Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

The helmet thread

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.
View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
178
10.66%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
94
5.63%
I've always worn a helmet
648
38.80%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
408
24.43%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
342
20.48%
Voters: 1670. You may not vote on this poll

The helmet thread

Old 03-01-12, 01:16 PM
  #1676  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by corvuscorvax
There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that life jackets save lives.
Personally speaking I would never go swimming without a lifejacket. I went in the water with one and got some water in my mouth when a wave splashed me and I would have died if I didn't have it on. I can also show you tons of papers based on research done by three people sponsored by the lifejacket industry which convinces me (because I'm statistically illiterate) that lifejackets are SCIENCE FACT!

Anyway, I tend to like to swim around motorboats and jetskis, so I feel the lifejacket is necessary. Think about it: would you rather be run into by a jetski while wearing a lifejacket or not?
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 01:18 PM
  #1677  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by mconlonx
Look, I don't disagree with studies showing that as cycling rates increase, injury rates decrease, but you seem to want to conflate this somehow with the helmet debate
Only in that helmet promotion relies on promoting fear of injury while riding a bicycle. This has been shown to decrease the amount of cycling.

For the life of me I could not find that quote in the cited document..
You need to read the study.

Cyclists were separated into 4 different groups. The control group, receive Helmet information, receive helmet only, and receive both helmet and information.

The cyclists were then tracked. The observations showed the control group cycled the most, and each successive group rode less.

Is this entirely definitive? Of course not, but it does correspond with other data that has shown helmet promotion has been followed by a decrease of cycling, resulting in the opposite of the well meaning intentions.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 01:21 PM
  #1678  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
You repeated the myth that "Helmets are designed to mitigate minor injuries."
In response to your assertion that helmets were useful in motor-vehicle versus bicycle crashes. And I specified quite clearly that what I meant was that they were designed for a limited situation in which the bicycle user was involved in a simple fall and that helmets could only possibly address a small, specific window of impact energy.
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
As to the science, there is abundant scientific research that helmets can protect against more than "minor injuries." See my previous posts for links.
If you have nothing better than TRT to back up your claims then you've been posting at length about one of the most unconvincing cohort studies ever to have graced this topic.
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 02:03 PM
  #1679  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
You need to read the study.
I did read it: again, where specifically in the study is the stat you quoted. You probably need to read it again, too, since you are quoting part of the study way out of context with the study as a whole, which concluded that information about helmets only do not lead to greater helmet use, that helmet use even with those who were given helmets tailed off after four months or so, and that if they want people to use helmets more, they are going to have to take a different approach to the methods they actually studied.

Also, that particular study has very, very little relevance in my situaiton, or yours for that matter--location, culture, helmet use in the general population to begin with. And they're French.

Cherry-pick it to death all you want, the conclusion of the study, the reason it was conducted in the first place, has nothing to do with what you posted.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 02:08 PM
  #1680  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
closet

Do you just whine against helmets since you have a helmet law there?
I should also add that some of the comments I appreciate from six relate to this linked commentary from Michael Bluejay's excellent bicycle safety page - www.bicyclesafe.com

When six posted

Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
Interesting, too, that helmets become such a dominating focus for some people where bike safety is concerned. But there's so much more to it than just that: maintaining awareness of physical road hazards, learning how to interact with cars and other bikes and pedestrians, learning how to maintain your bike, establishing personal visibility, etc.
I wonder if his concern for these factors he mentioned are ranked higher, or lower than the use of helmets.

After all, six did also post

Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
... it's an individual judgement call whether one wants to wear a helmet.
Can six accept the judgements and choice of the people who do not wear helmets as being equally valid as those judgements and choices he makes?

Last edited by closetbiker; 03-01-12 at 02:13 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 02:23 PM
  #1681  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by mconlonx
I did read it: again, where specifically in the study is the stat you quoted...
The group that received helmets and information were seen at least once only 81% (34/42) as often as the controls, and they were seen on half (113/222) as many trips.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 02:23 PM
  #1682  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
Can six accept the judgements and choice of the people who do not wear helmets as being equally valid as those judgements and choices he makes?
I'm talking about what the research says or doesn't say, not whether you or I are right or wrong about wearing a helmet. Huge difference.

