Article on helmets in the metro today...

veronese68

dhope wrote:

His team pointed to evidence in Australia where 80 per cent of cyclists killed or seriously injured were wearing helmets.

Argh, this flawed logic infuriates me. Right, I'm doing my own research. Results are in

dhope wrote:

100% of skydivers killed or seriously injured were wearing parachutes. This leads me to believe that parachutes serve no purpose and should be optional for skydivers

I believe there is a manufacturer of skydiving equipment called Bounceproof. Wouldn't like to test it though.

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is anyone here not 'pro-choice?'

Anyone?

roger_merriman

Does look like he went looking for the results he expected, oh well so it goes on the long list of Helmet reports that are well junk!

I'm fairly convinced that helmets keep loved ones from worrying too much and provide catalyst for long threads on forums.

nothing else mind you.

cooldad

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is anyone here not 'pro-choice?'

Anyone?

I firmly believe that a woman has every right to her own body, and abortion should be a decision for the individual.

veronese68

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is anyone here not 'pro-choice?'

Anyone?

I very much doubt anyone would want me as a pro.

rick_chasey

cooldad wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is anyone here not 'pro-choice?'

Anyone?

I firmly believe that a woman has every right to her own body, and abortion should be a decision for the individual.

cooldad

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is anyone here not 'pro-choice?'

Anyone?

I very much doubt anyone would want me as a rent boy.

veronese68

cooldad wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is anyone here not 'pro-choice?'

Anyone?

I very much doubt anyone would want me as a rent boy.

Exactly what I was thinking. To call me a boy would definitely be optimistic though.

rick_chasey

Veronese68 wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is anyone here not 'pro-choice?'

Anyone?

I very much doubt anyone would want me as a rent boy.

Exactly what I was thinking. To call me a boy would definitely be optimistic though.

I'd let the customer be the judge of that.

Kieran_Burns

Cycling helmets are ugly and essential to protect you from fatal accidents that you won't have because cycling is safe and anyone that doesn't not wear one is an idiot.

bails87

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Cycling helmets are ugly and essential to protect you from fatal accidents that you won't have because cycling is safe and anyone that doesn't not wear one is an idiot.

I couldn't say that I don't have doubts about refusing to dissent from the views of those counter to yours.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

veronese68

Rick Chasey wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is anyone here not 'pro-choice?'

Anyone?

I very much doubt anyone would want me as a rent boy.

Exactly what I was thinking. To call me a boy would definitely be optimistic though.

I'd let the customer be the judge of that.

Use of the word customer implies somebody would be willing to pay for it. I have enough trouble giving it away.

Only to the wife, of course.

bails87

Veronese68 wrote:

Use of the word customer implies somebody would be willing to pay for it. I have enough trouble giving it away.

Only to the wife, of course.

So you only have trouble giving it to the wife, but everyone else is happy to...er...pay?

veronese68

bails87 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Use of the word customer implies somebody would be willing to pay for it. I have enough trouble giving it away.

Only to the wife, of course.

So you only have trouble giving it to the wife, but everyone else is happy to...er...pay?

Good job she has no interest in reading this.

meanredspider

Glad to see the Metro has sparked such an intelligent and well-argued debate

Perhaps we should "stickie" this thread as the definitive helmet debate

Gussio

Exercise 1: kneel down in road and bang head sharply on the tarmac with no helmet

Exercise 2: kneel down in road and bang head sharply on the tarmac while wearing a helmet

Exercise 3: make a decision about whether or not wear a helmet based upon the outcome of exercises 1 & 2

veronese68

Noones come up with any suggestions on how to stop my helmet banging yet.

bails87

Veronese68 wrote:

Noones come up with any suggestions on how to stop my helmet banging yet.

Strap it down to the inside of your leg with some athletic tape.

Gussio

Veronese68 wrote:

Noones come up with any suggestions on how to stop my helmet banging yet.

