Forum menu
The facts being they are selfish moronic dicks then 😉
I had not realised how much there had been tbh and it is not helpful.
There are a lot of grey areas regarding the 'helmet' debate, and there have been some well written and lucid posts regarding the pros and cons of the issue. However it is noticeable that some of the over eager participants resort very quickly to insults, and other manner of obfuscation when attempting to make some point. Often they are repeating mantras that they have absorbed without really questioning their efficacy.
The venomous outpourings seem always to come from those insisting that you do as they say, your personal choice is not valid, as you must be a fool not to wear a helmet (apart from going to the shops )
sorry guys.. I've just been flitting in and out of the thread and poking a bit of fun..
sorry for being flippant, I really wasn't taking it at all seriously and didn't mean to cause offence
I'm suggesting that everyone has a level of acceptable risk/consequence and they mitigate against that as they see fit.There is always something more you could do to prevent the risk (including just not getting on a bike in the first place!)
So we all have to make a decision about where we stand on that particular sliding scale and take precautions as we see fit.
If a grown adult has considered the risks they face and made an informed decision that they don't need a helmet then fair play to them I say.
Chastising them and calling them names for that decision is daft.
You've just decided to wear one more piece of protective equipment than them. Woo hoo.
Tutting quietly behind you on the scale is someone who thinks your mad for not wearing knee and elbow pads. And tutting behind him is someone who wears a full-face motocross style helmet. And behind him is someone who thinks everyone should have spine protectors. And behind them all is a grumpy old sod sat on the sofa with a cuppa, rolling his eyes at all these silly mountain bikers putting themselves in unnecessary danger.
If that could be condensed into a media friendly sound-bite it would be a near perfect somethingion of the issue in my opinion.
It's not about whether your head is better off with a helmet on it when it makes contact with a tree or whatever- I don't think many people are really arguing that it isn't.It's about how likely that is to happen, or at least how likely it is relative to, say, having a car crash where a helmet would be useful. If I was going to get shot I'd rather have a bulletproof vest on than not, but I don't think it's very likely to happen so I don't feel the need to wear one. SNIP
I think that sums up the views of many of those of us who are sceptical about the absolute need to wear a helmet every time to get on the bike. A point of view which many of the zealots either seem not to understand or dismiss as incorrect/irrelevant/unimportant.
Apologies for snipping at that point - from there on the post goes into the very sort of subjective risk assessment which not everybody agrees with. For example I know TJ chooses not to wear a helmet for all mountain biking, and I tend to agree with his risk assessment for where he doesn't - I tend not to wear a helmet for some cycling with similar levels of risk.
Of course the continuation of that argument is what has been pointed out several times - the inaccuracy of people's risk assessment of general cycling, and that there are several other activities where you are at more risk of head injury than some forms of cycling, but where you'd be laughed at for wearing head protection.
fuds.