Why would anyone cycle to work?

was associating the idea of non-helmet wearing with other specific behaviours

I don't know who said this or meant it either, but I would like to say that this certainly does not apply to me.

I would regard myself as generally risk averse and willing to put in effort to keep myself safe - for example advanced riding training.
I just don't value a polystryrene helmet in my cycling environment.

I'm just making the point that you cannot associate one decision with traits.

But why only consider safety? Where as I might just be safer wearing a helmet I enjoy cycling without one more. That for me is the bigger factor and the law gives me the choice.



Darren

scd3scd4 wrote: »

There is no need to worry about silencing anyone, that's not going to happen regardless. ;-]


No, I told you what my personal experience and observation was over many years and miles. None helmet rides are more likely to have no lights. I never said it was a scientific study just my daily ride. I met another one tonight. Personal experience shapes how you see the world and if it is reinforced daily then I comment on it. With your permission of course. ;-]


Wrong again. I don't have a fixed view because I don't care. How many times do you need to read it.
I see no issue with commenting on what I do most days. You have ramblings for over 1500 posts. Jolly good and all. I don't worry to much what a couple of strangers on a open forum think or feel. That's why its a forum and why they are strangers.

Usually if a person says "Wearing a helmet reduces risk as do lights and bright clothing." That is a statement expected to be taken as fact, and others should expect the statement maker to be able to back it up using something other than anecdote or personal opinion.

lisyloo wrote: »

Again I would stress that I believe it's very scenario dependent. I don't wear a helmet but I encounter no motor vehicles or wildlife. I'd change my behaviour in a different scenario.

For me, this is key. I wear a helmet religiously when I'm out on a fitness ride, because I don't think that I'm negatively affected by driver attitudes while wearing it. I have had a couple of falls and one collision for which any added protection will have benefitted.

That said, belief in my own ability, assertiveness on the road, awareness of road user attitudes, road conditions, and knowledge of the capability of my bike are all much more significant factors for me in risk homeostasis, and ultimately you'll always ride to the risk you are happy with in the circumstance.

Incidentally, I cracked my head and bruised my back yesterday as a consequence of a 40 mile bike ride, and I didn't even leave the house! I was bringing my bike round the back of the house to stick it on the turbo trainer, and I slipped on the wet decking leading to the patio door, landing backwards onto a flower pot with the bike landing on top of me. Had I been wearing my helmet... :think:

I may get outside today, but our roads are horribly dirty.

ETA, our bit of motorway is closed at the moment with a crane fire, so all the satnav inspired routes will be full of people not knowing where they are. Maybe another day on Watopia... Decisions...:think:

scd3scd4 wrote: »

I don't need to prove anything We are not playing Top Trumps. This is a forum not a court room.


If you think its not true you do the proving. Personal experience is good enough for me. In fact it matters more than an study, as does my own well being. My judgement has served me well so far so I am happy to continue.

No?

If you make factual statements that you cannot substantiate, you pay the price in lost credibility. That may not bother you, but it is reflected in the attitude of posters because they stop taking you seriously.

As can be seen in this thread.