Nope. I'm against anything that doesn't treat cycling or cyclists in a fair and equitable manner. I'd hardly call that being childish.
Yet, you seem to want to scoff at or sweep under the rug any factual data that points to--gasp--actual severe injuries and deaths that occur while cycling. You seem to want to ignore or belittle the abundant science and expert opinion suggesting the safety benefits of helmets. Now if you actually wanted to treat cyclists fairly, you'd present them not with personal arguments or supposition, but with the full array of actual facts so that they can make their own informed decision.
Six-Shooter is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 02:37 PM
  #1683  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
I'm talking about what the research says or doesn't say, not whether you or I are right or wrong about wearing a helmet. Huge difference.
You posted that it's an individuals judgement call on whether or not to wear a helmet. Considering your obvious position, I'm just wondering if you can respect an individual for their own decision?

Yet, you seem to want to scoff at or sweep under the rug any factual data that points to--gasp--actual severe injuries and deaths that occur while cycling.
Not at all. I fully accept that there is risk in not only cycling, but in everything we do. I simply look at the risks of cycling in context.

You seem to want to ignore or belittle the abundant science and expert opinion suggesting the safety benefits of helmets.
Not at all. I simply understand that there is contradictory evidence on the subject and that the efficacy of helmets is in question.

Now if you actually wanted to treat cyclists fairly, you'd present them not with personal arguments or supposition, but with the full array of actual facts so that they can make their own informed decision.
Full array of facts. That's a good one.

But seriously, you don't expect people to form opinions after considering the full array of facts? After you have presented your own opinions quite clearly?

Last edited by closetbiker; 03-01-12 at 02:42 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 02:39 PM
  #1684  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Anyone else getting "Database" errors when trying to access BikeForums...?

Last edited by mconlonx; 03-01-12 at 02:40 PM. Reason: duplicate
mconlonx is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 02:43 PM
  #1685  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by mconlonx
Anyone else getting "Database" errors when trying to access BikeForums...?
All morning...

on the upside, it's given me some extra time to do something far more fun than post with those who have a passionate disagreement with me


Last edited by closetbiker; 03-01-12 at 03:19 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 02:44 PM
  #1686  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr
If you have nothing better than TRT to back up your claims then you've been posting at length about one of the most unconvincing cohort studies ever to have graced this topic.
What on earth leads you to believe I'm just referring to one study? Again, there are many that suggest some protective effects against more severe injury beyond little bumps and scrapes for some or all users. For instance:

Amoros et al. 2011
Bicycle helmet wearing and the risk of head, face, and neck injury: a French case–control study based on a road trauma registry
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont.../1/27.abstract

Berg et al. 2007
A decrease in both mild and severe bicycle-related head injuries in helmet wearing ages—trend analyses in Sweden
https://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/3/191.full

Carr et al. 1995
Evaluation of the Bicycle Helmet Wearing Law in Victoria during its First Four Years
https://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear.../muarc076.html

Cook et al. 2000
Trends in serious head injuries among cyclists in England: analysis of routinely collected data
https://www.bmj.com/content/321/7268/1055.short

Cook and Sheik 2003
Trends in serious head injuries among English cyclists and pedestrians.
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/266.full

Cummings et al. 2005
Changes in traffic crash mortality rates attributed to use of alcohol, or lack of a seat belt, air bag, motorcycle helmet, or bicycle helmet, United States, 1982–2001
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...3/148.abstract

Finvers et al. 1996
The effect of bicycling helmets in preventing significant bicycle-related injuries in children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8673566

Kelsch et al. 1996
Craniocerebral trauma in fall from bicycles--what is the effect of a protective helmet?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8685726

Linn et al. 1998
Epidemiology of bicycle injury, head injury, and helmet use among children in British Columbia: a five year descriptive study
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...2/122.abstract

Maimaris et al. 1994
Injury patterns in cyclists attending an accident and emergency
department: a comparison of helmet wearers and non-wearers
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00444-0023.pdf

etc.
Six-Shooter is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 02:51 PM
  #1687  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
The group that received helmets and information were seen at least once only 81% (34/42) as often as the controls, and they were seen on half (113/222) as many trips.
Introduction

Half of fatal injuries among bicyclists are head injuries. While helmet use is likely to provide protection, their use often remains rare. We assessed the influence of strategies for promotion of helmet use with direct observation of behaviour by a semi-automatic video system.

