That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!

[Graveworm]

heebeegeetee said:

And that applies to absolutely everyone, especially any pedestrians near her because they die at a higher rate and a higher number in the uk. If we’re going to tell people who are participating in a very safe and beneficial activity indeed, that they should wear a helmet, clearly logic dictates that it should apply to pretty much everyone.

Incidentally, should that lady take on board all the frightening rhetoric surrounding her safe and beneficial activity, and she chooses to walk instead, what on earth has been achieved?

A lot of repetition but again walking is safer per journey or overall, just slightly more fatalities per billion km, providing the cyclist is wearing a helmet.Way fewer injuries. No safety body or experts have advised wearing helmets to walk but they all advise wearing them to cycle. And just because X is good doesn't mean we should not talk about Y being good as well.

I don't accept your premise that advising to wear a helmet is frightening rhetoric. If she walked instead of cycling without a helmet she would better off not worse so that's a strange argument.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 11th January 09:18

[nickfrog]

hyphen said:

So how many calories an hour is it then? 5000 Cycling isn't even a full body workout.

It really is IME. But then again I only mountain bike with a penchant for bike parks where upper body strength is quite crucial, but perhaps road cycling isn't as complete.

[austinsmirk]

Graveworm said:

frisbee said:

Most cyclists in Holland don't wear helmets.

Don't equate your personal lack of skill and coordination with that of normal people.

That's true but they cycle much slower and their rate of death in road accidents is higher than the UK and uniquely more cyclists are killed in accidents than motorists.

its also a country that is flat, so I'd argue cycling road speeds are a lot lower than here, you also have a huge culture of cyclist awareness, proper lanes, traffic lights and so on: none of that exists here in the UK.

maybe motorists in London, Oxford and York are a bit more bike aware, but go elsewhere- to me it feels like sometimes I'm the only cyclist on the road anywhere. Motorists become unaccustomed to seeing you as a hazard. In about 6 hrs of road riding this week, I've only seen one kid on a mtb- with no helmet on !!!

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Seems less about what’s right and work wrong and more about individuals moaning about sod all?

What impact does wearing a helmet have upon a non cyclist? It’s hilarious

[walm]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Back in the naughties, someone on here persuaded me that I should stop running red lights on my bike.
Running the lights was just giving motorists more evidence of "poor cycling" and "well if they don't obey the rules, why should I?"-type attitude (from some speeding knuckle-dragger checking his phone usually).
So I admitted I was wrong and stopped doing it.

[Tired]

yonex said:

Seems less about what’s right and work wrong and more about individuals moaning about sod all?

What impact does wearing a helmet have upon a non cyclist? It’s hilarious

If some idiot on a bike cycles out in front of my car and I hit him, I'd rather they were wearing a helmet, as I'd prefer they didn't die.

In much the same way that I'd like everyone to wear their seatbelts. Their lives may not matter to you, but I'd still rather people didn't die unneccessarily.

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I was wrong once. 1990 it was.

The day I got married.

[Graveworm]

V6 Pushfit said:

I was wrong once. 1990 it was.

The day I got married.

I have yet to be right, but then I haven't been married as long as you

[Graveworm]

yonex said:

Seems less about what’s right and work wrong and more about individuals moaning about sod all?

What impact does wearing a helmet have upon a non cyclist? It’s hilarious

It impacts everyone cyclists or non cyclists. It impacts their friends and families when they are more seriously injured or die and impacts on everyone with the associated costs, delays and abstraction of resources.

[heebeegeetee]

Graveworm said:

It impacts everyone cyclists or non cyclists. It impacts their friends and families when they are more seriously injured or die and impacts on everyone with the associated costs, delays and abstraction of resources.

Applies to everyone, and definitely to pedestrians who die at a higher rate and number.

This is leaving aside that a cycle helmet is designed to play no part whatsoever in a collision with a vehicle.

On average (and in reality, I believe), even day, week, month and year, more pedestrians have died than cyclists and more pedestrians have died than cyclists over distance. The number of journeys done makes no difference to these statistics at all.

[Zigster]

Graveworm said:

yonex said:

Seems less about what’s right and work wrong and more about individuals moaning about sod all?

What impact does wearing a helmet have upon a non cyclist? It’s hilarious

It impacts everyone cyclists or non cyclists. It impacts their friends and families when they are more seriously injured or die and impacts on everyone with the associated costs, delays and abstraction of resources.

And car occupants as well?

If car occupants are seriously injured or die, this impacts on other people in the same way as if they were cyclists. So why shouldn't everyone wear helmets when in a car? Many more people die or are seriously injured in cars each year than they are on bicycles, so if helmets are so important for cyclists why not for car occupants?

[heebeegeetee]

Tired said:

If some idiot on a bike cycles out in front of my car and I hit him, I'd rather they were wearing a helmet, as I'd prefer they didn't die.

But not if some idiot steps out? If a pedestrian steps out in front of you, you don’t care if they’re wearing a helmet and you don’t care if they die?

And likewise, when you’re a pedestrian you’re not going to wear a helmet, so if you step out or if a car mounts the pavement, it doesn’t matter if you live or die?

Have I got this right?

[Graveworm]

heebeegeetee said:

Applies to everyone, and definitely to pedestrians who die at a higher rate and number.

You keep ignoring and failing to acknowledge the facts that don't suit you. For clarity and the last time. Pedestrians do not die at a higher rate than cyclists NOT wearing a helmet and cyclists are about three times more likely to be injured or seriously injured in an accident

heebeegeetee said:

On average (and in reality, I believe), even day, week, month and year, more pedestrians have died than cyclists and more pedestrians have died than cyclists over distance. The number of journeys done makes no difference to these statistics at all.

Again not more pedestrians over distance than cyclists without helmets, injuries are also mitigated by helmets so it's inappropriate to just deal with deaths. The number of journeys matters because that is how often you would need to carry, put on and remove a helmet that would

• Still not be anywhere near as beneficial as it would be to as a cyclist
• Not be recommended by any safety body and have no evidence that it's use was of overall benefit. The exact opposite of cycle helmets.

So in a benefit vs inconvenience it makes the case for use on a cycle many times stronger than for a pedestrian.
All of which is only a distraction from: "It is great idea for a cyclist to wear a helmet when they can" being a good message and to say it should be suppressed makes no logical sense at all.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 11th January 11:17

[anonymous-user]

heebeegeetee said:

Tired said:

If some idiot on a bike cycles out in front of my car and I hit him, I'd rather they were wearing a helmet, as I'd prefer they didn't die.

But not if some idiot steps out? If a pedestrian steps out in front of you, you don’t care if they’re wearing a helmet and you don’t care if they die?

And likewise, when you’re a pedestrian you’re not going to wear a helmet, so if you step out or if a car mounts the pavement, it doesn’t matter if you live or die?

Have I got this right?

No. That's a massive misrepresentation of what he said.

If I say to someone, "I hope you have a nice day", it doesn't mean that I hope everyone else has a really stty day.

Or "Get well soon" to my mum doesn't mean I want everyone else in hospital to die.

Arguing points using basic kiddy logic like that doesn't help your case at all. Although I think you know it and you're just saying crap like that to get a reaction - you seem to like prodding to get a reaction.

[Tired]

heebeegeetee said:

But not if some idiot steps out? If a pedestrian steps out in front of you, you don’t care if they’re wearing a helmet and you don’t care if they die?

And likewise, when you’re a pedestrian you’re not going to wear a helmet, so if you step out or if a car mounts the pavement, it doesn’t matter if you live or die?

Have I got this right?

No, you've not got that right. It's not even that your first paragraph is a bit of an assumption, you've just made that up on the spot, and tried to attribute it to me.

