Why would anyone cycle to work?

[Deleted User]

jack_pott wrote: »

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.

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.

andrewf75

jack_pott wrote: »

This may look to some like a thread about helmets, but it isn't, it's a thread about morality

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.

[Deleted User]

brat wrote: »

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?

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.

[Deleted User]

andrewf75 wrote: »

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.

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.

andrewf75

jack_pott wrote: »

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.

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

andrewf75 wrote: »

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.

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

scd3scd4

jack_pott wrote: »

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.

If you want to yes........now what?

scd3scd4

jack_pott wrote: »

It is not wrong, the agenda with the helmet lobby is compulsion.

Its wrong in my case I said!!

silverwhistle

scd3scd4 wrote: »

Not really sure what point you think you are making.

Funnily enough that's what I was thinking about you.

Fair enough you think it's personal choice, jolly good and all that, and I share the blame in misunderstanding from where you are coming. My point was that your choice of words was associating the idea of non-helmet wearing with other specific behaviours, the rest was a rambling discourse to the effect I don't have a fixed view on helmets or risk assessment.

I have absolutely no wish to silence you but your sheer volume of posts on this subject does suggest a greater than average interest, and I appear not to be the only one to query your language.

lisyloo

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.