Wiggo, you T0sser (and I never thought I'd say that)!
Comments
-
Nope I think pt has it right - those that understand and the others who are nicely brainwashed into believing the gov can legislate danger away.neeb wrote:
I like to be optimistic and believe that there is always a small borderline minority capable of being enlightened if you try hard enough.P_Tucker wrote:That's what I would have said if I wasn't of the opinion that anyone who couldn't infer the above from my one-liner isn't intelligent enough to be worth arguing with.0 -
OK, so if we're all born with or without the capacity to understand the appropriate use of bike helmets, then eugenics it will have to be. I'll be PMing an appropriate sample of forum members in due course to ask for cheek swabs.Slowbike wrote:Nope I think pt has it right - those that understand and the others who are nicely brainwashed into believing the gov can legislate danger away.
0 -
inside or out?0
-
I really don't see the issue here. I wear one, for reasons which seem obvious to me, but I'm not a great fan of the idea of making it legal.
I understand why those who really don't want to wear one, don't want it made law to wear a helmet.
I don't understand why people who do wear them are so intent on others wearing them. If you wear a helmet, great continue to do so, but does it effect you if others don't ? Why p*ss and whine about it ? Wear a helmet if you want to and get on with enjoying cycling.
As I said before:
Wear a helmet if you want, don't wear one if you don't.
If you don't wear one, don't moan if you're in an incident where you smack your head on the road, or a kerb.
If you do wear one, don't expect it to save your life if a bus hits you.
Either way, stop trying to ram your opinions on the matter down everyone's throats and get on with enjoying your cycling
Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
Depending on the circumstances, you might still be able to claim that you were right not to wear one based on the statistical risk, but were just very unlucky...MattC59 wrote:If you don't wear one, don't moan if you're in an incident where you smack your head on the road, or a kerb.
If I live in the UK and take anti-malaria tablets for my entire life, I might avoid chance contagion from a lone mosquito arriving on a plane from Africa. But if I don't take the tablets and contract malaria in the UK against all the odds, it would still have been a daft decision at the time to decide to take the tablets.0 -
neeb wrote:
Depending on the circumstances, you might still be able to claim that you were right not to wear one based on the statistical risk, but were just very unlucky...MattC59 wrote:If you don't wear one, don't moan if you're in an incident where you smack your head on the road, or a kerb.
If I live in the UK and take anti-malaria tablets for my entire life, I might avoid chance contagion from a lone mosquito arriving on a plane from Africa. But if I don't take the tablets and contract malaria in the UK against all the odds, it would still have been a daft decision at the time to decide to take the tablets.
Are you sh*tting me ?Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
Very unlucky if you happen to hit a gravity and inertia hot spot0
-
Nope. There are definitely some ways to use a bicycle where the risks don't justify wearing a helmet. But of course you could still be very unlucky. If so, that doesn't mean that you should have worn a helmet.MattC59 wrote:Are you sh*tting me ?
But again just to be clear, most of us use bicycles in such a way that (IMHO) the wearing of a helmet is very much justified given the chances of the sort of head injury that the helmet could (wholly or partially) protect against.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:
Errrrr....Wiggins wrote:Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on. You shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on. You should have lights on. Once there are laws passed for cyclists then you are protected and you can say, ‘Well I have done everything to be protected and be safe.’Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest. I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I involved In an accident. I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought0 -
If you think your odds of contracting malaria in Britain and your odds of falling off a bicycle are the same you must be nuts.neeb wrote:
Nope. There are definitely some ways to use a bicycle where the risks don't justify wearing a helmet. But of course you could still be very unlucky. If so, that doesn't mean that you should have worn a helmet.MattC59 wrote:Are you sh*tting me ?
But again just to be clear, most of us use bicycles in such a way that (IMHO) the wearing of a helmet is very much justified given the chances of the sort of head injury that the helmet could (wholly or partially) protect against.
And yes, of course there are ways of using a bicycle that do not justify a helmet: in 2010 five of the world's top independent builders exhibited their bicycles as art at the New York Museum of Art and Design. A perfect example.0 -
Hoopdriver wrote:I'm not your dearest.
