Compulsory Helmet Use

Cunobelin

dave_hill wrote:

If I'm going to take part in a risky activity, be it mountain biking, naked hang gliding, frying an egg or bear baiting, I take precautions to reduce the risk of personal injury to myself. If you choose not to that's fine by me but don't a) ask me to come to the rescue and b) say that you're associated with me in any shape or form if it all goes tits up for you.

Where do you draw the line though?

Your emotive posting of

When you have to be fed through a straw I'll make you some soup, but I absolutely draw the line at wiping your ar$e for you...

The question is why you are allowed to decide and impose YOUR decision on others with such pathetic emotive bullying. Where do you stand on extending helmet use to pedstrians?

Do you feel that you have the right to choose or is the assessment of risk is mine to impose on you on the grounds that a head injury is equally debilitating in both groups, that I feel my assessment is more valid than yours, and both could be prevented or alleviated with helmet use. I am advocating INCREASED helmet use, and habve fully suported the case with YOUR arguments. The "Soup Theory" is either valid or invalid in both cases, or we are back to claiming that the identical injury in both groups is not worth preventing in one of the groups.

Equally do I have the right to apply your "Soup Theory" to the increased risk of Mountain Biking?

Again you are claiming the right to take a decison on your assessment of the risk, but denying it to others. If others find your assessment is invalid then do they have the right to impose a ban on the activity, or limit it?

elgordo

So i am an idiot because i choose not to wear a helmet and ride within my limits. You, on the other hand, ride beyond your capabilities, fall of regularly and then criticize cyclists who are by far safer than you and don't fall of their bicycles.

Si get a life.You've been riding 3 weeks lol. Don't be angry when you see kids riding their bikes without a helmet, they're just having fun. Yeah i rode my bike as a kid in the 80's without a helmet...surprise surprise i am still here along with my friends despite the apparent bad parenting we received. oh and look ahead for that dogsh!t and you may just miss it.

Geordie free rider wrote:Exactly the type of rider darwinism should be filtering out anyway...........
thanks. you seem like a nice guy to wish death upon me.

dave hill wrote:I'll bet you think it's OK to use a mobile phone when your drink-driving, don't you??
Actually no i don't. I am a cyclist not a weekend warrior like yourself. i don't drive a car. By the way... you look a plonker in you ridiculously expensive polystyrene good for f*** all cap.

Nevertheless i don't wish serious harm to come to any human unlike you high and mighty skid lidders.

Si78

elgordo,

I dont think you're an idiot because you dont wear a helmet, I just think you are an idiot FULL STOP. And a rude and arrogant idiot at that...

Ive actually been riding since i was about 4, so nearly 27 years.

Ive only just got into mtb'ing properly so I think that, personally, its appropriate for me to wear a helmet. And I certainly don't ride beyond my capabilities.

I dont think bike helmet use should be made compulsory.

This is because just like it being compulsory to wear seatbelts, and compulsory not to drink and drive, and compulsory not to use a phone whilst driving , you always get a BELL END, like your good self, who flouts the rules just to appear 'tough, hard' etc etc.

When I was young there were a lot less cars on the road, and a lot more wide open fields and areas in which to ride in relative safety. Now there are a lot more cars and a lot less open spaces for kids to ride in. Helmet use may save a kid if they fall off.

Im glad you and your friends (you've got friends????) are all still alive after all the bad parenting and risky riding, lol, but just because something hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it cant happen.
It's blinkered people like you who thought the earth was flat etc, etc

Oh yeah, and my reference to dog sh*t was meant to be a bit of a joke, but being an idiot, you obviously didn't get it.

I don't like slagging people off, but you just really, really p*ss me off.

Si

gaz047

i always wear a lid, there is no guarantee it will save your life, but if there is a chance it might stop you getting a serious head injury, isn't it worth the effort?
:roll:

Northwind

Cunobelin wrote:

.... an dtheanswer to the question is...... that pedestrians would benefit equally

The answer was exactly the opposite. You didn't read it the first time so I'm not inclined to attempt to explain it to you again

Cunobelin wrote:

Pedestrians are also less likely to run between trees at 30mph

Now that is certainly Darwinism in practice.

Ah, is that what's at the bottom of this? You think everyday mtb riding is too dangerous for you? If you consider riding fast near trees to be darwinism in practice, then that explains exactly why you don't see the benefit of protective gear.

