Random helmet-based abuse

[cycle tramp]

It would appear that part of my above message was removed by a moderator, and although I understand the reasons, the deletion include the following, which, I believe in the spirit if the deletion I can repeat;

In the above post 'Pinhead' stated that he found it tedious to read about personal freedoms. As part of the removed text I echoed his previous comment to me which was 'I was not paid to be on this forum". I returned his comment, advising that he was also not paid to be on this forum and that if he found statements about personal freedom tedious he was utterly and completely free to do something else.

[Mike Sales]

Every time that I have been able to reproach a driver who has endangered me, they have felt it necessary to bring up the helmet I am not wearing.
I take this to be a variety of risk compensation: if I wore a helmet their carelessness with my safety would not matter.
In general, drivers are keener on us wearing helmets than on having part of the public road adapted for a safer cycling facilty. This is more risk compensation, and of course helmets are not effective, whereas good facilities are.
Compare the records of Australia and the Netherlands.

[SwiftyDoesIt]

Please influence as many as possible as to why not to wear helmets, particularly focus on the vulnerable and children whom are even more negatively effected by the effects of such.

I actively go out my wa to tell those I encounter including those not on a bike about the huge global )and individual) detriment that these infernal things have brought upon us.
And it's not 'do-gooders', it's a deliberate act/actions to keep people off bikes and in motors aswell as push responsibilities onto the vulnerable to supposedly not get harmed/killed.
This leads to easier control of populations, manipulate economies easier and create more fear and division (getting the 'plebs' to attack one another).
Helmets have enabled land rape, caused discrimination (at a legal/lawful level that is accepted almost with an eelid being battered), exclusion, bigotry, assault through vitriolic personal attacks, brought about greater disablement and independance of children and the frail/vulnerable/older population. It's in part caused worse health of a nation and the fiscal costs of that.

You bet I am anti helmet and will continue to tell people that what they are doing b wearing one is aiding and abetting political terrorism that literally kills and harms millions of people every single day!
It's one of the most destructive weapons in human history, and like other things humans are sold as being of benefit and to protect us ( no.1 being pharmacuticals ), is a complete lie, based on manipulation, induced/created fear and threats/coercion.

Interesting rant , based on what, I wonder?

Logic and facts

[mattheus]

Logic and facts

Good to see the 2am slot is not being neglected.

[Cowsham]

Please influence as many as possible as to why not to wear helmets, particularly focus on the vulnerable and children whom are even more negatively effected by the effects of such.

I actively go out my wa to tell those I encounter including those not on a bike about the huge global )and individual) detriment that these infernal things have brought upon us.
And it's not 'do-gooders', it's a deliberate act/actions to keep people off bikes and in motors aswell as push responsibilities onto the vulnerable to supposedly not get harmed/killed.
This leads to easier control of populations, manipulate economies easier and create more fear and division (getting the 'plebs' to attack one another).
Helmets have enabled land rape, caused discrimination (at a legal/lawful level that is accepted almost with an eelid being battered), exclusion, bigotry, assault through vitriolic personal attacks, brought about greater disablement and independance of children and the frail/vulnerable/older population. It's in part caused worse health of a nation and the fiscal costs of that.

You bet I am anti helmet and will continue to tell people that what they are doing b wearing one is aiding and abetting political terrorism that literally kills and harms millions of people every single day!
It's one of the most destructive weapons in human history, and like other things humans are sold as being of benefit and to protect us ( no.1 being pharmacuticals ), is a complete lie, based on manipulation, induced/created fear and threats/coercion.

I hope your just being sarcastic???

[Mike Sales]

I hope your just being sarcastic???

With any luck, if you ignore him he will go away.

[Mike Sales]

Telling other people what to wear (or not to wear) on their heads is a characteristic only of helmeteers.
There are no laws forcing cyclists to ride bare-headed.
There are no campaigns or organisations telling us not to wear a helmet.
If anyone on a bike has been accosted in the street and told to throw away their polystyrene, I have never heard of it.
There are no TV channels or newspapers where only helmetless cyclists are ever pictured.

