Ride safe, get a decent helmet.

your views Elliott are super extreme, as Frenchtart said, it's not as clear cut as you may think :) I am speaking from experience of hitting my head into concrete, seeing others do the same and haven't seen a single death! maybe lucky or maybe your views are just twisted and you can't accept the fact that it's not as clear cut as you say it is.
 
To which statement of mine do you refer FrenchTart?

I'm fully aware that a blanket rule on helmets does not suit, due to the nature and differences in the cycling as a sport (as a whole), but I have fallen on my head enough times (both off road and on), to not care so much about macro studies that can be argued and interpreted in different ways.

I'm usually one to point fingers at anyone providing anecdotal evidence as proof, but in this case I make exception.

grudas said:
I am speaking from experience of hitting my head into concrete, seeing others do the same and haven't seen a single death! maybe lucky or maybe your views are just twisted and you can't accept the fact that it's not as clear cut as you say it is.
Click to expand...

Yes, but no one's saying all falls result in death. Injury, even minor is surely not preferable to just wearing a lid?
 
To be honest I think I conflated some of your posts with someone else's.

I found the "one less idiot in the gene pool" comment a bit distasteful. I completely agree with the helmet rules you enforce in your riding club/etc.

I have an issue with people that make invalid assumptions about helmets and road/leisure cycling and post essentially rants about how stupid they are. Not to mention victim-blaming in the event of crashes. For example, ran over by a lorry and you will often see mentioned "wasn't wearing a helmet". There's similar stuff said about people listening to music all the time and it's also completely not backed up by evidence (in fact, again, evidence suggesting otherwise exists).
 
grudas said:
:)
Click to expand...

Oh, OK I missed that.

FrenchTart said:
To be honest I think I conflated some of your posts with someone else's.

I found the "one less idiot in the gene pool" comment a bit distasteful. I completely agree with the helmet rules you enforce in your riding club/etc.
Click to expand...

Fair comment, though I was more referring to his extreme examples, ignoring the vast chasm in the middle of said examples.
 
FrenchTart said:
To be honest I think I conflated some of your posts with someone else's.

I found the "one less idiot in the gene pool" comment a bit distasteful. I completely agree with the helmet rules you enforce in your riding club/etc.

I have an issue with people that make invalid assumptions about helmets and road/leisure cycling and post essentially rants about how stupid they are. Not to mention victim-blaming in the event of crashes. For example, ran over by a lorry and you will often see mentioned "wasn't wearing a helmet". There's similar stuff said about people listening to music all the time and it's also completely not backed up by evidence (in fact, again, evidence suggesting otherwise exists).
Click to expand...

bang on that.
 
Speaking of macro studies - I would love to understand where this incident of mine would be categorised.

(Regulars in the MTB thread have seen this pic a few times)

30 feet to flat, onto sand that's been frozen solid. This was the sick note I sent to my manager at the time:

Untitled.png


So, in this case, the helmet was totalled and did what it's supposed to do.

Statistically speaking... was wearing a helmet a good thing, or a bad thing? Was it better for my health, or was it worse? Wearing the helmet may have saved my life, BUT, it also stands to reason that it contributed to me trying the gap in the first place.

Did wearing a helmet contribute to my clavicular dislocation, rotator cuff tear and being knocked out cold?

The above is obviously a polar example, but is also the reason I do not bother with studies, and prefer to rely on anecdotal evidence.
 
Eliot said:
This whole helmet or no helmet argument falls flat on it's face when you read Phil W's post below.

This happens all the time, Should Phil W's mate not have worn a helmet then?

What about this guy?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3064133/Cyclist-s-shocking-image-mangled-helmet-escaped-death-hit-recycling-van-way-work-shared-34-MILLION-times.html

What about when skiing should I give up there as well?
Click to expand...

so lets say someone gets stabbed a few streets from where you live.

Now are you going to wear a stab proof vest every time you leave the house?

because it's the same logic you are showing with your extreme examples

your logic is also likely why america has so many gun owners
 
FrenchTart said:
I'm sure the helmet did you good in that example.

That said, I can't believe you posted this as part of your argument :eek:
Click to expand...

My point being, is that I do not know, how stats have been compiled in this specific example. My example of Boardman being exhibit A.

Sure, I agree that my lid did me good and saved my life (anecdotal), but what would the stats have shown?
 
grudas said:
your views Elliott are super extreme, as Frenchtart said, it's not as clear cut as you may think :) I am speaking from experience of hitting my head into concrete, seeing others do the same and haven't seen a single death! maybe lucky or maybe your views are just twisted and you can't accept the fact that it's not as clear cut as you say it is.
Click to expand...

How are my views extreme exactly.

I have referenced someone in this thread who's mate has fallen on a rock only the other day, His mate was wearing a helmet and is fine. He would not be fine if he wasn't wearing a helmet its pretty simple and uncontroversial.

I have also shown the viral image of that guys helmet,
He had stitches, But without that helmet would certainly be "NOT" fine.


What about Geriant Thomas in stage 16? I think he would be in hospital without his helmet to be honest.
Finished the race though, which is nice.

All of the above is factual, I'm just saying that the no-helmet argument always seems to avoid the outcome where the helmet has quite clearly done it's work.
Regardless off how often it is on a statistical level, I have had personally exposure to two events in 3 days that prove that they work in some circumstances,
A) Watching that crash into a lamp post in the tour (G Thomas)
B) the fact Phil W just commented about his mate bashing his head in a thread which actually only seems to contain about 10-15 unique posters

Not a huge sample but it seems enough to make my fairly unscientific response of "I think they did their job there". When referring to the use of a helmet while riding a bike, fairly justified and un-"Extreme"
Again, Only over 3 days so I'm sure there will be more this week, Month or year.

