Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

tomasrojo

Ian Walker finally got a chance to address Jake Olivier's "debunking" of his close-pass study:
https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/1062670732432433152

Some stuff here as well:
https://t.co/VeZ6JzCmJZ

magicbastarder

GCN back on the case. 1:30 in - are helmets distracting from the real debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPqymDuKc-Q

1:30 in.

Mercian Pro

Certain posters here might hope that this is a bonfire��



Happy Christmas all

FreudianSlippers

If you don't wear a helmet cycling you're an idiot.

conkennedy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If you don't wear a helmet cycling you're an idiot.

How is that so?


Most cycling deaths are caused by crush injuries, such as being run over by a truck at a junction or being hit at high speed by a car. Injuries like these are typically to the torso.



A helmet is useless in situations like those.

AndrewJRenko

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If you don't wear a helmet cycling you're an idiot.

Presumably you feel the same way about crash helmets for motorists and passengers, given that far more head injuries occur in cars than on bikes.

conkennedy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Presumably you feel the same way about crash helmets for motorists and passengers, given that far more head injuries occur in cars than on bikes.

And, 4 times as many people die annually from head injuries sustained by falling down their stairs than do form cycle injuries.

Eamonnator

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If you don't wear a helmet cycling you're an idiot.

Well done, a really well thought out post, relevant , cogent and to the point.
You cut to the heart of the matter in one simple sentence.

FreudianSlippers

conkennedy wrote: »

And, 4 times as many people die annually from head injuries sustained by falling down their stairs than do form cycle injuries.

Thanks for your opinion. I'll await your facts that support this.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Presumably you feel the same way about crash helmets for motorists and passengers, given that far more head injuries occur in cars than on bikes.

This is such a deflection that it's almost amusing. We put massive amounts of safety equipment into cars to prevent injury. You can engage in any level of whataboutery you want, but it doesn't change the simple facts.

Eamonnator wrote: »

Well done, a really well thought out post, relevant , cogent and to the point.
You cut to the heart of the matter in one simple sentence.

Thanks! I thought so too.

tomasrojo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Thanks for your opinion. I'll await your facts that support this.


This is such a deflection that it's almost amusing. We put massive amounts of safety equipment into cars to prevent injury. You can engage in any level of whataboutery you want, but it doesn't change the simple facts.


Thanks! I thought so too.

You should probably cast an eye over the 130+ pages over your shoulder.

tomasrojo

On the falling down stairs numbers, I'm not going to devote much time to it, but UK statistics appear at the top of a search on DuckDuckGo, and they have 1000 people dying falling down stairs in the UK in 2000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/790609.stm


While a fairly typical number dying cycling on the roads in the UK these days is about 100:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/02/misleading-uk-cycling-casualty-statistics

Given that this is 10:1 rather than 4:1, I'm willing to conclude that, if I could be bothered expending more effort to get totally relevant statistics, the 4:1 statistic for Ireland probably isn't an exaggeration.

RebelButtMunch

I had l low speed crash on my bike and tapped my helmet off the road. Totally glad it was my helmet and not my head that took the hit. I'll always wear one. I don't see the reasoning not to when cycling

FreudianSlippers

tomasrojo wrote: »

On the falling down stairs numbers, I'm not going to devote much time to it, but UK statistics appear at the top of a search on DuckDuckGo, and they have 1000 people dying falling down stairs in the UK in 2000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/790609.stm


While a fairly typical number dying cycling on the roads in the UK these days is about 100:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/02/misleading-uk-cycling-casualty-statistics

Given that this is 10:1 rather than 4:1, I'm willing to conclude that, if I could be bothered expending more effort to get totally relevant statistics, the 4:1 statistic for Ireland probably isn't an exaggeration.

Nonsense of the highest order in addition to just extreme deflection. You don't want to wear a helmet, so you point to other areas where people get injured and killed. Serious injury is often a worse life than death.

Your second link is to an opinion - that's not factual just in case you were wondering - and is the same idiotic whatabouttery that this thread is full of.

I get you'd rather look cool than wear a helmet, but spoiler alert... you didn't look cool in the first place in your silly outfit and bike.

conkennedy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Thanks for your opinion. I'll await your facts that support this.

And I await your facts on your "Idiot" opinion.


I was about to post something, but tomasrojo beat me to it.

Also, remind me again how a helmet would protect someone from a crush injury... I await you're empirical evidence

tomasrojo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nonsense of the highest order in addition to just extreme deflection. You don't want to wear a helmet, so you point to other areas where people get injured and killed. Serious injury is often a worse life than death.

Your second link is to an opinion - that's not factual just in case you were wondering - and is the same idiotic whatabouttery that this thread is full of.

Why don't you read some of the thread instead of barging in here shouting opinions at people who are kind enough to look up the statistics that you challenged them to provide?

The second link has the fact about 100 cyclist deaths in one calendar year in the UK. I didn't ask you to agree with the sentiment. I was providing a number, as you asked, your majesty.

tomasrojo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I get you'd rather look cool than wear a helmet, but spoiler alert... you didn't look cool in the first place in your silly outfit and bike.

