not and I happen to think that freedom of choice is important, so please accept that alternative view from one who chooses to wear a cycle helmet
Regards
tim-b

[reohn2]

The ‘science’ is in my favour.

Show me the science. I'm happy to discuss it.

+1

[reohn2]

Hi
The anti-helmet dystopians appear to think that helmet wearers are against them. I'm not and I happen to think that freedom of choice is important, so please accept that alternative view from one who chooses to wear a cycle helmet
Regards
tim-b

What troubles none helmet wearers is that helmet wearing in the UK headed(sorry)by helmet mupanufacturers and organisations such as Headway will lead to compulsion based on bad or no science.
Australian compulsion hasn't lead to any less head injuries but has in itself led to less cycle use.

[reohn2]

The ‘science’ is in my favour. No amount of shouty minority wrong’uns will change that.

I'm not a 'shouty minority'

If your head hits something solid, and it’s protected by a lid, the outcome will be more favourable, than if it hits something solid, unprotected.

It may do under certain circumstances but by no means the the majority of circumstances,there's more to it than that,and bear in mind the vast majority of cycle helmets are only tested for speeds upto 12mph.
There are other factors to consider such as the twisting action of the head due to the enlarged size the helmet causes,add to that the so called 'aero' features such as most helmets have on the rear which only adds to the twisting action of the head in a collision,such twisting actions can cause neck injury.

, I’m not trying to make people’s minds up for them on that score

Then stop the name calling!

But if anyone tries to tell people that there’s ‘no point’ in wearing a lid, because they don’t do anything, and use a bunch of half cocked, trimmed down, edited to suit their own ends bullcrap, I’m going to get the right royal buttock, and do my damnedest to point out why they need to shut up.

Read the science and come back when you're educated on the subject and not just relying on your 'common sense'.

It’s beyond stupid to try and deny it

There you go again

Really almost criminally insane thinking, which needs addressing

And again

The ‘choice’ thing, well that’s everyone’s right, but see you next Tuesdays who actively use bullcrap to persuade people to definitely not wear a lid, because they are obviously mentally deficient, well that’s not good in my book

The bull crap comes from the lack of science on the subject.If you're as right as you think you are the science to back up your claims won't be too hard to find.
I'm a patient man but suspect I'll be tripping over my beard before you come back with the evidence.

[tim-b]

Hi

What troubles none helmet wearers is that helmet wearing in the UK headed(sorry)by helmet mupanufacturers and organisations such as Headway will lead to compulsion based on bad or no science.

Maybe it's time for some good science? Cyclists could pay money into a national organisation that works with universities and other institutions to do the research and argue against that compulsion. It couldn't be called Cycling UK or British Cycling because those names are taken, but you get the idea
Regards
tim-b

[Cunobelin]

That is calm and well-reasoned post putting ole Marcus' common sense* in its place.

It’s nothing of the sort / it really doesn’t. It’s the ramblings of a shouty internet clown, with a minority view, which is not only wrong, but dangerously so, or it would be, if the majority of people reading it didn’t treat it with exactly the contempt it deserves. Fortunately, shouty, dangerously wrong views, like the piffle you quoted, are largely ignored by anyone with an ounce of common sense.

Which brings us to the Thudguard.... It has the same people backing and supporting it as cycle helmets, has the anecdotal support, the obligatory "Thudguard saved my child's life" and of course the "wear on or your child will become a vegetable sucking soup through a straw if they don't wear one" claims


[youtube]scEAN9dbYDk[/youtube]

Is a child not wearing one also Darwinism in action?
Should the Thudguard be made compulsory?

[Oldjohnw]

My one and only foray into this particular thread, just to wonder, with some trepidation: is this the ultimate argument, the one that cannot be won?

[Mick F]

........... is this the ultimate argument, the one that cannot be won?

It depends.
The argument against helmets won me over in 2016. Not worn one since and no intention of doing ever again.

Personally, I couldn't give a toss if people wear them or not, but I reckon that they are pointless unless you are doing rough stuff off road or racing anywhere.

Me, I do nothing like that. I just ride a bike, just like I have done since the mid 1950s.

[Mike Sales]

Hi

Maybe it's time for some good science? Cyclists could pay money into a national organisation that works with universities and other institutions to do the research and argue against that compulsion. It couldn't be called Cycling UK or British Cycling because those names are taken, but you get the idea
Regards
tim-b

The science should be funded and enabled by the government passing the law mandating compulsion.
They have the funds and the organisation already in place to assess the numbers cycling, before and after, the proportion wearing and the numbers of particular injury types plus whatever other data thought necessary. One might also think that in view of the controversy they have the duty to make sure that their policy is evidence based.
Of course this has already been done to some extent. Governments routinely count traffic types, accidents and injuries etc.
With the data reported from mandation countries the results so far are always negative.
We have epidemiologists and even professors for the public understanding of risk ideally qualified to help design and explain such studies. In Britain Spiegelhalter and Goldacre have already said that the plentiful data available shows no benefit but they would probably be willing to improve on current knowledge.
In my view such research is a moral obligation for a government wanting to impose such a law. The anti-smoking laws, for instance, had a wealth of science backing them.
Common sense has often be found to be inadequate.

[Mike Sales]

Mike Sales wrote, That is what I would like to see. Wouldn't you?

Relatively safe should be a given, it's a basic human right. I'd put freedom of choice ahead of the rest, i.e..."where everyone has the freedom to choose to cycle to school, work or the shops and the freedom to choose to be bare-headed
Regards
tim-b

Relative to GB a better measure of safety has been achieved in NL. Not by helmet wearing, of course.
Lack of safety is a frequent reason people give for not exercising their choice to ride on British roads. They already have the freedom to choose a helmet, but perhaps they do not think a helmet will make them safe enough.