JohnMartin

Hi Guy's, when i put this post up it was really to find out if anyone would give up cycling if by law we had to wear helmets.

I have followed the thread and there is a for and against wearing helmets, i personally wear one, my choice, i would still wear one if it were law.

Is there any one out there who would cut their nose off to spite their face as the saying gose. i.e give up cycling rather than wear a helmet.

Personally i would not judge some one if they chose not to wear a helmet.

John.

Si78

JohnMartin wrote:

Hi Guy's, when i put this post up it was really to find out if anyone would give up cycling if by law we had to wear helmets.

I have followed the thread and there is a for and against wearing helmets, i personally wear one, my choice, i would still wear one if it were law.

Is there any one out there who would cut their nose off to spite their face as the saying gose. i.e give up cycling rather than wear a helmet.

Personally i would not judge some one if they chose not to wear a helmet.

John.

Hi johnmartin,

Sorry, but i think the main focus of the post got lost on a few WUM's, and I got distracted by that.

No i wouldnt stop riding because im very happy with wearing a helmet.
I think most of the genuinely passionate riders on here would carry on riding if helmet use was compulsory.

Si

motherhucker

Si I'm with you all the way on that one mate! i'm pissed off just reading this thread and realising how many Unt©s there are out there

Firstly the guy obsessed with pedestrians, yes we all get that helmets would make ANY activity safer, even if its getting out of bed, but that is not the arguement here at all. Im assuming though you wear a helmet 24/7 judging by your statements...

Secondly elgordo, i dont wish death on anyone, but with an attitude like that i wouldnt be SURPRISED if darwinism spat you out of the gene pool. And also dont you think that its good to push your boundaries, seeing as though it is basically the essence of any sport?

And just to round it off, was up at Wharncliffe the other day, just walked back to the top of the furthest downhill run (about 5:30pm and pretty much desolate) when a guy rode over the top of the hill on his own on a big full susser and not so much as a pisspot on. Although i always acknowledge other bikers when i'm out, all respect for him vanished instantly.

I always ride with one, its no chore, it wasnt expensive and it might just enable me to get back on my bike if i were to come a cropper. And to answer the original question, would i balls :P

gaz047

hi john, it wouldn't make any difference to me if it was law, as i always stick a lid on. i reckon this would be the case with the vast majority.
gaz

geordiefreerider

No helmet = no brain.

Cunobelin

Northwind wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

.... and the answer to the question is...... that pedestrians would benefit equally

The answer was exactly the opposite. You didn't read it the first time so I'm not inclined to attempt to explain it to you again

Cunobelin wrote:

Pedestrians are also less likely to run between trees at 30mph

Now that is certainly Darwinism in practice.

Ah, is that what's at the bottom of this? You think everyday mtb riding is too dangerous for you? If you consider riding fast near trees to be darwinism in practice, then that explains exactly why you don't see the benefit of protective gear.

Which brings us back nicely to the hypocsisy.... You don't consider pedstrian helmets worthwhile and feel you have the right to dismiss because of YOUR assessment, yet don't feel that others have the right to make deicsions for themselves?

I don't need this "explaining again"it is absolutely clear that you don't feel pedestrians head injuries are worth preventing because YOU have unilaterally made a decision. You then criticise others for doingthe same thing.............

CAn you explain how you decided that I "don't see the benefit of protective gear" - it is your stance that we should not prevent head injures in the groups where they occur most frequently. I have suggested we INCREASE helmet use to other groups, not limt the use of protective equipment - that is entirely your suggestion.

The question you are neatly avoiding is why you can decide risks, but no-one else can if it does not fit your compulsion agenda. I have simply suggested that if you can decide it is dangerous enough to wear a helmet, I can equally decide it is dangerous enough to ban or limit and impose my decision on you. It would also be intersting why you feel able to judge what I feel to be dangerous or not. Can you explain in what capacity you have decided whether I feel "everday mountain biking" is too dangerous

But I doubt you can, or will answer that one, most hypocrites can't.


PS still await the reference for the 40% reduction in head injuries posted earlier -does it exist?

Northwind

I'm done with you

nicklouse

Like i said last time.

Let the roadies do what they want.

I see the usual suspects are here.

time to lock this or it will go the same way as all others.