Methods

We performed a single-centre randomised controlled study, with 4 balanced randomisation groups. Participants were non-helmet users, aged 18–75 years, recruited at a loan facility in the city of Bordeaux, France. After completing a questionnaire investigating their attitudes towards road safety and helmet use, participants were randomly assigned to three groups with the provision of “helmet only”, “helmet and information” or “information only”, and to a fourth control group. Bikes were labelled with a colour code designed to enable observation of helmet use by participants while cycling, using a 7-spot semi-automatic video system located in the city. A total of 1557 participants were included in the study.

Results

Between October 15th 2009 and September 28th 2010, 2621 cyclists' movements, made by 587 participants, were captured by the video system. Participants seen at least once with a helmet amounted to 6.6% of all observed participants, with higher rates in the two groups that received a helmet at baseline. The likelihood of observed helmet use was significantly increased among participants of the “helmet only” group (OR = 7.73 [2.09–28.5]) and this impact faded within six months following the intervention. No effect of information delivery was found.

Conclusion

Providing a helmet may be of value, but will not be sufficient to achieve high rates of helmet wearing among adult cyclists. Integrated and repeated prevention programmes will be needed, including free provision of helmets, but also information on the protective effect of helmets and strategies to increase peer and parental pressure.

-----------------------

Study was not assessing influcence of helmet use or information regarding helmet use as it impacted ridership; study was not wide enough to draw useful conclusions; study participation was paltry and any specifics, like the one you quoted, extremely tenuous.

You are completely misrepresenting the study, results, and any relevance. You are reading what you want into the study, cherry picking figures, and presenting them here as fact when even the authors have to acknowledge that their figures are not reliable or representative.

If this is all you got regarding ridership/helmet use relationship where MHLs are not in place, it is incredibly weak as to be meaningless. The fact that you present it here as some kind of "proof" is pathetic.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 02:55 PM
  #1688  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
You posted that it's an individuals judgement call on whether or not to wear a helmet. Considering your obvious position, I'm just wondering if you can respect an individual for their own decision?
Believe it or not, some of us are grown-ups and can respect different views. You repeatedly leap to the conclusion that someone saying something good about helmets is trying to force others to wear them. That's both false and paranoid.

Not at all. I simply understand that there is contradictory evidence on the subject and that the efficacy of helmets is in question.
I would recommend you keep digging. The substantive debate is on the long-term effects, good and bad, of helmet laws, not helmets, where's there's broad uniformity of general expert opinion and research.

But seriously, you don't expect people to form opinions after considering the full array of facts? After you have presented your own opinions quite clearly?
What I expect is for most people to leap to a personally comfortable conclusion, maybe try to justify it with something they read somewhere on the Internet, and then try to push it on others while simultaneously belittling them. And my expectations have been met

Last edited by Six-Shooter; 03-01-12 at 03:00 PM.
Six-Shooter is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 03:00 PM
  #1689  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
The group that received helmets and information were seen at least once only 81% (34/42) as often as the controls, and they were seen on half (113/222) as many trips.
Outcomes

Participants seen at least once with a helmet amounted to 6.6% of all observed participants (Table 2), with higher rates in the two groups who received a helmet at baseline (helmet only: 11.4%; helmet and information: 9.2%) as compared with the others (control: 3.7%; information only: 3.2%; p = 0.008). Helmet use was observed in 3.8% (99 out of 2621) of observed movements, with higher rates in movements of participants who received a helmet at baseline (helmet only: 10.0%; helmet and information: 5.1%) as compared with the others (control: 1.1%; information only: 0.8%; p<0.001).

---------------------

So those receiving helmets only, no information showed the most movement of all, with even more observations of those riders with helmets than those without who participated in the control group.

Using your logic, I guess that means if we hand out helmets without providing information, ridership will increase.