Funny that you pick up on my contradiction, yet missed the realization that I was, in fact, being sarcastic in my reply. Many people on here are all so serious and nitpick at the slightest thing, yourself included.I was pointing out the curious contradiction in your saying that you don't know/can't comment and then in the same breath proceeding to comment anyway.
Yes, it was a contradiction, I see that now, I should have worded my post better. Yet, you will notice the usage of the words 'so I can't really make a comment, just my first impressions.' meaning just that and that I cannot comment any further as he may be a genuinely nice guy.Ghost Race 5000 (2011) Shimano 105 Black
Carrera TDF (2007)
http://www.bike-discount.de/#
http://www.bike24.com/0 -
:roll: It was obviously a deliberately extreme example to illustrate the logical structure of the argument (an analogy), although I realise I'm in danger of being told off by P_Tucker here for spelling that out for you...Hoopdriver wrote:If you think your odds of contracting malaria in Britain and your odds of falling off a bicycle are the same you must be nuts.
And yes, of course there are ways of using a bicycle that do not justify a helmet: in 2010 five of the world's top independent builders exhibited their bicycles as art at the New York Museum of Art and Design. A perfect example.
Do you really think there are no circumstances in which you could ride a bicycle where the justification for wearing a helmet on safety/risk grounds could be less than for some other common activities where no-one ever wears a helmet? In other words, as soon as you so much as throw a leg over a bicycle, are you immediately at greater risk of a head injury than at any other point in your life?0 -
neeb wrote:
:roll: It was obviously a deliberately extreme example to illustrate the logical structure of the argument (an analogy), although I realise I'm in danger of being told off by P_Tucker here for spelling that out for you...Hoopdriver wrote:If you think your odds of contracting malaria in Britain and your odds of falling off a bicycle are the same you must be nuts.
And yes, of course there are ways of using a bicycle that do not justify a helmet: in 2010 five of the world's top independent builders exhibited their bicycles as art at the New York Museum of Art and Design. A perfect example.
Do you really think there are no circumstances in which you could ride a bicycle where the justification for wearing a helmet on safety/risk grounds could be less than for some other common activities where no-one ever wears a helmet? In other words, as soon as you so much as throw a leg over a bicycle, are you immediately at greater risk of a head injury than at any other point in your life?
Nuance doesn't seem to play much of a role in this so-called debate. There are degrees of risk. Cycling is not a very dangerous activity. Nevertheless riding a bicycle at 15mph or so, balanced on two skinny tyres and spinning down hills at much greater speeds does carry a higher degree of risk than strolling down a footpath at 3mph. This, I would think should be obvious. It is not as great a risk as riding a motorcycle at 50mph, hence the more substantial helmets for that activity. Again, the stepped nature of risk should be obvious.
To hear some of the discussions of helmet use and their probable ineffectiveness in the event of a hard collision with a car (although I would still rather have a hemet on my head than not have one on in such a collision) one would think that motorists are the only danger out there; that the possibility of being bucked off your bike by a pothole, slipping on a greasy patch of bitumen, or loose gravel, being knocked off by an unleashed dog, having a front tyre blow etc doesn't exist. I assure you it does, and it is for these types of incidents and accidents in particular, where you stand a good chance of knocking your head on a curb or pillar box or what-have-you, that a helmet is highly useful. Fabian Cancellara, a man whose bicycle handling skills are probably at least as good as anyone on this forum :-) wiped out heavily at the end of the road race recently when he picked a wrong line in a curve. These things can happen -and without warning. It's why it is a good idea to wear a helmet - they are lightweight, comfortable and wholly appropriate to the degree of risk inherent in riding a bicycle.0 -
Actually, that's pretty much the point I was trying to get across earlier (although with a different focus) to counter the arguments of those who think that you should necessarily always wear a helmet when cycling and that anyone who ever doesn't do that must be an idiot.Hoopdriver wrote:Nuance doesn't seem to play much of a role in this so-called debate. There are degrees of risk. Cycling is not a very dangerous activity. Nevertheless riding a bicycle at 15mph or so, balanced on two skinny tyres and spinning down hills at much greater speeds does carry a higher degree of risk than strolling down a footpath at 3mph. This, I would think should be obvious. It is not as great a risk as riding a motorcycle at 50mph, hence the more substantial helmets for that activity. Again, the stepped nature of risk should be obvious.
Yes, there are degrees of risk, but the point is that not all types of bicycle use are particularly risky - there are degrees of risk in cycling as in any other activity in life. As I said previously, I agree that riding a road bike fast certainly warrants wearing a helmet IMHO (although others may differ in their risk assessments), but if you compare riding a sit-up-and-beg at 10mph 1 mile down a flat, quiet country lane to pick up the morning paper with lots of other things we do in life without a helmet, they are probably comparable in risk. Sure, you might hit a previously unnoticed pothole the wrong way, come off and bang your head on the edge of a kerb, but it's exceedingly unlikely. You are probably just as likely to suffer a head injury slipping in the shower.0 -
TKF wrote:P_Tucker wrote:
Errrrr....Wiggins wrote:Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on. You shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on. You should have lights on. Once there are laws passed for cyclists then you are protected and you can say, ‘Well I have done everything to be protected and be safe.’Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest. I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I involved In an accident. I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought
Ah, so if you say something, realise you've made a tw*t of yourself and issue a retraction the next day, that means you didn't originally say what you actually said. Makes sense.0 -
neeb wrote:
Nope. There are definitely some ways to use a bicycle where the risks don't justify wearing a helmet. But of course you could still be very unlucky. If so, that doesn't mean that you should have worn a helmet.MattC59 wrote:Are you sh*tting me ?
But again just to be clear, most of us use bicycles in such a way that (IMHO) the wearing of a helmet is very much justified given the chances of the sort of head injury that the helmet could (wholly or partially) protect against.
Too subtle. You'll not get anywhere with that.0 -
Come on, man. We've all got drunk and crapped in somebody's shoe but apologised the next day.P_Tucker wrote:
Ah, so if you say something, realise you've made a tw*t of yourself and issue a retraction the next day, that means you didn't originally say what you actually said. Makes sense.TKF wrote:P_Tucker wrote:
Errrrr....Wiggins wrote:Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on. You shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on. You should have lights on. Once there are laws passed for cyclists then you are protected and you can say, ‘Well I have done everything to be protected and be safe.’Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest. I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I involved In an accident. I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought0 -
Yeah, the difference is we've never done it in public and we don't have enough public KUDOS that politicians might well have jumped on the crapping in shoe bandwagon.
TBH, I could forgive him if it wasn't for his f*cking haricut.0 -
Who cares really?
Its a guys opinion, hes allowed to have one. If you dont want to wear a helmet then dont.
Personnally I find it completely retarded to not wear one. Doesnt add any weight, not uncomfortable and protect the most vulnerable part of your body. I was recently hit by a taxi, no major damage to myself just a badly sprained wrist and a cracked rib. However my helmet was cracked all the way through where my head hit the floor or the car. I dont want to think what i would have been like without that helmet.
But each to their own0 -
What an offensive statement ...benhben wrote:Personnally I find it completely retarded to not wear one.
Arguably not the most vulnerable - it's protected by a mass of bone - there are loads of more vulnerable bits of your body - but it does protect one of the most VITAL parts ...benhben wrote:Doesnt add any weight, not uncomfortable and protect the most vulnerable part of your body.
Most sensible bit of your post ...benhben wrote:If you dont want to wear a helmet then dont.0 -
What an offensive statement ....[/quote][/quote]Slowbike wrote:benhben wrote:Personnally I find it completely retarded to not wear one.
Not really,
In my opinion its idiotic not to wear one, but Im not going to stop anyone in the street and preech to them about the benefits.
All adults and all can make their own desicions and live with any possible consequences.0 -
If you are going to throw pejoratives around you are (at the very least) obliged to soundly justify them if you are not to be seen as offensive.benhben wrote:In my opinion its idiotic not to wear one
Otherwise I could just say "in my opinion, it's idiotic not to wear a tie in public". The statement implies (in the logical sense of the word) that people who don't wear ties are idiots, and thus is clearly offensive unless justified. It may still be offensive even if it is justified, but that's a more subtle question.