Those of us who do not agree that helmets are the answer to roads made dangerous by hurtling motors confine ourselves to pointing out that the evidence does not support the idea that plastic hats are a panacea.
We show that in the safest countries for cycling, very few riders wear a helmet: and in the most dangerous, mandating helmets made no difference.
These are facts, and if, knowing them, you still want to wear a lid, then that is your prerogative.
I will still maintain that I have the right to point out that helmet wearing is a dead end in campaigning for safer roads for cycling. They cannot be shown to do the job.

[horizon]

Telling other people what to wear (or not to wear) on their heads is a characteristic only of helmeteers.

Telling other people what they can and cannot do is very much part of our culture and certainly not limited to helmeteers. Helmet views do belong though to a further subset of Telling People What To Do called TPWTD for their own sake and benefit - smoking and seat belts fall into this category.

I'm not entirely against this principle (I'm happy with the idea of not being allowed to swim in a dangerous quarry for example, take drugs or walk on railway lines). But yes, helmets are particularly vulnerable to this approach and it perhaps behoves those who do believe in helmets to consider very carefully both the efficacy of helmets and the effects that this restriction might have.

[Cowsham]

I've told people that wearing a full faced helmet is a good safety measure for mountain biking especially in forests. Does that make me a faulty person?

[Mike Sales]

Telling other people what to wear (or not to wear) on their heads is a characteristic only of helmeteers.

Telling other people what they can and cannot do is very much part of our culture and certainly not limited to helmeteers. Helmet views do belong though to a further subset of Telling People What To Do called TPWTD for their own sake and benefit - smoking and seat belts fall into this category.

I'm not entirely against this principle (I'm happy with the idea of not being allowed to swim in a dangerous quarry for example, take drugs or walk on railway lines). But yes, helmets are particularly vulnerable to this approach and it perhaps behoves those who do believe in helmets to consider very carefully both the efficacy of helmets and the effects that this restriction might have.

I was comparing helmet believers with helmet sceptics.
I would be less irritated by the plastic proselytes if so many of them were not recommending helmets for cyclists when they themselves are non-cyclists.
I see pushing helmets as a part of the campaign to depict cycling as a dangerous activity. Cycling is safe, but helmets do not protect us from the real source of danger on the road, which is what has to be addressed. Helmets are a diversion or alibi.
It is not straddling a bike which is dangerous, but on the TV, even far from motor traffic, a helmet is obligatory. Children in a playground must always wear one!

[Mike Sales]

I've told people that wearing a full faced helmet is a good safety measure for mountain biking especially in forests. Does that make me a faulty person?

Whatever gave you the idea that anyone might think or say that?

[tenbikes]

I've told people that wearing a full faced helmet is a good safety measure for mountain biking especially in forests. Does that make me a faulty person?

Full face helmets are really dangerous without the use of a neck brace to off set the extra leverage imposed by sticky-out bits of the helmet.
I have a feeling that race rules stipulate that neck braces must be used with full face helmets, but that f f aren't mandatory.
I'm sure of the first paragraph above, less so about the second. F f helmets were just coming in when I stopped mtb racing.......

[Cowsham]

I've told people that wearing a full faced helmet is a good safety measure for mountain biking especially in forests. Does that make me a faulty person?

Full face helmets are really dangerous without the use of a neck brace to off set the extra leverage imposed by sticky-out bits of the helmet.

I'm sure of the first paragraph above

Where does your research come from for that statement?

[mattheus]

I've told people that wearing a full faced helmet is a good safety measure for mountain biking especially in forests. Does that make me a faulty person?

Tricky one to give a definitive answer; what's your feeling on the matter? Do you have any feelings of guilt?

Have you posted here for forgiveness? Or perhaps get it out in the open?

[pjclinch]

I've told people that wearing a full faced helmet is a good safety measure for mountain biking especially in forests. Does that make me a faulty person?

I'd say it puts you in a place where you're failing to give good contextual distinction: "mountain biking" comes in different flavours and levels. At the Go-Ride club I coach at we recommend standard helmets for beginner XC in forests rather than full-face, and that's very much in line with usage throughout the sport.

These are both elite mountain bikers, wearing what is considered apposite protection for their elite level racing.



They are dressed according to context. Your blanket advice for full-face fails to take context in to account, which I'd say isn't good.

Pete.