According to this study you posted...
mconlonx is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 03:05 PM
  #1690  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by mconlonx
You are completely misrepresenting the study, results, and any relevance. You are reading what you want into the study, cherry picking figures, and presenting them here as fact when even the authors have to acknowledge that their figures are not reliable or representative.
not really. I actually received notice of the results via 3 influential professionals; a physician, public health consultant, and a senior statistician. All have published papers in peer reviewed journals and have been cited by respected sources. You might not be reading the tables correctly. Sorry, but I'd place my faith in their more qualified analysis than yours (or mine, for that matter)

If this is all you got regarding ridership/helmet use relationship where MHLs are not in place, it is incredibly weak as to be meaningless. The fact that you present it here as some kind of "proof" is pathetic.
of course it isn't all I've got and I didn't say it was proof of anything, just another indication that the obvious results of the message of helmet promotion that claims, cycling is dangerous.

How can cycling be dangerous if cyclists live longer on average than the general population?

(oh, don't tell me you have problems with that now too?)

Last edited by closetbiker; 03-01-12 at 03:13 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 03:11 PM
  #1691  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
Believe it or not, some of us are grown-ups and can respect different views. You repeatedly leap to the conclusion that someone saying something good about helmets is trying to force others to wear them. That's both false and paranoid.
Geez. Just can't bring yourself to it, can you? I can respect your decision to wear a helmet. I can even respect you have a different view. If I met you on the street and you said something about my lack of helmet, I'd be tolerant, listen to what you had to say, thank you for your opinion, smile and ride away. To flog your view as fact, and not opinion, on a discussion thread is another matter.

I would recommend you keep digging. The substantive debate is on the long-term effects, good and bad, of helmet laws, not helmets, where's there's broad uniformity of general expert opinion and research.


What I expect is for most people to leap to a personally comfortable conclusion, maybe try to justify it with something they read somewhere on the Internet, and then try to push it on others while simultaneously belittling them...
Good show. That sounds just like what you've done.

Last edited by closetbiker; 03-01-12 at 03:25 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 03:25 PM
  #1692  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
The "ignorance is bliss" emoticon. Show me some scientific studies or medical organizations, please, that suggest bicycle helmets increase injuries or have no effect at all. You'll find few. But please don't muddle laws up in the issue, as you are wont to do. I think a) we all dislike helmet laws and b) understand their overall results are still up for debate.

Good show. That sounds just like what you've done.
On the contrary, my opinion has changed since I started studying the issue in depth and independently of the misleading BS on Wikipedia, cyclehelmets.org, etc. I had assumed that helmets might prevent minor road rash and maybe protect against more serious things if you're lucky. But the actual scientific research has painted a different picture of greater protective effects than I would have anticipated. I also support the free flow of info on the topic and don't think we should hide or downplay info about dangers just to supposedly boost cycling numbers. An informed cyclist will hopefully be a safer cyclist.
Six-Shooter is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 03:33 PM
  #1693  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
The "ignorance is bliss" emoticon. Show me some scientific studies or medical organizations, please, that suggest bicycle helmets increase injuries or have no effect at all. You'll find few. But please don't muddle laws up in the issue, as you are wont to do. I think a) we all dislike helmet laws and b) understand their overall results are still up for debate.
A couple of works have already been posted since you started posting on the thread. If you choose not to consider them, that's your choice, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.

On the contrary, my opinion has changed since I started studying the issue in depth and independently of the misleading BS on Wikipedia, cyclehelmets.org, etc. I had assumed that helmets might prevent minor road rash and maybe protect against more serious things if you're lucky. But the actual scientific research has painted a different picture of greater protective effects than I would have anticipated. I also support the free flow of info on the topic and don't think we should hide or downplay info about dangers just to supposedly boost cycling numbers. An informed cyclist will hopefully be a safer cyclist.
Wow. That's quite remarkable. I understand this is your take on it, but evidence shows, your take is quite apart from reality.

I think that in all the time I've been looking into this issue (and I'm sure I've been doing this far longer than you) you are the only person that has found a helmet has greater protective qualities than was previously thought. Most people found that it has less than previously thought.