So would you care to elaborate, in the light of the arguments that have already been put forward on this thread? (please try to avoid repetition).0 -
neeb wrote:
If you are going to throw pejoratives around you are (at the very least) obliged to soundly justify them if you are not to be seen as offensive.benhben wrote:In my opinion its idiotic not to wear one
Otherwise I could just say "in my opinion, it's idiotic not to wear a tie in public". The statement implies (in the logical sense of the word) that people who don't wear ties are idiots, and thus is clearly offensive unless justified. It may still be offensive even if it is justified, but that's a more subtle question.
So would you care to elaborate, in the light of the arguments that have already been put forward on this thread? (please try to avoid repetition).
I think there have been more than enough threads and thousands of posts stating why one may think others are "stupid" not to wear a helmet without me needing to repeat them all. Having had first hand experience of an accident which resulted in a smashed helmet but no head injuries I have more than enough experience to "justify" to myself the benefits of wearing one
As for being offended lol, as I stated its my opinion and shouldnt offend anyone. Who cares what I think and likewise who cares what you think.
If your think the protection offered by a helmet doesnt justify wearing one then dont. Your old enough to make your own decision and not have a strop when someone disagrees.0 -
Yes - the use of the term "retarded" is offensive.benhben wrote:
You are entitled to an opinion - I happen to not agree with you as you don't always know why they are not wearing a helmet ..benhben wrote:In my opinion its idiotic not to wear one, but Im not going to stop anyone in the street and preech to them about the benefits.
Brilliant - I agree with that ...benhben wrote:All adults and all can make their own desicions and live with any possible consequences.0 -
Except they have all been clearly shown to be based on false reasoning or misunderstanding, at least for general statements like the one you are making (i.e., that it is, irrespective of circumstances, stupid not to wear a helmet).benhben wrote:I think there have been more than enough threads and thousands of posts stating why one may think others are "stupid" not to wear a helmet without me needing to repeat them all.
So if it was my opinion that Irish people are genetically inferior, that shouldn't offend anyone?benhben wrote:As for being offended lol, as I stated its my opinion and shouldnt offend anyone.
Well, I care what most people think (to lesser or greater extents depending on their reasons for thinking what they do) and presumably none of us would bother to say anything if we didn't think that other people might care what we thought.benhben wrote:Who cares what I think and likewise who cares what you think.0 -
benhben wrote:As for being offended lol, as I stated its my opinion and shouldnt offend anyone.
I'm afraid that's absolute horse sh*t. If you keep it to yourself, then your opinion won't offend anyone, but as soon as you express that opinion, it's content can be offensive.
Why do you not think that suggesting people are retarded, or idiots, might be seen as offensive ?Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
If your offended so easily you lead a sad lifeMattC59 wrote:benhben wrote:As for being offended lol, as I stated its my opinion and shouldnt offend anyone.
I'm afraid that's absolute horse sh*t. If you keep it to yourself, then your opinion won't offend anyone, but as soon as you express that opinion, it's content can be offensive.
Why do you not think that suggesting people are retarded, or idiots, might be seen as offensive ? 0 -
oldwelshman wrote:
If your offended so easily you lead a sad lifeMattC59 wrote:benhben wrote:As for being offended lol, as I stated its my opinion and shouldnt offend anyone.
I'm afraid that's absolute horse sh*t. If you keep it to yourself, then your opinion won't offend anyone, but as soon as you express that opinion, it's content can be offensive.
Why do you not think that suggesting people are retarded, or idiots, might be seen as offensive ?
I'm not.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
Hmm ... Calling people retarded or idiots in order to reinforce your arguments. You are a interesting character. Depending on whereabouts you live in the country, I would like to introduce you to some of the guys I support in the community who have learning difficulties and who are some of the most amazing people I have been priviliged to work with. I would expect better from them. Are there any other minority groups you would like to have a pop at while you are about it?0