More dead with, More dead without, Some people damaged for life and some that quite clearly have been wearing a helmet and it's made a difference, Such as the two cases above and "that viral DM article".
 
Eliot said:
How are my views extreme exactly.

I have referenced someone in this thread who's mate has fallen on a rock only the other day, His mate was wearing a helmet and is fine. He would not be fine if he wasn't wearing a helmet its pretty simple and uncontroversial.

I have also shown the viral image of that guys helmet,
He had stitches, But without that helmet would certainly be "NOT" fine.


What about Geriant Thomas in stage 16? I think he would be in hospital without his helmet to be honest.
Finished the race though, which is nice.

All of the above is factual, I'm just saying that the no-helmet argument always seems to avoid the outcome where the helmet has quite clearly done it's work.
Regardless off how often it is on a statistical level, I have had personally exposure to two events in 3 days that prove that they work in some circumstances,
A) Watching that crash into a lamp post in the tour (G Thomas)
B) the fact Phil W just commented about his mate bashing his head in a thread which actually only seems to contain about 10-15 unique posters

Not a huge sample but it seems enough to make my fairly unscientific response of "I think they did their job there". When referring to the use of a helmet while riding a bike, fairly justified and un-"Extreme"
Again, Only over 3 days so I'm sure there will be more this week, Month or year.

More dead with, More dead without, Some people damaged for life and some that quite clearly have been wearing a helmet and it's made a difference, Such as the two cases above and "that viral DM article".
Click to expand...

how can you call it a fact when you haven't seen out comes of both situations? maybe his mate wouldn't have been going as fast without, maybe he wouldnt have crashed because he was going slower?

maybe the guy would not have been hit by a van if the driver saw he was without a helmet and gave him more room? cmon.
 
Supercow said:
My point being, is that I do not know, how stats have been compiled in this specific example. My example of Boardman being exhibit A.

Sure, I agree that my lid did me good and saved my life (anecdotal), but what would the stats have shown?
Click to expand...

F-all
Hence why this argument is flawed, There is no one going around with a clipboard saying "hi there, Out of 1 to 5 how do you perceive the helmet's use in saving you from a head injury" the moment you fall off and bash your head.

Because if it saves you, Its probably that you got up, rode off and thought "F that was close" and that's that.
 
grudas said:
how can you call it a fact when you haven't seen out comes of both situations? maybe his mate wouldn't have been going as fast without, maybe he wouldnt have crashed because he was going slower?

maybe the guy would not have been hit by a van if the driver saw he was without a helmet and gave him more room? cmon.
Click to expand...

Because the maybe's are irrelevant. He hit his head and his head is fine.

We cannot make assumptions about everything else because that's essentially just chaos theory.....

You can apply it both ways. It doesn't make that remotely useful.

I might not perceive my use of a helmet as much as a "safety net" as everyone else and might act exactly the same with or without, There's no way of knowing either way..

Prove god doesn't exist? etc
 
Eliot said:
Because the maybe's are irrelevant. He hit his head and his head is fine.

We cannot make assumptions about everything else because that's essentially just chaos theory.....

You can apply it both ways. It doesn't make that remotely useful.

I might not perceive my use of a helmet as much as a "safety net" as everyone else and might act exactly the same with or without, There's no way of knowing either way..

Prove god doesn't exist? etc
Click to expand...

yes but as an example I have hit MY HEAD into a rock while on my bmx a few times and bar cuts I have no other injuries?! see what I'm trying to say here? its not as simple as "wear a helmet and you'll be good" weren't helmets required by EU laws to withstand 12mph impacts? if so, my daily commute is literally in the death zone, all day long? should I get a motorbike helmet? :o
 
grudas said:
yes but as an example I have hit MY HEAD into a rock while on my bmx a few times and bar cuts I have no other injuries?! see what I'm trying to say here? its not as simple as "wear a helmet and you'll be good" weren't helmets required by EU laws to withstand 12mph impacts? if so, my daily commute is literally in the death zone, all day long? should I get a motorbike helmet? :o
Click to expand...

I have never said that though?

As above, I said there will be more deaths with or without, The point I'm making is that the data is **** anyway, Because if you end up on the statistics, you were in hospital.
Yes, you have hit your head, you are fine and that's great.
Surely you can see that it may not have turned out that way, You MUST not have hit your head hard enough to cause damage because you didn't, other people (or maybe yourself in slightly difference conditions, a bigger, sharper rock or whatever) can and will be doing so (like the guy with the viral image that hit a car) maybe Phil w's mate could be one of them, neither of us know. I'd rather be the guy wearing the helmet in a hit like yours than not though.

Either way, If I was wearing one, hit the same rock you did and it saved my brain and I got up and walked off, we would never know.
I doubt in a hit like that you are going to be at an increased risk while wearing a helmet than not.
 
a lot of the anti-helmet lot seem to be focusing on it not preventing death and totally ignoring benefits to preventing brain injuries. maybe its a few too many bangs to the head..

;)
 
You should see the dent in my mates helmet. He was also knocked out.

There was a story about a MTBiker a while back that had an innocent off but his leg got caught in something and ripped open an artery. If his mate hadn't have been there the paramedics reckon he had 1-2mins before game over
 
neil_g said:
a lot of the anti-helmet lot seem to be focusing on it not preventing death and totally ignoring benefits to preventing brain injuries. maybe its a few too many bangs to the head..

;)
Click to expand...

must be why holland has so few helmet wearers then yet one of the safest places to cycle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom