Do you wear a helmet?

weadmire

Shouldbeinbed,

In the LCS helmet thread I mentioned earlier a number of contributors broadly expressed the same sentiment as you do in your last post. It was at the point of "Leggy Blonde" losing the argument as I recall, much in the manner of the challenged fellow Bompington letting his fellow travelers down by showing out. I guessed that far from being bored the poster in question was fascinated - the thread was getting a lot of hits. I told him I had asked the moderator of the forum how frequently he, the weary and wannabe worldly poster, had accessed the thread. I reported the moderator had said every five minutes or so. I was lying of course. But I am pleased to say the poster admitted he was guilty as charged. He had not been bored, he had been fascinated.

Put another way:

You didn't answer the original question: the topic is do you wear a helmet?

And I am sure some of the readers of this thread are interested to know if you have trouble with dribbling?

bompington

weadmire wrote:

And I am sure some of the readers of this thread are interested to know if you have trouble with dribbling?

Yes, for heaven's sake, a lot of us are having trouble with drivelling and are really wishing you'd stop.

weadmire

Bompington,
I thought you had agreed to swim off.

Wirral_paul

You really are a grade A pr!ck arent you Weadmire!! I think the vast majority on here only want to see you "Swim off"!!!

weadmire

Tsk,Tsk Wirral_P,
Is this another example of you projecting? Thinking of psychological projection, not phallic, just in case you were confused.

But while we are here why is it that you and that other fellow traveler of yours, Bompington are so keen for me to go? Because, despite your admitted experience otherwise, you disagree with my basic contention that if you are wear a helmet you are more likely to hit your head when you come off? Surely with all those thousands of posts and time invested in these forums you will understand undecided, as in open minded readers, of this thread will be underwhelmed by your incoherence and loss of composure. And after we had a breakthrough moment too. You are just showing out and embarrassing yourself - didn't you think Bompington you r sole when he cracked and started being stupid and abusive? You can't have thought witty, that's told him now, can you? You should keep the sentiment you felt when you read Bompington's all but last contribution in mind when you make yours, it will be helpful for you.

Wirral_paul

weadmire wrote:

Tsk,Tsk Wirral_P,
Is this another example of you projecting? Thinking of psychological projection, not phallic, just in case you were confused.

What the hell are you on about?? Everyone is confused by your pointless waffle!! "Tsk tsk" at me given that you try some smart arsed attack on every single poster who doesnt agree with your ramblings is hardly going to bother me!!

weadmire wrote:

But while we are here why is it that you and that other fellow traveler of yours, Bompington are so keen for me to go? Because, despite your admitted experience otherwise, you disagree with my basic contention that if you are wear a helmet you are more likely to hit your head when you come off? Surely with all those thousands of posts and time invested in these forums you will understand undecided, as in open minded readers, of this thread will be underwhelmed by your incoherence and loss of composure. And after we had a breakthrough moment too. You are just showing out and embarrassing yourself - didn't you think Bompington you r sole when he cracked and started being stupid and abusive? You can't have thought witty, that's told him now, can you? You should keep the sentiment you felt when you read Bompington's all but last contribution in mind when you make yours, it will be helpful for you.

Who said we all disagree?? And just to be absolutely clear on this - who gives a damn if you're more likely to hit your HELMET - which i'm sure we dont need one of your supposed experts to tell us SEEING AS ITS A LARGER DIAMETER, irrespective of weight!! If a helmet gets damaged and a head doesnt, then nobody but YOU needs convincing that a helmet was probably a damn good idea to be wearing at that time!! Your whole argument now seems to be based on some absolutely pointless study that didnt even need a study to convince everyone with half a brain (an undamaged one) - a larger polystyrene bowl is more likely to take a knock than a smaller head!!

cooldad

Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

shouldbeinbed

weadmire wrote:

Shouldbeinbed,

In the LCS helmet thread I mentioned earlier a number of contributors broadly expressed the same sentiment as you do in your last post. It was at the point of "Leggy Blonde" losing the argument as I recall, much in the manner of the challenged fellow Bompington letting his fellow travelers down by showing out. I guessed that far from being bored the poster in question was fascinated - the thread was getting a lot of hits. I told him I had asked the moderator of the forum how frequently he, the weary and wannabe worldly poster, had accessed the thread. I reported the moderator had said every five minutes or so. I was lying of course. But I am pleased to say the poster admitted he was guilty as charged. He had not been bored, he had been fascinated.

Put another way:

You didn't answer the original question: the topic is do you wear a helmet?

And I am sure some of the readers of this thread are interested to know if you have trouble with dribbling?

What does LCS stand for?

You're right I didn't answer the original question

My dribbling could be better, I'm not a great footballer.

bompington

cooldad wrote:

Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

+millions ;-). Looks worryingly like he must have had a lot of practice at this kind of thing.

And I've just looked back at my posts in this thread, because I don't actually like to be be "stupid and abusive" - and I can't actually see where I have been. "Drivelling" is the closest I can get, and that is quite a long way along the spectrum towards simple fact.

But I still can't resist trying to have a sensible discussion! So can someone tell me, where is the evidence for the "basic contention that if you are wear a helmet you are more likely to hit your head when you come off" as I am think that this is just another of those intuitive claims that might, or might not, have some basis in reality - but without any evidence (and for the record, "a truly wise and mighty expert thinks so" is not evidence) it will always remain speculation.

Wirral_paul

bompington wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

+millions ;-). Looks worryingly like he must have had a lot of practice at this kind of thing.

And I've just looked back at my posts in this thread, because I don't actually like to be be "stupid and abusive" - and I can't actually see where I have been. "Drivelling" is the closest I can get, and that is quite a long way along the spectrum towards simple fact.

But I still can't resist trying to have a sensible discussion! So can someone tell me, where is the evidence for the "basic contention that if you are wear a helmet you are more likely to hit your head when you come off" as I am think that this is just another of those intuitive claims that might, or might not, have some basis in reality - but without any evidence (and for the record, "a truly wise and mighty expert thinks so" is not evidence) it will always remain speculation.

+millions and one ;-) It seems he's only on the site to try and write these long winded posts in an attempt to look clever (and failing at it). I'm sure he'll be back with a rambling post shortly in his attempt to "win" the argument - ignoring the fact that he's a lone voice on here!! To be honest - would you expect anything less from someone who makes a living selling t-shirts which amongst other things, suggests people should follow his other favourite topic and break a road traffic law.

http://weadmire.net/tshirt/traffic-lights-t-shirt/

Maybe he could design one suggesting that cyclists shouldnt wear these nasty, killer helmets.

Shame, as some of the other designs are really nice!! Wouldnt buy on principle now though!!

Pross

OK, I had thought it was just someone expressing a different and potentially valid argument at first but from the last few posts it's become obvious that it is just trolling now.

weadmire

What part of the argument are you all really really having a problem with? The part that you don't agree with, we understand but beyond that?

To recap:
The argument concerning the efficacy of helmets has been going on for as long as cycling forums have existed. The pro helmet lobby are particularly vociferous in their promotion of the use of helmets. But if helmets worked it should be clear by now. It is not clear. Hence the ongoing argument.

My experience was, and is, that when I crashed with a helmet I hit my head. On four occasions to the point of being injured, broken bones injured, and head injured too. Though with one particularly notable exception when when I crashed without a helmet I did not hit my head, despite otherwise breaking bones.

For good measure I provided details of some of my whacks. It is clear some readers of this thread did not like these details. What are your problems here? Too many details?

My conclusion, supported by an eminent and relevantly experienced medical consultant, among other things his opinion was forensically examined in a case where the compensation payout including legal fees was in the order of £400,000, was that the mass and position of a helmet might mean that wearing a helmet protected the wearer only to the extent that wearing the helmet increased the likelihood the wearer would hit his head. Not rambling, not rocket science. It is my contention that wearing a helmet is a zero sum game. And this is borne out by the lack of evidence that they work which in turn is borne out by the fact this argument, the wear or do not wear argument, has been ongoing for 20 yrs or more.

