View Single Post
  #76  
Old April 20th 09, 12:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,985
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

Peter Clinch wrote:

Toom Tabard wrote:


The fact that someone asks you a question, does not of course place
you under any obligation to answer it. But, why is it the 'wrong'
question and too narrow?


I suspect it lacks suitable qualification, and because of that is
designed to (mis)lead to a position that is demonstrably unsupportable
by simple comparison to alternatives where a different conclusion is
reached as to how important helmets are.


I personally think (indeed know) on balance that a cycle helmet is
more likely to reduce the risk of injuries to the head in case of an
accident.


Quite likely, but that doesn't specify the severity of the accident.


Also, I personally think there's a fair chance that a helmet similar to
a cycle helmet will reduce the risk of injuries to the head in the case
of a domestic accident in the house, yet practically nobody bothers
wearing such helmets in the house.


What does that have to do with the question (and the correct answer to it)?

[That's rhetorical, BTW - there's no need to answer it because we all know
what the perceived connection is.]

At a recent orienteering event I
grazed my head on an overhanging tree branch. Looking at comments
afterwards quite a few folk picked up cuts and scratches, so highly
likely that such incidents would be reduced or mitigated with helmets
for all competitors (and in my case this time, officials). Yet I've
never seen anyone orienteering, or setting up a course where there is
less emphasis on speed and light equipment, in a helmet. So by
comparing to the same "reasoning" not applied outside of a bike despite
tangible risks, it can be seen to be dubious reasoning.


I hadn't the slightest difficulty in answering the question as
specified. The fact that you have another question to phrase in
another way is irrelevant and the question you've phrased addresses
different issues. That in no way invalidates the original question.


Indeed, but it is reasonable to point out that the question in itself is
not helpful, and similarly the answer. Or the same question/answer as
applied to accidents in the home would imply it is good sense to wear a
safety helmet there, or the same question/answer applied to orienteering
events would apply there, but it doesn't. So why does it magically
apply to bikes?


It doesn't, unless you want it to.

There's no clearly argued reason why they are a special
case, and if you spend a weekend in Amsterdam you'll see thousands of
people who have grasped that fact.


You are confusing two separate questions (one of which was not asked).

The factual position about injury is one thing. Any question of legal
compulsion is quite another. Why answer questions on the first with a
permanent eye on the second?
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home