Duck tape - make sure to use lots of it and pay attention that it sticks to your hair and eyebrows. Problem solved

gabriel959

I personally think anyone not wearing one is an idiot but I couldn't care less. It is not the same as in a car crash with seat belts were other people could get injured so if they don't want to use one it's their choice.

We should have less regulation in stuff that really no-one apart from one self should really care about.

More regulation = more paperwork = more spent money down the drain.

mybreakfastconsisted

DDD, You really don't know what you're talking about on this subject, previously on this subject you've claimed people must be "mentally ill" for saying the same thing.

DonDaddyD wrote:

‘

I'm just posting the FRANK link for balance. Not argument.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Pharmaceutical Heroin is relatively benign, about as harmfuil as peanut butter.

That right there is stupidity and ignorance so potent it could give birth to itself.

.

Your opinions on matters like drug addiction are nonsensical and ignorant, and you respond with abuse when this is explained to you.

CiB

Gussio wrote:

Exercise 1: kneel down in road and bang head sharply on the tarmac with no helmet

Exercise 2: kneel down in road and bang head sharply on the tarmac while wearing a helmet

Exercise 3: make a decision about whether or not wear a helmet based upon the outcome of exercises 1 & 2

Sorry. I've steered clear but when this sort of tosh is posted as if it's a definitive reason for helmetry, I despair.

Exercise 1:Ride 2-wheeled bike without helmet for 43 years and never suffer head injury despite many lurid and frankly stupid opportunities for injury to occur. Note that 100% of peers, associates & childhood friends are still alive and of sound mind, body, head etc.

Exercise 2: kneel down in road and bang head sharply on the tarmac while wearing a helmet

Decide that exercise 1 relates to the question being asked, and that exercise 2 is the act of a madman that has no bearing on helmeting in any way that relates to bicyclists.

Sometimes I come dangerously close to not caring much either way whether I wear a helmet or not, or whether it becomes mandatory or not, and then someone posts stupidity like that and instantly sways me away from the whole idea again.

noodles71

Remember that the study that the article on may have been commissioned with a bias towards not wearing a helmet.

Where I come from in Australia, helmets were made compulsory in the early 1990's. There is also a push right now in the same state to repeal the compulsory law and there is an election not too far away. You make your own judgements....

meanredspider

That's kinda why the results are a nonsense from what I can see. If helmet wearing is compulsory but 80% of people killed were wearing a helmet the other 20% were either breaking the law or off-road. Either way, the results are a waste of space without the background. Most helmet studies are poor but this one is benchmark in its poorness.

rml380z

dhope wrote:

His team pointed to evidence in Australia where 80 per cent of cyclists killed or seriously injured were wearing helmets.

Argh, this flawed logic infuriates me. Right, I'm doing my own research. Results are in

dhope wrote:

100% of skydivers killed or seriously injured were wearing parachutes. This leads me to believe that parachutes serve no purpose and should be optional for skydivers

Once I have a large enough sample size (6 or 7 should do) I intend to prove that parachutes cause accidents and should be outlawed.

Actually, there have been no proper scientific studies to prove parachutes work at all; http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459

jonginge

Haha:
Double-blind test proposed
Ethical approval Not required

...
...

Dear god, this parachute is a knapsack!

aeon

i took issue with the quote in the article, because for a proper scientician to straight out say 'heroin is very dangerous and should be banned' whilst arguing that people have the right to expose themselves to other dangers without regulation seemed kind of stupid. i was rather more careful in my post, saying that ' if it's pure heroin administered properly then the worst it can do is make you a bit constipated', and i stand by that. however...