I wear normal clothes. Because cycling is a reasonably safe activity, and moderate exertion doesn't require special clothes.

FreudianSlippers

conkennedy wrote: »

And I await your facts on your "Idiot" opinion.


I was about to post something, but tomasrojo beat me to it.

Also, remind me again how a helmet would protect someone from a crush injury... I await you're empirical evidence

Stick and stones there mate. Sticks and stones.

Firstly, I'm probably better educated and definitely better paid than you.
Second, no facts were posted - an opinion article was linked to.
Third, why are so many cyclists falling down the stairs? Or is it that all cyclists are old? I'm confused about the point of this deflection.

tomasrojo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Firstly, I'm probably better educated and definitely better paid than you.

I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. People know me. I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.

FreudianSlippers

tomasrojo wrote: »

Why don't you read some of the thread instead of barging in here shouting opinions at people who are kind enough to look up the statistics that you challenged them to provide?

The second link has the fact about 100 cyclist deaths in one calendar year in the UK. I didn't ask you to agree with the sentiment. I was providing a number, as you asked, your majesty.

My problem isn't the number of people falling down the stairs or getting injured playing darts or whatever the **** point you THINK you're making.

My issue is that it is totally irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that cyclists should wear helmets. Pointing out that people get injured in other areas is totally irrelevant.

FreudianSlippers

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. People know me. I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.

Apartments are where poor people live with other people that they find on Craigslist or whatever?

tomasrojo

This is very poor trolling. You should perhaps use some of your fabulous salary to pay someone with a prose style and some wit to do it for you.

FreudianSlippers

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is very poor trolling. You should perhaps use some of your fabulous salary to pay someone with a prose style and some wit to do it for you.

I'm not seeing a lot from you here either. Maybe give me something to work with? Too many head injuries from cycling methinks.

conkennedy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Stick and stones there mate. Sticks and stones.

Yes, you were the ones throwing them

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Firstly, I'm probably better educated and definitely better paid than you.

Really?... hmmm... Unlikely both occasions, perhaps? Who knows? Perhaps you'll tell me that your daddy is better than my daddy? Either way, what's that go to do with the price of butter?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Second, no facts were posted - an opinion article was linked to.

No, you stated an opinion and pretended it was fact.


You said:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If you don't wear a helmet cycling you're an idiot.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Third, why are so many cyclists falling down the stairs? Or is it that all cyclists are old? I'm confused about the point of this deflection.

No one said anything about cyclists falling down stairs. Stop obfuscating. That last comment negates your second point about education

tomasrojo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not seeing a lot from you here either. Maybe give me something to work with? Too many head injuries from cycling methinks.

Touché. I'm out. Can't compete with this.

conkennedy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Pointing out that people get injured in other areas is totally irrelevant.

No it's not, it's about a frequency and likely hood of injury. It's a comparrison.

FreudianSlippers

conkennedy wrote: »

Yes, you were the ones throwing them

Put on a helmet then?

Really?... hmmm... Unlikely both occasions, perhaps? Who knows? Perhaps you'll tell me that your daddy is better than my daddy? Either way, what's that go to do with the price of butter?

*raises hand*
I think I know...

conkennedy wrote: »

pretendet it was fact.

conkennedy wrote: »

No it's not, it's about a frequency and likely hood of injury. It's a comparrison.

You said:

That is what I said. Then someone else attempted to refute it by saying people fall down the stairs. I don't see the correlation either!

No one said anything about cyclists falling down stairs. Stop obfuscating. That last comment negates your second point about education

No, someone seems to be suggesting that cyclists shouldn't wear helmets because people get injured doing other things. It's ridiculous.

FreudianSlippers

tomasrojo wrote: »

Touché. I'm out. Can't compete with this.

Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. I'll come visit.

conkennedy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Put on a helmet then?

Is your aim that good?

cython

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

My problem isn't the number of people falling down the stairs or getting injured playing darts or whatever the **** point you THINK you're making.

My issue is that it is totally irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that cyclists should wear helmets. Pointing out that people get injured in other areas is totally irrelevant.

Unless of course they want to be afforded a bit more clearance when overtaken, perhaps? Your blind assertion assumes that there is no downside to helmet wearing, and several studies indicate otherwise (the above is just one, others have suggested that in some injury cases the helmet exacerbated the damage).

And frankly other rates of injuries are completely relevant, since if you are naive enough to call any a cyclist "an idiot" for not wearing a helmet then presumably you would regard drivers and passengers in vehicles as equally idiotic since there is a demonstrably higher rate of head injuries in collisions involving them? Or is that inconvenient to you?

AndrewJRenko

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is such a deflection that it's almost amusing. We put massive amounts of safety equipment into cars to prevent injury. You can engage in any level of whataboutery you want, but it doesn't change the simple facts.
.

You're absolutely right - it doesn't change the simple facts that far more head injuries occur in cars than on bikes - so why would you not be pushing people to wear crash helmets when in a car?