And the BS on wiki and cychelmets.org? You have to admit there are recognized, peer reviewed papers referenced there and fully qualified people providing the data. Aren't you being a little selective in your choice of what you are looking at? If it's so universally understood that helmets provide the benefits you think they do, why isn't the wiki entry representative of that view?

I guess your response answers the question I had already asked and was just going to ask again. I'll assume you think a helmet should be top priority in the bicycle safety chain of effectiveness.

Last edited by closetbiker; 03-01-12 at 08:16 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 03:48 PM
  #1694  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
of course it isn't all I've got and I didn't say it was proof of anything, just another indication that the obvious results of the message of helmet promotion that claims, cycling is dangerous.

How can cycling be dangerous if cyclists live longer on average than the general population?

(oh, don't tell me you have problems with that now too?)
You and your reading comprehension issues...

So, still no real evidence to suggest that helmet use outside of places with MHLs in effect discourages cycling. Got it.

Remember: you're the one claiming cycling is dangerous; I'm the one saying it's not, helmet use or no.

There's plenty of stuff I agree with you about. Voluntary helmet use discouraging cycling is not one of them; the "dangers" of cycling is another.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 04:10 PM
  #1695  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by mconlonx
You and your reading comprehension issues...

So, still no real evidence to suggest that helmet use outside of places with MHLs in effect discourages cycling. Got it.

Remember: you're the one claiming cycling is dangerous; I'm the one saying it's not, helmet use or no.

There's plenty of stuff I agree with you about. Voluntary helmet use discouraging cycling is not one of them; the "dangers" of cycling is another.
well, no evidence that you think is valid.

I'm not claiming cycling is dangerous, I'm saying you can't promote helmets without explaining cyclists need them because of the danger of riding a bicycle.

As you do, I claim cycling is not dangerous
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 06:46 PM
  #1696  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
The distraction argument again.

I love how the use of actual data and scientific evidence to back a claim is "spamming" It's like I've stumbled into a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. Don't wear a helmet! It can upset the humors and might even make the road spirits angry! Plus, if you're suspected of being a witch and are dunked, it will help make you float and prove your guilt!
Yeah, we get it. When you post it's "science" and when anyone else posts it's distraction and voodoo. But hey, it's easier than thinking!
Six jours is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 08:26 PM
  #1697  
Bicikli Huszár
 
sudo bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116

Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
The distraction argument again.
Context != distraction.
sudo bike is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 08:31 PM
  #1698  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
well, no evidence that you think is valid.

I'm not claiming cycling is dangerous, I'm saying you can't promote helmets without explaining cyclists need them because of the danger of riding a bicycle.

As you do, I claim cycling is not dangerous
No evidence you've provided that I think is valid, anyway. That last tripe you posted sure isn't.

Just a couple pages back I called you out for saying bicycling is dangerous. Maybe go back and check?

Helmets aren't promoted because of the danger of riding a bicycle... they're for if you happen to fall off of one.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 03-01-12, 09:03 PM
  #1699  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by mconlonx
... Just a couple pages back I called you out for saying bicycling is dangerous. Maybe go back and check?
Can't find it. Maybe you could provide a quote?

Helmets aren't promoted because of the danger of riding a bicycle... they're for if you happen to fall off of one.
I thought they for the rare chance if you hit your head, not for simply falling...

If no one was worried about injuring themselves while cycling; if they thought cycling was as safe as taking a walk, helmets wouldn't sell like they do (here).

Don't you ever wonder why they sell so much more in some places, than other places?

Last edited by closetbiker; 03-01-12 at 10:50 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-02-12, 06:15 AM
  #1700  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
Can't find it. Maybe you could provide a quote?
Check post 1645. You replied to it...

Originally Posted by closetbiker
I thought they for the rare chance if you hit your head, not for simply falling...

If no one was worried about injuring themselves while cycling; if they thought cycling was as safe as taking a walk, helmets wouldn't sell like they do (here).

Don't you ever wonder why they sell so much more in some places, than other places?
Culture of fear. Nothing to do with helmet-specific promotion; nothing specific to bicycles. Helmet use is a symptom, not the cause.
mconlonx is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.