So gentlemen what is your real problem? Best to explain it so readers apart from yourselves can understand it.

For the last batch of rude and largely irrelevant self justification: Bompington, in only seeing “drivelling” you are looking with your nose, you might care to explain the phoney quotes and in the same post “FYFT”. Wirral-Paul, you might explain the use of “You really are a grade A pr!ck arent you Weadmire!! Otherwise you are almost there, you agree you are more likely to hit your head wearing a helmet and you admitted you did not wear one or hit your head in crashes in your youth, extrapolate a little further and you will have crossed the rubicon. Cooldad, do you wear a helmet? And where have you been up till now?

Alternatively you could all address the basic argument and spare us the insults.

Wirral_paul

weadmire wrote:

To recap:
The argument concerning the efficacy of helmets has been going on for as long as cycling forums have existed. The pro helmet lobby are particularly vociferous in their promotion of the use of helmets. But if helmets worked it should be clear by now. It is not clear. Hence the ongoing argument.

Really?? So thats your current stance?? Funny - as twice you have categorically stated that helmets don't work!!

weadmire wrote:

Or put yet more clearly if helmets saved lives it would be obvious - the argument would be over. They don't and it isn't.

weadmire wrote:

Pross,
Helmets don't work and it shows

So clearly you cant even make your mind up!!

weadmire wrote:

My conclusion, supported by an eminent and relevantly experienced medical consultant, among other things his opinion was forensically examined in a case where the compensation payout including legal fees was in the order of £400,000, was that the mass and position of a helmet might mean that wearing a helmet protected the wearer only to the extent that wearing the helmet increased the likelihood the wearer would hit his head. Not rambling, not rocket science. It is my contention that wearing a helmet is a zero sum game. And this is borne out by the lack of evidence that they work which in turn is borne out by the fact this argument, the wear or do not wear argument, has been ongoing for 20 yrs or more.

Ah the Civil court - well that clinches it then hey!! Two sets of opposing so called experts giving two opposing opinions - and you think the result constitutes "proof"?? It doesnt - and never will. I've been an expert witness in a murder trial where "beyond reasonable doubt" applies, Civil Court is "balance of probability" so it comes down to who was most convincing / credible on the day - ie Sweet FA to do with "proof"!!

Oh - and in there is yet another instance where you shoot down your own statement that "helmets don't work"!!

weadmire wrote:

So gentlemen what is your real problem? Best to explain it so readers apart from yourselves can understand it.

Only you are of your opinion - everyone else disagrees with you!! Nobody else has a problem - and even you cant decide your stance!! Most (other than you) are in the middle and wear one simply because we believe "on the balance of probability" that we'll come out of an accident in better shape than without one!!

weadmire wrote:

Otherwise you are almost there, you agree you are more likely to hit your head wearing a helmet and you admitted you did not wear one or hit your head in crashes in your youth

Show us where i admitted that then - everyone reading the whole thread can see i didnt!!

weadmire wrote:

, extrapolate a little further and you will have crossed the rubicon.

Really?? I couldnt give a damn if my helmet hits the floor - other than i may need to buy a new one!! I'm sure everyone else will agree!! You're whole argument seems to be revolving now on the possibility of a helmet touching the floor. This is totally irrelevant, given that the only important fact is what injuries are caused!! A scuffed helmet is of no consequence and they are there to do that very job!! So what's your point in continually quoting this "expert report" that you havent linked to?? Show us the study - otherise we may as well simply conclude you having written the "study" yourself. Does it conclude that injuries are worsened as a result of any increase in a helmet contacting the ground??

weadmire wrote:

Alternatively you could all address the basic argument and spare us the insults.