DonDaddyD wrote:

3. I believe I have always maintained that it is the addicitive properties and the subsequent way the brain triggers the body into believing that it needs heroin that is its greatest, most damaging and dangerous risk. I mean I have never seen a healthy heroin addict, have you?

you may have seen a healthy heroin addict without noticing them; J. Krivanek, in Heroin: Myths and Reality notes a number of cases in suburban Australia where professionals (including doctors) maintained white-collar jobs and fairly heavy addictions for decades.

the problem of course is that street users do not have access to pure heroin, and they rarely administer it properly. i would contend that the health problems associated with heroin stem mainly from unsafe injection practices and associated lifestyle issues, rather than the intrinsic addictiveness of the drug itself. after all, nicotine is very addictive - more addictive than heroin, and more quickly, too, if i recall correctly. but dying from lung cancer or mouth cancer takes a bit longer, is less obvious, and generally doesn't necessitate selling all your sh!t, living on the streets, drinking white ace, sharing needles, and all the other risk factors that combine to make many heroin addicts pretty messed up. the other risk is that heroin is fantastic at suppressing pain signals, so you may not realise you have a massive abscess in your jaw, or whatever, until it's too late.

it's probably worth pointing out that heroin withdrawal is rarely fatal, and therefore much less dangerous than e.g. alcohol withdrawal, which can & does kill alcohol addicts.

i want to be absolutely clear that i don't think people should start enjoying a nice glass of heroin after work everyday i see from your other post that you've worked in mental health; i have too. i've worked for the NHS and the Department of Health. i've worked with (and lived with) heroin addicts, active and recovering. i really wouldn't wish heroin addiction on anyone, and i don't mean to trivialise the impact it has on people's lives. i just wish the doctor who gave these quotes to the metro (or possibly the journalist who edited them) was a little bit more careful, because i've also worked with people with severe brain injuries, and i think the general public deserve a little bit more information and a little bit less rhetorical crap from people who are in a position of authority.

rick_chasey

JonGinge wrote:

Haha:
Double-blind test proposed
Ethical approval Not required

...
...

Dear god, this parachute is a knapsack!

Gussio

CiB wrote:

Gussio wrote:

Exercise 1: kneel down in road and bang head sharply on the tarmac with no helmet

Exercise 2: kneel down in road and bang head sharply on the tarmac while wearing a helmet

Exercise 3: make a decision about whether or not wear a helmet based upon the outcome of exercises 1 & 2

Sorry. I've steered clear but when this sort of tosh is posted as if it's a definitive reason for helmetry, I despair.

Exercise 1:Ride 2-wheeled bike without helmet for 43 years and never suffer head injury despite many lurid and frankly stupid opportunities for injury to occur. Note that 100% of peers, associates & childhood friends are still alive and of sound mind, body, head etc.

Exercise 2: kneel down in road and bang head sharply on the tarmac while wearing a helmet

Decide that exercise 1 relates to the question being asked, and that exercise 2 is the act of a madman that has no bearing on helmeting in any way that relates to bicyclists.

Sometimes I come dangerously close to not caring much either way whether I wear a helmet or not, or whether it becomes mandatory or not, and then someone posts stupidity like that and instantly sways me away from the whole idea again.

Just because someone's opinion doesn't match yours doesn't necessarily make it tosh or stupidity. Albeit that the above was written tongue in cheek, I choose to wear a helmet when commuting in London. This is mainly because if I come off the bike it is most likely to be that I have been knocked off rather than fallen off and I am unlikely to see it coming. If my head is going to bounce off the tarmac or someone's bonnet, I'd prefer to have it inside a helmet. Might be misguided, but there you go. Don't find wearing a helmet an inconvenience, but at the same time I quite like the feeling of the wind in my hair.

dhope

Gussio wrote:

Just because someone's opinion doesn't match yours doesn't necessarily make it tosh or stupidity. Albeit that the above was written tongue in cheek, I choose to wear a helmet when commuting in London. This is mainly because if I come off the bike it is most likely to be that I have been knocked off rather than fallen off and I am unlikely to see it coming. If my head is going to bounce off the tarmac or someone's bonnet, I'd prefer to have it inside a helmet. Might be misguided, but there you go. Don't find wearing a helmet an inconvenience, but at the same time I quite like the feeling of the wind in my hair.

This.
Though I could do with more hair