Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Stoke
    • By Stoke 2nd Oct 17, 6:07 PM
    • 1,997Posts
    • 842Thanks
    Stoke
    Why would anyone cycle to work?
    • #1
    • 2nd Oct 17, 6:07 PM
    Why would anyone cycle to work? 2nd Oct 17 at 6:07 PM
    This morning, on the way into work, I saw a cyclist nearly get knocked off by two different cars in the space of 20 seconds.

    Then, half an hour later, I saw another cyclist nearly get knocked off, again we're talking inches.

    It's an absolute bloody minefield out there with all the crap drivers. It's a shame as cyclists do other road users and the world a favour in reality, but they aren't half treated with contempt.

    I've always considered cycling to work, but nah, it's too risky tbh.
    Last edited by Stoke; 02-10-2017 at 6:12 PM.
Page 7
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 11th Oct 17, 12:33 PM
    • 4,295 Posts
    • 5,518 Thanks
    jack_pott
    If you are saying it should remain a matter of personal choice
    Originally posted by lisyloo
    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.
    I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 11th Oct 17, 12:35 PM
    • 542 Posts
    • 431 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    In that case, you should be wearing scuba kit as well as a helmet.
    Originally posted by jack_pott

    You are confused with personal choice and personal risk evaluation. Thats my job not your one.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 11-10-2017 at 12:44 PM.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 11th Oct 17, 12:39 PM
    • 542 Posts
    • 431 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    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.
    Originally posted by jack_pott

    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.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 11-10-2017 at 12:45 PM.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 11th Oct 17, 12:42 PM
    • 542 Posts
    • 431 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    If you are saying it should remain a matter of personal choice then I wholeheartedly agree with you :-)
    Originally posted by lisyloo

    Fantastic.............you got there in the end. lol
    • andrewf75
    • By andrewf75 11th Oct 17, 12:43 PM
    • 7,912 Posts
    • 13,354 Thanks
    andrewf75
    but when a study tells people what they donít want to hear it gets ignored.
    Originally posted by jack_pott
    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.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 11th Oct 17, 1:09 PM
    • 21,319 Posts
    • 10,243 Thanks
    lisyloo
    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.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 11th Oct 17, 1:33 PM
    • 542 Posts
    • 431 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    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.
    Originally posted by lisyloo
    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??
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 11-10-2017 at 1:35 PM.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 11th Oct 17, 1:59 PM
    • 21,319 Posts
    • 10,243 Thanks
    lisyloo
    If people are happy in the risk they take to themselves then why do I have to care more than them about their health.
    You don't have to care about those individuals at all.

    Public interest in what??
    As I've said - taxes, availability of resources e.g. ambulances

    If you dont like it get in touch with your MP.
    I do like it as is it thankyou.
    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.

    Do you busy yourself on what a person eats, drinks or if they smoke.
    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.
    Other are entitled to care and have an opinion because it's affects them

    Is it dangerous??
    Yes it can be dangerous to drink, smoke, be obeise, climb mountains, skydive etc.

    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?
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 11th Oct 17, 2:02 PM
    • 4,295 Posts
    • 5,518 Thanks
    jack_pott
    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.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    What you are doing is trying to portray the helmet lobby as pro-choice when they are not. They are pressing for compulsion.
    I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 11th Oct 17, 2:15 PM
    • 542 Posts
    • 431 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    What you are doing is trying to portray the helmet lobby as pro-choice when they are not. They are pressing for compulsion.
    Originally posted by jack_pott
    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.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 11-10-2017 at 2:31 PM.
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 11th Oct 17, 2:37 PM
    • 4,295 Posts
    • 5,518 Thanks
    jack_pott
    the link I posted showed that a repeat study had a different outcome.
    Originally posted by andrewf75
    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.
    I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 11th Oct 17, 2:39 PM
    • 4,295 Posts
    • 5,518 Thanks
    jack_pott
    Wrong
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    It is not wrong, the agenda with the helmet lobby is compulsion.
    I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    • brat
    • By brat 11th Oct 17, 2:52 PM
    • 2,446 Posts
    • 3,103 Thanks
    brat
    What I don't see are road traffic collisions involving the town centre feral cyclists who ride rusty chained, flat tyred, brakeless bikes without helmets, lights etc, on the pavement and through red lights. It's a non-statistic. I think those are the type of cyclists that motorists will give a much wider berth to, primarily because they don't want their car damaged.
    by brat
    Obvious really, isn' it. And so easy to demonstrate: just try wobbling around, and see how much more room you get.
    Originally posted by jack_pott
    I haven't read the Walker report in detail, just had a quick look at summaries of people's views of its findings...

