Another little nugget for the helmet debate!
Comments
-
I see.
I have not studied Dueceone's post all that closely so you may well be right, but in the following paragraph he said 'you' - meaning the target of his wrath - had referred to the stupidity of people riding down hills at 30mph without a helmet.
In one of my posts I happened to make mention of that same speed going downhill and that is where I got the idea that he might be referring to me; perhaps Dueceone made the same reference.
If so, and Dueceone was his target, well - blaze away, CyclingBantam. Give 'em a broadside.0 -
bails87 wrote:Hoopdriver
He's referring to dueceone who called people w*nkers.
He used the word exponential when that doesn't seem to be what he meant.
Thanks Bails87.
Hoopdriver, you don't need to impress me or anyone else over the internet but well done. You seem to have achieved a lot and a little bit of me wishes I had done what you had.
I will go back to just sweeping my little corner free of dirt and dust...
Also, could you reply next time, even more patronisingly. I loved the last, mistaken, reply (which didn't really answer any of my questions).
These helmet threads turn out the same, each and every time. A couple of pro helmet wearing contributers implying non helmet wearers daft for not wearing a lid yet providing no evidence of any benefit to wearing one and also for some reason providing no reason or desire to wear any other safety equipment despite non head injuries being many times more frequent.0 -
CyclingBantam wrote:bails87 wrote:Hoopdriver
He's referring to dueceone who called people w*nkers.
He used the word exponential when that doesn't seem to be what he meant.
Thanks Bails87.
Hoopdriver, you don't need to impress me or anyone else over the internet but well done. You seem to have achieved a lot and a little bit of me wishes I had done what you had.
I will go back to just sweeping my little corner free of dirt and dust...
Also, could you reply next time, even more patronisingly. I loved the last, mistaken, reply (which didn't really answer any of my questions).
These helmet threads turn out the same, each and every time. A couple of pro helmet wearing contributers implying non helmet wearers daft for not wearing a lid yet providing no evidence of any benefit to wearing one and also for some reason providing no reason or desire to wear any other safety equipment despite non head injuries being many times more frequent.
Ah, you cheeky monkey, you sneaked that in whilst I was posting. Well done you.0 -
Bails87 - If he was quoting me as calling people - indeed, anyone - a w*anker, he was misquoting me.
I made it quite clear in my post that that was the misquoting I objected to. Precision and all that.0 -
Oh for pity’s sake…. I should bite my tongue instead of feeding trolls but here goes….
Fact 1
Any protection is better than no protection at preventing injuries. Even if a helmet cannot protect against all forms of head injury it absolutely and without a doubt protects against many.
HOWEVER
Fact 2
The reason we don’t all wear full face motorcycle helmets and leathers with body-armour (which would provide far superior protection than a normal helmet and lycra) on a bike is because we are weighing risks against comfort – serious downhillers actually basically do (because the risks are elevated to a level where the equation makes sense). Even then it is a compromise of protection against freedom of movement and comfort.
I judge MY risk level on normal riding to be low enough that I don’t wear a helmet. When I am indulging in riskier riding (such as on the track) then I do.
The only thing that merits any further discussion is whether or not it is the states job to over-ride my judgement with it’s own far superior judgement and tell me that henceforth helmet wearing will be compulsory (as they have done for motorcycles). Personally I would take that as a step too far on a marginal issue in an already hugely over-regulated country. The phrase “Nanny State” springs to mind.FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
Litespeed L3 for Strava bits
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.0 -
I totally agree with the above regarding the intrusion of a nanny state.0
-
Hoopdriver wrote:Bails87 - If he was quoting me as calling people - indeed, anyone - a w*anker, he was misquoting me.
I made it quite clear in my post that that was the misquoting I objected to. Precision and all that.
I never quoted you Hoopdiver. I clearly said I didn't know the name of who it was. You seemed to get on the defensive and include yourself as the 'target' of my post.
We now end up with this silly little squabble.
I Think SimonAH's first line sums up where I went wrong.0 -
CyclingBantam wrote:Hoopdriver wrote:Bails87 - If he was quoting me as calling people - indeed, anyone - a w*anker, he was misquoting me.
I made it quite clear in my post that that was the misquoting I objected to. Precision and all that.
I never quoted you Hoopdiver.
Exactly. :roll:0 -
CyclingBantam
As Mark Twain once said there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Anyone can make statistics prove anything they like. My helmet-wearing proclivities are based partly on law - I am Australian and in Australia helmet wearing is compulsory, and partly on what appears to me to be common sense, backed by my own unwillingly undertaken 'research' -once when I was hit by a truck in rural South Australia, and once when I came off at high speed in Margaret River, Western Australia. Both times my helmet received ferocious knocks, and although I had multiple fractures, my noggin remained intact. I didn't even get a headache. Everything else hurt like hell, and the helmets were both write-offs but the old brainbox was just fine - all that lovely grammar and ability to patronize obnoxiously were gloriously unimpaired.
Since then I have been strongly of the opinion that anyone must be daft to go riding without a helmet. On neither occasion did I have the lest forewarning of disaster, yet it occurred.
I am still not a supporter of compulsory helmet laws, but as I say I do believe it is sensible to wear one - based on my own experiences and sense of logic. If people find that offensive,well, they'll just have to get over it.0 -
Airbags on bikes , Anyone??0
-
It's not offensive Hoopla, just entirely irrelevant. So you came off a bike twice and a helmet saved your life. Big deal.Hoopdriver wrote:...Since then I have been strongly of the opinion that anyone must be daft to go riding without a helmet. On neither occasion did I have the lest forewarning of disaster, yet it occurred.
I am still not a supporter of compulsory helmet laws, but as I say I do believe it is sensible to wear one - based on my own experiences and sense of logic. If people find that offensive,well, they'll just have to get over it.
When I was 11 my brother's mate put a pitch fork through my ankle. Luckily the tendon stopped it doing any serious damage. Since then have I worn steel wellies on the farm? Have I f. Why? Because it's an unlikely accident to happen, and the chance of any real damage being caused is so low as to be...
Gaah. I give up. We've been here before.0 -
What a splendid idea! Can't you just see one bursting out of a Chris King headset to the amazement of all around? I love it0
-
Do you still do a lot of work with pitchforks in barns? With 11 year-old children? Probably not.
Do you ride much?
There are reasons steel-capped boots are obligatory in many worksites.0 -
And a reason hard-hat "helmets" are also obligatory in many of those same worksites... and it's not because anyone's bombing descents at 70kph.Hoopdriver wrote:Do you still do a lot of work with pitchforks in barns? Probably not.
Do you ride much?
There are reasons steel-capped boots are obligatory in many worksites.
Bottom line, anyone of would defend not wearing a helmet simply has no ground to stand on. A helmet protects more than no helmet, regardless of what value you put in scientific testing or to what degree you believe that additional protection extends, it cannot be argued that a head with layers of protection around it is better protected than a bare head.... should people start wearing full face moto helmets on the road, of course not. Is it even more assanine to suggest wearing no helmet than it would be to suggest a full-face helmet... of course it is.
I will add this one thing... I do support people not wearing helmets while they ride provided that they die when they crash. If you want to reincorporate yourself into the processes of natural selection, I'm all for it. It's when you wind up all veggiemelt and living off the taxes of others that I take offense.
...and whomever pulled the "you're not objective based on your hairy legged indie comments" crap. Seriously, was the topic I was making an objective judgement on hairy legged indie fans? No, it wasn't.... good work on the reading comprehension. The objective portion was where I laid out evidence for both sides of the helmet debate. Anyone objectively looking at a list of pro's that include 'not drooling on yourself while getting nutrients from a feeding tube' and a list of con's that says 'its too hot' can objectively say that the ability to move under your own power and care for oneself trumps a bit of extra heat. That's about as objective as it gets...0 -
dueceone wrote:Bottom line, anyone of would defend not wearing a helmet simply has no ground to stand on. A helmet protects more than no helmet, regardless of what value you put in scientific testing or to what degree you believe that additional protection extends, it cannot be argued that a head with layers of protection around it is better protected than a bare head.... should people start wearing full face moto helmets on the road, of course not. Is it even more assanine to suggest wearing no helmet than it would be to suggest a full-face helmet... of course it is.
I will add this one thing... I do support people not wearing helmets while they ride provided that they die when they crash. If you want to reincorporate yourself into the processes of natural selection, I'm all for it. It's when you wind up all veggiemelt and living off the taxes of others that I take offense.
...and whomever pulled the "you're not objective based on your hairy legged indie comments" crap. Seriously, was the topic I was making an objective judgement on hairy legged indie fans? No, it wasn't.... good work on the reading comprehension. The objective portion was where I laid out evidence for both sides of the helmet debate. Anyone objectively looking at a list of pro's that include 'not drooling on yourself while getting nutrients from a feeding tube' and a list of con's that says 'its too hot' can objectively say that the ability to move under your own power and care for oneself trumps a bit of extra heat. That's about as objective as it gets...
You say a helmet is always safer than no helmet. Well, I say that a full face helmet is always safer than a normal helmet and if you get in an accident wearing only a normal helmet in which you smash your jaw and nose to pieces and have to be fed through a tube and have a nose job at the expense of the state well screw you!! I'd rather you died because you should have worn a full-facer. In fact, thinking about it I say that not riding a bike at all is safer than riding one whatever kind of head and face protection you have...0 -
Well - I wouldn't have thought it possible so an hour or two ago, during some of our livelier exchanges, but in reading the past couple of posts I find myself in full agreement with Paulie W here.0
-
If it wasn't for the abundance of evidence proving you to be this dumb, I would actually struggle to believe you were really this dumb. I didn't bother to look but are you the same jackass with the analogy about people walking?Paulie W wrote:You say a helmet is always safer than no helmet. Well, I say that a full face helmet is always safer than a normal helmet and if you get in an accident wearing only a normal helmet in which you smash your jaw and nose to pieces and have to be fed through a tube and have a nose job at the expense of the state well screw you!! I'd rather you died because you should have worn a full-facer. In fact, thinking about it I say that not riding a bike at all is safer than riding one whatever kind of head and face protection you have...
Breaking your jaw and nose leaving you fed through a tube does NOT leave you an invalid subject to governement care and living off of my taxes. A fullface has also, contrary to open road helmets, to significantly raise the body temerature to an extent that sustained high exertion levels can actually become dangerous... and to continue on with your assanine line of questioning, yes not riding is safer than riding... fucking brilliant deduction Sherlock. Oh, and it's not that "I SAY" a helment is safer than no helmet, it's the basic laws of physics and simply the way energy dispersion works. It the energy can go somewhere other than into your head, that's a good thing.
What I find really awesome is that the couple douchebags who can muster little more than sarcasm and photos from the web in response are the ones who are questioning my intelligence...0 -
Fuck all... you sir clearly don't even need a helmet as you've got nothing worth protecting.bails87 wrote:Paulie W
If he knew what 'objective' meant he might have a useful point. But probably not.
It's like Dr Fox's "There's no evidence for it, but it's a scientific fact" on Brasseye!
Objective is identifying the facts around the debate and looking at them without regard to my own opinions about wearing a helmet... You know, like being able to objectively say that being able to walk and think outweigh being a tiny bit cooler, physically or visually. If you don't understand the basic objectivity of that then there really is no hope for you.0 -
dueceone wrote:
If it wasn't for the abundance of evidence proving you to be this dumb, I would actually struggle to believe you were really this dumb. I didn't bother to look but are you the same jackass with the analogy about people walking?Paulie W wrote:You say a helmet is always safer than no helmet. Well, I say that a full face helmet is always safer than a normal helmet and if you get in an accident wearing only a normal helmet in which you smash your jaw and nose to pieces and have to be fed through a tube and have a nose job at the expense of the state well screw you!! I'd rather you died because you should have worn a full-facer. In fact, thinking about it I say that not riding a bike at all is safer than riding one whatever kind of head and face protection you have...
