Cycling UK Forum

Cunobelin wrote:Could someone point out the funny bits in these two posts...........

funny, as in peculiar, is how irate the pro helmeteers get in their evangalism to get us all to join them. sunblock, earmuff, gardening glove wearers do not suffer the same affliction

funny, as in humorous? there's nothing in those two posts that makes me laugh

Cunobelin wrote:I appear to have missed the "jest" here...

I won't quote the whole response, sequence to Sandy /david143's two contriutions, but I have reread the posts

I am afraid that I still see no sign of jest in either the description of a dangerous accident which involved sufficient injury to require an ambulance or the statement that some tadpole trikes were prone to endos...

Could someone point out the funny bits in these two posts...........

See my first post on page 2 of this thread, and my second confirming I was joking.

as for what I heard about the possibility that SOME trikes can throw their seat contents, I think I can't make it any clearer that it was something I heard (not a joke). I have no direct knowledge of it. However, another poster has stated that he can lift his rear wheel significantly, so not beyond bounds of possibility to empty the seat in some cases.

at no time did I mention you or anyone else being an idiot, or suggest you don't take care.

hubgearfreak wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:Could someone point out the funny bits in these two posts...........

funny, as in peculiar, is how irate the pro helmeteers get in their evangalism to get us all to join them. sunblock, earmuff, gardening glove wearers do not suffer the same affliction

funny, as in humorous? there's nothing in those two posts that makes me laugh

A gang fight then I see.

READ WHAT I WROTE.

I make ZERO mention of anyone needing to wear a helmet and I get accused of everything anybody likes. Get real.

I do not wear a helmet for normal riding ie commute or on road which is odd as I wear one off road, I just don't like them yes I can understand why people do but not for me thanks.

hubgearfreak wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:Could someone point out the funny bits in these two posts...........

funny, as in peculiar, is how irate the pro helmeteers get in their evangalism to get us all to join them. sunblock, earmuff, gardening glove wearers do not suffer the same affliction

funny, as in humorous? there's nothing in those two posts that makes me laugh

Just the same as the anti helmeters who always quote various statistcs and reports that back up their own ideas on the vakue of helmets.
Statistics can be quoted in many ways to agree with what you want them to.

My favourite statistic is the one announced in the House of commons by a pro-helmet MP in support of a helmet bill......


Alan Meale MP stated in October 2003 that :

That this House notes that every year in the UK approximately 28,000 children under the age of 16 years receive a serious head injury as a result of a cycling accidentand that sadly a number die as a result, whilst for many others their accident will have a devasting impact on their life, in many cases restricting their abilities to develop, learn new skills, make new friends and face the lifelong challenges of the world; recognises that by simply wearing a bicycle helmet 85 per cent. of such head injuries could be prevented; commends the excellent campaign of the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust to get Parliament to introduce legislation to enforce the wearing of helmets by all bicyclists in the UK; and calls upon her Majesty's Government to give its full support to such a proposal which would both save lives and stop injuries on our roads.

Now leaving aside the dispute over the 85% claims... the problem is that there are less than 2,800 cycling related head injuries per year!

This figure was regularly quoted by BHIT and the pro-helmet lobby.

Now that is what you call bending the statistics to suit your needs.



PS - no apology was ever issued for misleading the House either!

i saw a girl walking two large Alsations today, one off each end of the handlebar.
but she was safety concious and chose to wear a helmet

I saw some one with a dog on a lead riding his bike on the road with a child trailer complete with a child inside,wife behind and two other children riding their bikes,I didn't take note if any were wearing helmets as I couldn't believe the dog/lead/bicycle trailer/tribe scenario .
Though no doubt the dog was well trained

PS, shame about the adult humans

I think the problem I have with a few anti-helmet posters here is that they will take anything said and turn it so they can argue their right not to wear a helmet.

Difficult to even want to include myself in any thread where there are those that do this.