Funny - coming from someone who insulted every single person who replied!!
Its you who needs to address your stance for starters - either "helmets dont work" or "Its not clear" - or do you still want to be both??

cooldad

I think he was dropped on his head as a baby. Parents should have bought him a little helmet.

Wirral_paul

cooldad wrote:

I think he was dropped on his head as a baby. Parents should have bought him a little helmet.

Or dropped him again??

Only kidding Weadmire

cooldad

weadmire wrote:

Cooldad, do you wear a helmet?

I do.

weadmire wrote:

And where have you been up till now?

Are you trying to proposition me? Lousy pick up line.

rick_chasey

You guys still having fun in here?

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

You guys still having fun in here?

Enormous fun, in a slightly sick way

weadmire

Cooldad,

Please take us through why you wear one. Have you ever had a whack on the head while wearing your helmet, I would like to hear the details.

Bompington, trying to have fun but smarting really is closer to the mark, fess up, you will feel better for it.

Wirral_paul

weadmire wrote:

Bompington, trying to have fun but smarting really is closer to the mark, fess up, you will feel better for it.

Funny how its only you Weadmire that seems to think you're getting the better of anyone!! You're not - and god knows why you think Bompington would be "smarting"?? Do explain!!

Funny how you conveniently ignored my previous post anyway - clearly got no clever answer to your own forgetfulness as to what you're argument is regarding the effectiveness of helmets then?

Maybe you should just "Swim off" and let your own contradictions lie

rick_chasey

Tempted to lock this thread.

Any objections?

dodgy

weadmire wrote:

Josh,
It is ill mannered to presume my motivation might be similar to yours, more so in the face of what has already been said. I will be kind and just say I think you are out of your depth....

weadmire

Wirral_Paul,
On the matter of winning the argument: It is a characteristic of forums that the supporters of one side or other join in the argument when the person whom they support falters. When Bompington lost his composure and started fabricating quotes and swearing, you and several others came to his aide. When you lost your composure and started being insulting something similar happened, cooldad, tried to be cool and shouldbeinbed tried something similar, Bompington tried to make out he was enjoying himself, no one believed him, and now someone wants to lock the thread. You know enough to know this is because you and yours are losing the argument. Try for another opinion, try and get someone you know to read the exchanges and say yes Wirral_Paul your argument is clear and logical you are getting your point across.

Meanwhile, your points, what points? You claim I am contradicting myself, how so? Certainly the examples you attempt to give are just cobblers.

Earlier on page three of this thread, you said:

“Oh - and 8 years racing, 6 at 2nd Cat and a lot of crashes in my 20's when i didnt have the sense of self preservation i have now and was pretty much a lunatic descender. No head injuries though strangely.”

To me this seems to say you did not wear a helmet in your youth, that you were a little reckless, presumably came off, but did not hit your head. Now older with a better sense of self preservation you wear a helmet and you are on record as admitting you did hit your head while wearing a helmet. Your experience matches mine. Surprise....

Please point out where I have claimed “proof” rather than presented “evidence”.

Tom Crisp's opinion is evidence it is not proof, it was articulate and interesting and it matched my experience and apparently yours and probably that of most of the readers of this thread. But you don't like it, please explain why.

bompington

weadmire wrote:

When Bompington lost his composure and started fabricating quotes and swearing

It's called "parody" you imbecile, and it's really not hard to do when you're the subject. As for swearing, where?

weadmire wrote:

Bompington tried to make out he was enjoying himself, no one believed him

OK, fair enough, I'm not really enjoying myself that much, it's just a kind of appalled fascination (hence the Bedlam picture in my previous post). As usual I'm struggling to follow the knight's move thinking in your post about who's supporting who, but I have a suspicion that most readers of this thread probably believe me a bit more than you. Just a hunch.

Go ahead and lock if you want Rick, I'm not sure if there's anything in here that's very terrible but I think we're way beyond any useful discussion here, and even the amusement is beginning to pall ;-)

rick_chasey

Locked - Descended into a personal slanging match long ago.