Breaking your jaw and nose leaving you fed through a tube does NOT leave you an invalid subject to governement care and living off of my taxes. A fullface has also, contrary to open road helmets, to significantly raise the body temerature to an extent that sustained high exertion levels can actually become dangerous... and to continue on with your assanine line of questioning, yes not riding is safer than riding... ******* brilliant deduction Sherlock. Oh, and it's not that "I SAY" a helment is safer than no helmet, it's the basic laws of physics and simply the way energy dispersion works. It the energy can go somewhere other than into your head, that's a good thing.
What I find really awesome is that the couple douchebags who can muster little more than sarcasm and photos from the web in response are the ones who are questioning my intelligence...
Trust me, your intelligence is not under question...0 -
Hoopdriver wrote:Bails87 - If he was quoting me as calling people - indeed, anyone - a w*anker, he was misquoting me.
I made it quite clear in my post that that was the misquoting I objected to. Precision and all that.
If you were for precision & as a journalist surely you should have (double) checked the source before jumping in both feet first & not only looking like a prat initially but compounding it by not putting your hands up and saying fair play, my bad, but still trying to point the finger at something that was nothing to do with you.
As for my take on this old chestnut of a topic. Run awaaaaaaaayyyyyy0 -
I'd hate to live anywhere near that Mr DeuceOne. I have a vision of him spotting an unhelmeted cyclist and unleashing hellfire & damnation on the poor devil for daring to risk 'his taxes' being used to keep the poor soul alive when the inevitable tumble occurs and wrecks so so so soooooo many lives. Ah. When there are something like 4 million cyclists a day all trundling around the place falling off, falling under lorries, careering off hillsides at 50mph and so on day in day out causing such a massive drain on the state, it's only right that the single one item that can stop all this death & mayhem should be worn by all & sundry. Only then will this carnage end. I'm suprised we've put up with it for so long to be honest, all these millions of seemingly faceless KSI stats every week. Oh won't someone think of the children...
Deuceone - they're not your taxes. They're taxes that we all contribute to our respective governments to allow life to happen with some modicum of state intervention. If from time to time the state has to assist someone who's been injured badly, we bear that cost as a society, and we bear it wthout a second thought. I don't care if some of it is spent to indirectly allow vaguely unsafe activities to carry on without intrusive laws or busy-bodies poking their nose in where it's not required. It's life. Sh!t happens from time to time in many walks of life. We should be thankful that we do have the freedom to go out and put ourselves at risk rather than being mollycoddled to within an inch of our lives just because some people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing want to impose thier own views on the world, and then resort to cheap insults when anyone has the temerity to disagree.
Wear a bit of TV packaging on your head if you want to. Those of us that consider it unnecessary can carry on without being lectured by some penny-pinching miser who just knows helmets work, thanks very much all the same for your concern.0 -
-
Actually, I refuse to even acknowledge anyone over the age of 15 or 16 who's still not wearing a helmet. For kids, I'll suggest they wear one and leave it at that. For adults, I'll not even honor them with a response to their display of ignorance.CiB wrote:I'd hate to live anywhere near that Mr DeuceOne. I have a vision of him spotting an unhelmeted cyclist and unleashing hellfire & damnation on the poor devil for daring to risk 'his taxes' being used to keep the poor soul alive when the inevitable tumble occurs and wrecks so so so soooooo many lives. Ah. When there are something like 4 million cyclists a day all trundling around the place falling off, falling under lorries, careering off hillsides at 50mph and so on day in day out causing such a massive drain on the state, it's only right that the single one item that can stop all this death & mayhem should be worn by all & sundry. Only then will this carnage end. I'm suprised we've put up with it for so long to be honest, all these millions of seemingly faceless KSI stats every week. Oh won't someone think of the children...