    ...but would that type of opportunist, feral cyclist not skew the data so that it is not representative of the risk associated with helmet wearing for 'real' cyclists, like you and I?
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 11th Oct 17, 3:07 PM
    • 4,295 Posts
    • 5,518 Thanks
    jack_pott
    The bike parked next to me here has done 41,873 miles, I don't have records for the previous ones. In that time I've had just one crash with no injury other than a graze on my leg.
    Originally posted by jack_pott
    It's just occurred to me that I have been hurt on two other occasions in the last year alone. Once when I tripped on the kerb whilst crossing the road, and another when I tripped over an uneven pavement in the dark. Perhaps I should have been wearing a helmet.
    I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    • andrewf75
    • By andrewf75 11th Oct 17, 3:13 PM
    • 7,912 Posts
    • 13,354 Thanks
    andrewf75
    This may look to some like a thread about helmets, but it isn't, it's a thread about morality
    Originally posted by jack_pott
    well you can count me out then, I entered the debate purely to comment on helmets - prompted by a good mate of mine ending up in hospital last week after crashing his bike and falling onto his head thankfully protected by a helmet.
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 11th Oct 17, 3:28 PM
    • 4,295 Posts
    • 5,518 Thanks
    jack_pott
    I haven't read the Walker report in detail, just had a quick look at summaries of people's views of its findings...

    ...but would that type of opportunist, feral cyclist not skew the data so that it is not representative of the risk associated with helmet wearing for 'real' cyclists, like you and I?
    Originally posted by brat
    If you have both wobbling and bare heads as causes of more clearance, do you get a double helping of clearance from a double helping of causation? My guess is probably not, because of limited road space. In which case I suppose you could wear a helmet, and then re-gain any lost clearance by deliberately wobbling. However, the premise of risk compensation is that it affects the rider's behaviour as well as other road users. In the case of seatbelts, vehicle occupant deaths went down, only to be offset by the increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths because it's the driver's behaviour affected by the belts.
    I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    • jack_pott
    • By jack_pott 11th Oct 17, 3:35 PM
    • 4,295 Posts
    • 5,518 Thanks
    jack_pott
    well you can count me out then, I entered the debate purely to comment on helmets - prompted by a good mate of mine ending up in hospital last week after crashing his bike and falling onto his head thankfully protected by a helmet.
    Originally posted by andrewf75
    So we're back to manipulative anecdotes then? That's where the helmet lobby always wins, because it's only possible to show cases of people who were saved by not wearing a helmet using statistical methods and not by anecdote. Not only that, but anecdote always trumps statistics thanks to the Availability Heuristic.
    I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    • andrewf75
    • By andrewf75 11th Oct 17, 3:46 PM
    • 7,912 Posts
    • 13,354 Thanks
    andrewf75
    So we're back to manipulative anecdotes then? That's where the helmet lobby always wins, because it's only possible to show cases of people who were saved by not wearing a helmet using statistical methods and not by anecdote. Not only that, but anecdote always trumps statistics thanks to the Availability Heuristic.
    Originally posted by jack_pott
    anecdote yes, I'm not pretending it is anything but

    not trying to manipulate anyone though and am certainly not part of any lobby, just stating an opinion.
    • Rotor
    • By Rotor 11th Oct 17, 4:02 PM
    • 907 Posts
    • 1,016 Thanks
    Rotor
    anecdote yes, I'm not pretending it is anything but

    not trying to manipulate anyone though and am certainly not part of any lobby, just stating an opinion.
    Originally posted by andrewf75
    But 'helmet saved my head' anecdotes conflate "helmets save lives" with "Upon having an accident helmets save lives"
    It ignores
    driver risk compensation
    rider risk compensation
    decreased rider participation with all the fitness/obesity related problems
    Finding an exception is NOT the same as disproving the rule.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 11th Oct 17, 4:04 PM
    • 542 Posts
    • 431 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    It's just occurred to me that I have been hurt on two other occasions in the last year alone. Once when I tripped on the kerb whilst crossing the road, and another when I tripped over an uneven pavement in the dark. Perhaps I should have been wearing a helmet.
    Originally posted by jack_pott
    If you want to yes........now what?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

910Posts Today

5,658Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @bearface83: @MartinSLewis check out the @Missguided new 60% off offer. Upping the cost of items almost double to make us think it?s a?

  • RT @efitzpat: Thank you SO SO much @MartinSLewis for your Student Loans refund advice! I just got a grand refunded right before Xmas! Whoop?

  • Have a lovely weekend folks. Don't do anything (fiscally) that I wouldn't do!

  • Follow Martin