I've stated that I'd quite like it if people didn't die for no good reason. And from that, you've tried to state that I don't care if people die.

Instead of trying to be clever and read between the lines, maybe you should just stick to reading the lines

Funny forum this.

[heebeegeetee]

OpulentBob said:

No. That's a massive misrepresentation of what he said.

If I say to someone, "I hope you have a nice day", it doesn't mean that I hope everyone else has a really stty day.

Or "Get well soon" to my mum doesn't mean I want everyone else in hospital to die.

Arguing points using basic kiddy logic like that doesn't help your case at all. Although I think you know it and you're just saying crap like that to get a reaction - you seem to like prodding to get a reaction.

Why would you only care if a cyclist pulled out in front of you?

I mean, given the numbers involved it’s far more likely that a pedestrian would step out in front of you?

Each and every one of us is far more likely to collide with a pedestrian than a cyclist, and official figures show that pedestrians die at a higher number and a higher rate than cyclists (and a higher rate than drivers), so if a helmet is the difference between life and death, why wouldn’t we want the person we’re hitting to be wearing a helmet, whoever the person is?

[anonymous-user]

Graveworm said:

It impacts everyone cyclists or non cyclists. It impacts their friends and families when they are more seriously injured or die and impacts on everyone with the associated costs, delays and abstraction of resources.

Do you go into pubs and lecture people on drinking and/or smoking?

Of course not.

This is just BS to provoke individuals into getting defensive about their choices, which is all they are

[poo at Paul's]

heebeegeetee said:

But not if some idiot steps out? If a pedestrian steps out in front of you, you don’t care if they’re wearing a helmet and you don’t care if they die?

And likewise, when you’re a pedestrian you’re not going to wear a helmet, so if you step out or if a car mounts the pavement, it doesn’t matter if you live or die?

Have I got this right?

I think there is a fundamental and obvious difference in that the cyclist generally shares the same piece or tarmac as the motor vehicle, so there is a higher possibility of a collision between the two. The majority of pedestrian traffic does not share the same space as the motor vehicle, most of the times, and the interaction is more limited to crossings, many of which are specifically controlled to make things a bit safer.

[Graveworm]

Zigster said:

And car occupants as well?

If car occupants are seriously injured or die, this impacts on other people in the same way as if they were cyclists. So why shouldn't everyone wear helmets when in a car? Many more people die or are seriously injured in cars each year than they are on bicycles, so if helmets are so important for cyclists why not for car occupants?

This straw man was also burned some way back. Wearing a helmet in a road car, especially with modern safety features is of no overall benefit since the majority of accidents happen at low speeds where CS injuries are more prevalent and aggravated by helmet use. So much so that the use of a helmet is not a good idea, recommended by no safety organisation and banned in some jurisdictions. That is before you get to the inability to wear them in some cars, how much they restrict movement in a car and any inconvenience.
Just to cut short any distracting back and forth:
The profile of track accidents is completely different so being OK or good for one is not the same for the other.
There have been extensive studies done about neck and any other aggravating accidents for cyclists linked previously and it's negligible compared to benefits so again "well then it's the same for cyclists" is not the case.

[Graveworm]

yonex said:

Do you go into pubs and lecture people on drinking and/or smoking?

Of course not.

This is just BS to provoke individuals into getting defensive about their choices, which is all they are

I am not lecturing I do not tell anyone to wear or not wear a helmet. It is their choice, I do nearly always but it's not my place to tell others, I would suggest it if asked. The evidence is overwhelming that it is beneficial to wear them.
I am on a discussion thread where people defended trying to suppress the message that wearing a helmet was good idea. I have a different view to that and express it. I tried to show the evidence and when they persist in ad hominem arguments (c.f. your quoted post) I reply that it shouldn't be allowed to distract from the premise that it makes no sense to say that safety organisations shouldn't be allowed to recommend that cyclists wear helmets.