Deuceone - they're not your taxes. They're taxes that we all contribute to our respective governments to allow life to happen with some modicum of state intervention. If from time to time the state has to assist someone who's been injured badly, we bear that cost as a society, and we bear it wthout a second thought. I don't care if some of it is spent to indirectly allow vaguely unsafe activities to carry on without intrusive laws or busy-bodies poking their nose in where it's not required. It's life. Sh!t happens from time to time in many walks of life. We should be thankful that we do have the freedom to go out and put ourselves at risk rather than being mollycoddled to within an inch of our lives just because some people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing want to impose thier own views on the world, and then resort to cheap insults when anyone has the temerity to disagree.
Wear a bit of TV packaging on your head if you want to. Those of us that consider it unnecessary can carry on without being lectured by some penny-pinching miser who just knows helmets work, thanks very much all the same for your concern.
Please identify where I claimed a helmet will save every life and avoid every injury? I simply pointed out that any intelligent and reasonable person can objectively look at the pro's... you know, life and ambulatory capacify... and then the cons... you know, death and disability... and OBJECTIVELY say, regardless of whether we're talking about helmets or anything else that the options which support the continuation of life and ones ambulatory capacity are the better options. Subjectively speaking, I agree completely as that objectivity relates to the use of helmets. It's really pretty simple... That you're having this much trouble getting it is really pretty surprising.
As for taxes... yes, they are my taxes. They started out in my paycheck and were removed. The rate at which they're removed correlates directly to the draw upon the system they support. The increases which have come over the years have left more and more being taken out of my check. Increases in the amount of disabled people reliant upon government assistance and the degree to which those people are disabled account for a significant draw upon the resource pool into which MY taxes go. As that resource pool becomes insufficient to continually support the items drawing from it, taxes are raised again and I end up paying more to support idiots like you.
And last.. but certainly not least... Your whole "price of everything but the value of nothing" bullshit about me wanting to "impose thier own views on the world, and then resort to cheap insults when anyone has the temerity to disagree".... From someone who apparently understands the price of sweat yet fails to get the VALUE OF LIFE... that's actuall a bit funny. Still though, this is where you're completely fucked. I could care less if you disagree with my opinion that everyone should be lawfully required to wear a helmet. Disagreeing with facts like life>death or walking>wheelchair isn't showing 'temerity'... it's showing your stupidity.
Ask Wouter how worthwhile the extra comfort from his loosened chin strap was on stage 3 or if he wishes he'd just left the helmet at home... oh wait, that's right... Maybe a better question is come back in a few years and ask his as yet unborn son if he wishes his old man would've opted a bit more for protection over comfort. Helmets aren't ever going to eliminate every bit of risk but it's undeniable scientific fact that htey offer more protection than nothing and, when the stakes are as high as htey are in a head injury, it's pure stupidity to not wear one for any reason.0 -
Fox News seems to have invaded BR. I'd save your fingers CiB.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:Fox News seems to have invaded BR. I'd save your fingers CiB.
Yeah I saw it earlier on; it made me smile tbh. What a shouty fellow, and so angry too. I did briefly ponder a rebuttal of all of his nonsensical rant, but settled for a pfffft and left him to it.
Fox News invades BR - neat.
0 -
dueceone wrote:Ask Wouter how worthwhile the extra comfort from his loosened chin strap was on stage 3 or if he wishes he'd just left the helmet at home... oh wait, that's right... Maybe a better question is come back in a few years and ask his as yet unborn son if he wishes his old man would've opted a bit more for protection over comfort.
Ignoring the poor taste of the rest of your comment, have you got anything to back up the claim in bold“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Puts on suit of choice
http://www.westernsafety.com/chicagopro ... vepg2.html
& wades in.
dueceone, what are your thoughts on helmets for cars? http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/developments/headband/
Taken from http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/08/he ... rists.htmlThe Centre has been evaluating the concept of a protective headband for car occupants. In about 44 percent of cases of occupant head injury, a protective headband, such as the one illustrated, would have provided some benefit.
You can of course take the study with as much salt as you care for.FCN 9 || FCN 50
