Why would anyone cycle to work?
Comments
-
But they aren't, he's just being disingenuous. It's not the non-wearers who are campaigning to make helmets illegal, it's the helmet fanatics who are trying to make them compulsory.
Wrong, I explained why I think its a sensible practice and gave personal experience why I use one.
Never once said I thought it should be compulsory. Like I have said numerous times. I dont really care what happens to strangers if they do or dont.
Its best not to lie to prove your argument or you will just come across as desperate.0 -
but when a study tells people what they don’t want to hear it gets ignored.
Its not what we don't want to hear, I'd be quite happy to hear it
Its more a healthy skepticism of a study that tells people what goes against their instinct. If the study was less obviously flawed (I don't know it in depth, but the fact that its so old and in America and concerns motorbikes is enough) I very much doubt it would be ignored. In my case I work with statistics myself so I know their limitations. With so many other possible factors I simply don't buy this - and the link I posted showed that a repeat study had a different outcome.
Unless you're a manufacturer of bike helmets I'm not sure why anyone would have a vested interest in ignoring data suggesting they are pointless! I'd certainly rather not wear one.0 -
I dont really care what happens to strangers if they do or dont.
Many people do care about taxes and valuable charity money being spent on accidents, coronors, air ambulances and also the wider effects e.g. am ambulance might not be able to get to you because it's dealing with someone else.
I still think it should be a matter of person choice, but I am not denying that there is a public interest in what other people do in terms of tax money, availability of valuable services e.g. ambulances and the human costs.
If you don't personally care about that then fine, but there IS a public interest in what risks people take.0 -
Many people do care about taxes and valuable charity money being spent on accidents, coronors, air ambulances and also the wider effects e.g. am ambulance might not be able to get to you because it's dealing with someone else.
I still think it should be a matter of person choice, but I am not denying that there is a public interest in what other people do in terms of tax money, availability of valuable services e.g. ambulances and the human costs.
If you don't personally care about that then fine, but there IS a public interest in what risks people take.
You are trying to make it more complicated than it is and bring emotion in to a debate on wearing a helmet or not. Its not against the law not to, hence people can do as they see fit. If people are happy in the risk they take to themselves then why do I have to care more than them about their health.
I do, you don't fine. I dont care. You answer to your mum, dad, sisters, wife and children............not me for your actions. I do to mine.
Public interest in what??.............its legal not to. If you dont like it get in touch with your MP.
Do you busy yourself on what a person eats, drinks or if they smoke. What they do with there space time. Is it dangerous??0 -
You don't have to care about those individuals at all.If people are happy in the risk they take to themselves then why do I have to care more than them about their health.
As I've said - taxes, availability of resources e.g. ambulancesPublic interest in what??
I do like it as is it thankyou.If you dont like it get in touch with your MP.
I'm merely making a point that people are entitled to have an opinion and care about the effects of the actions on others because it has an effect on them.
I personally don't spend a lot of time on it because I'm fairly happy with the trade-off we have in this country between being a nanny state and protecting taxes payers. On the whole I think it's about right.Do you busy yourself on what a person eats, drinks or if they smoke.
Other are entitled to care and have an opinion because it's affects them
Yes it can be dangerous to drink, smoke, be obeise, climb mountains, skydive etc.Is it dangerous??
Let me put this question to you?
If it turned out your contribution in taxes (for people needed help from unnecessary accidents, extreme sports, alchoholism, smoking etc) was £5K per year, then would you start to care?0 -
Wrong, I explained why I think its a sensible practice and gave personal experience why I use one.
Never once said I thought it should be compulsory. Like I have said numerous times. I dont really care what happens to strangers if they do or dont.
Its best not to lie to prove your argument or you will just come across as desperate.
What you are doing is trying to portray the helmet lobby as pro-choice when they are not. They are pressing for compulsion.0 -
What you are doing is trying to portray the helmet lobby as pro-choice when they are not. They are pressing for compulsion.
Wrong
I ride to work and back to avoid traffic, keep fit and save money. Other than that I dont care. Pro-choice are nothing to me. I have no interest in what they do or don't want to do. If you don't believe that..........I still dont care. You will have to live with your narcissistic paranoia.0 -
the link I posted showed that a repeat study had a different outcome.
The link you posted is not a repeat study at all, it's not comparing the death rates between a helmet wearing group and a control group.Unless you're a manufacturer of bike helmets I'm not sure why anyone would have a vested interest in ignoring data suggesting they are pointless!
The answer is that people become wedded to an idea through intellectually lazy thinking, and then, because their position becomes the moral one (saving lives), it follows that any counterevidence must be immoral. This is obvious from the way these heated debates only arise when there is morality involved.
This may look to some like a thread about helmets, but it isn't, it's a thread about morality, and it's an argument that plays out anywhere and everywhere. I've already cited the case of seatbelts where it was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the DoT that they don't save lives, but there are countless examples elsewhere.
It occurred to me yesterday that I'm involved in another one relating to cardiology. It's just like the helmets, but also differs in some subtly revealing respects.
I have a heart arrhythmia which can increase the risk of having a stroke. It is possible to take Warfarin, but this can either reduce the risk of stroke or increase it depending on personal circumstances. Unlike with helmets, the risk and statistics are well understood, well documented, numerically quantified, uncontentious, and the subject of published NICE guidelines. However, if you visit the forums you will find all the evidence being ignored, and new patients being told by the old hands that they must be on Warfarin regardless or else they will have a stroke.
It's just the same, they're impervious to reason, deaf to the evidence, and continually reciting anecdotes or bogus and irrelevant statistics. Why? For the same reason: intellectual laziness wrapped up in a generous helping of misguided moral duty. First they're panicked by being told that they have a heart condition, then they get in a tizzy when they hear that it might cause a stroke, and finally, they're whipped up into a frenzy by a load of manipulative anecdotes on the forum. By now they're complete converts, and anyone who dares suggest that someone minimise their risk by following the NICE guidelines is just a stupid idiot who wants to have a stroke.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards