Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:03 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 34  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:23 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 862
Location: wiltshire
If you wear a helmet and fall off your bike your head with helmet attached it is more likely to make contact with the ground than your head hitting the ground if you had not been wearing one.
Therefore when people say "that could have been my head" they are off the mark.
Most people i've met don't have massive heads. Your "head" becomes a lot bigger when you stick a lump of polystyrene on it making it a lot more likely that you'll bang it if you fall off.

:shock:

If you tell people to wear a helmet then don't be suprised if they tell you to STFU / Jog on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:26 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:33 am
Posts: 2934
Location: daaan saaaf
The problem for me, apart from getting too hot, is that most helmets just seem to perch on the top of my mega-noggin.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:28 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:26 pm
Posts: 16963
Location: 54 Festive Road Winchcombe GLOUCS Yarp...
PurpleFrog, do you assume I'm pro then because i choose to wear one or am I just exercising my personal choice?

Oldmuthariley, doesnt the same apply to crash helmets for motorcycles? I can go faster than a moped on my pushbike but no helmet required.

Come to think of it this also applies to PF's argument re bike crash helmets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:52 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:09 am
Posts: 799
Location: Runcorn
The History Man wrote:
PurpleFrog, do you assume I'm pro then because i choose to wear one or am I just exercising my personal choice?


My comments no assumption either way: what you say is simply incorrect.

Oh - and you were also incorrect to refer to certain claims as "annecdotal evidence". Annecdotal evidence would be something like "I saw a large silver saucer shaped thing, then I can't remember the next several hours, but I woke up feeling sore and so used." Or "I had a crash at 20mph and my helmet was intact". A claim like "I had a crash and I wore a helmet and I am still alive, so my helmet saved me!!!" is beneath the level of annecdotal evidence - because even if was non-annecdotal it wouldn't be evidence because the conclusion is bizarre and unwarranted - because it's actually pretty damn routine to survive bike crashes. It's just junk logic.


Last edited by PurpleFrog on Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:56 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:57 pm
Posts: 4074
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
The History Man wrote:
Oldmuthariley, doesnt the same apply to crash helmets for motorcycles. I can go faster than a moped on my pushbike but no helmet required.


Yes, theoretically you can go faster on your bike. However 90% of the time the moped will be the one that's going faster, especially if it's a 16-year old with an 1100cc big-bore kit and nitrous system on his Honda Camino (or whatever youths ride nowadays).
Also, moped riders are more likely to ride on the road, where accidents with cars are much more common. In that case, you may find a motorcycle helmet useful.

Conclusion : If they want to make helmets mandatory, they'd better force everyone (including pedestrians) to wear full-face motorcycle helmets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:59 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:26 pm
Posts: 16963
Location: 54 Festive Road Winchcombe GLOUCS Yarp...
Didn't realise I had to get past the 'logic police'. Apparently not taking this seriously enough to explain everything. The it I spoke of is the supposition that helmets do/do not save heads.

I was merely contemplating he randomness of incidents and difficulty in comparing like for like with a single helmet variable so hard to quantify. Qualitative research/anecdotes being relied upon by the me in my musings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:04 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:26 pm
Posts: 16963
Location: 54 Festive Road Winchcombe GLOUCS Yarp...
Interesting

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:09 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:09 am
Posts: 799
Location: Runcorn
The History Man wrote:
Didn't realise I had to get past the 'logic police'.


I think all statements attempting to draw conclusions from facts should be logical, yes.

Quote:
I was merely contemplating he randomness of incidents and difficulty in comparing like for like with a single helmet variable so hard to quantify. Qualitative research/anecdotes being relied upon by the me in my musings.


You are confusing definiteness and precision - a common error. For example, it was claimed back in the 80's - and is still claimed by some MHL advocates - that cycling helmets would reduce cyclist fatalites by around 80-90%. We can DEFINITELY say this not true! More, we can say that a reduction in deaths of greater than 10-16% is impossible by looking at crash reports, ebergy levels, and helmet performance. We can do the same for lesser injuries - for example, helmets just don't offer enough g-reduction or absorb enough energy to offer a significant reduction in concussions. Etc. This is extremely important because this debunks ALL the arguments used for MHLs, and MHLs have a huge impact on cycling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:19 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:26 pm
Posts: 16963
Location: 54 Festive Road Winchcombe GLOUCS Yarp...
My post consisted of personal opinion, choice, thoughts and observation. Didn't draw any conclusions other than I thought it hard to measure and reach any to support either argument.

Not interested enforcing helmets or otherwise. Just found it an interesting debate given the apparent difficulties as above.

Surprised there's such strong feeling about what remains a personal choice. That aside, I agree with the 'no helmet no ride' policy operated on here.


Last edited by The History Man on Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:23 pm 
King of the DuckBoard
King of the DuckBoard

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:30 pm
Posts: 21466
still going :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 34  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jonnyboy666, longun and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group