I'm neither pro or anti helmet, but am seriously worried about decreasing driving standards which is why I'm now thinking of getting one. And yes, I do know the arguments for and against. i.e. any protection is better than none, or, if you regulary ride at above 12mph the helmet is next to useless anyway.
I certainly don't want helmet use to become compulsory (the government are already obsessed with making new and ever more un-enforcable laws), but we are allowed to change our minds are we not?

Anti helmet or pro choice?

Giving the information for an informed choice is not "anti" unfortunately a lot of "pro-Helmet" campaigners don't like this information being disseminated.

It is far easier to dismiss the concepts a "anti" or irrelevant thanto discuss.

I don't care what the anti-helmet lobby say, you cannot ride in such a manner that you are invulnerable to the idiot who shaves you, loses it on wet/icy road, is talking on their mobile and hits you from behind or any of the other countless ways in which you may become another RTA statistic.

A child or a dog running out from between parked cars, a door being opened or (heaven forbid) another cyclist failing to pay attention.

Not to mention mechanical failure of the bike, a catastrophic puncture at 40mph down a hill, a frame failure or a mech entering the wheel will all cause you to come to grief in an instant.

You choice not to wear a helmet means more precious NHS resources being used for major surgery rather than a simple stitch - up, and that costs us all, so I'm subsidising your selfishness.

Look on the plus side though... more organ donors...

Dave - who always wears a helmet.

Cunobelin wrote:Anti helmet or pro choice?

Giving the information for an informed choice is not "anti" unfortunately a lot of "pro-Helmet" campaigners don't like this information being disseminated.

It is far easier to dismiss the concepts a "anti" or irrelevant thanto discuss.

You get the label anti because that is what you come across as. Not pro choice, but anti anyone who wears a helmet.

I am a wearer, yes, but I have not said that you must wear a helmet here, yet you are willing to jump at me just in case I dare.

dbrunner wrote:
You choice not to wear a helmet means more precious NHS resources being used for major surgery rather than a simple stitch - up, and that costs us all, so I'm subsidising your selfishness.

Look on the plus side though... more organ donors...

Dave - who always wears a helmet.

Such naivety and ignorance of admission statistics.........

I sincerely hope you are wearing a helmet whilst walking as more pedestrian head injuries are admitted than cycle related.


Or is wasting NHS resources by walking without a helmet acceptable and you also find it acceptable to subsidise such selfishness?

Still you are correct...

Most organ donors come from pedestrian fatalities or car fatalities than from cycling so there is a benefit?

Research in the British Journal of Sports Medicine looked at helmet effectiveness by matching non helmeted riders with sex / age/ ate matched controls and showed that over 15 years, 14 lives would have been saved if ALL cyclists involved had worn helmets. Applying the same criteria to the control groups showed that if pedestrians and car drivers wore helmets 174 lives would have ben saved in the same period.

So 15 times the savings to the NHS from pedestrian / driver helmets than cycle helmets....... what was that about saving valuable NHS resources??

For those of you that want to see some statistics, albeit from the USA, and admittedly from a pro-helmet group; I suggest you look at:

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Bicycle Deaths by Helmet Use
1994-2006
Year No Helmet Helmet Total Num
1994 776 (97%) 19 (2%) 796
1995 783 (95%) 34 (4%) 828
1996 731 (96%) 27 (4%) 761
1997 785 (97%) 23 (3%) 811
1998 741 (98%) 16 (2%) 757
1999 698 (93%) 42 (6%) 750
2000 622 (90%) 50 (7%) 689
2001 616 (84%) 60 (8%) 729
2002 589 (89%) 54 (8%) 663
2003 535 (85%) 58 (9%) 626
2004 602 (83%) 87 (12%)722
2005 676 (86%) 77 (10%)784
2006 730 (95%) 37 (5%) 770

And talking of admission statistics, an interesting point made is that many incidents go unreported as the helmet did its job and prevented the rider sustaining a reportable injury.

As always, there are lies, damn lies....