It appears that offering an opinion and defending it on this forum is tantamount to being self righteous, although I suppose we could adopt a laissez faire attitude and let everyone do as they wish. I am grateful for flecc's considered response, which helped me to rethink my attitude towards the non wearing of cycle helmets. However, I still feel that wearing helmets is safer, but his attitude is far better than to accuse people of being self righteous when all they are doing is offering an opinion. After all I'm not so vain as to think what I write on an open forum is going to make people wear helmets, but if it helped somebody think about it, much the same way has flecc has given me food for thought; I would be happy.
Well, I am not going to get into an argument with you because I did not call you self righteous.
What I do wonder is why people want to interfere with the liberty of others.
Consider,
Try to outlaw homosexuality as it once was and you will be howled down in the name of freedom, personal choice etc.
Try to out law smoking, riding a bike without a helmet etc. and you will be hailed as a saviour,
It just does not make sense.
What I do wonder is why people want to interfere with the liberty of others.
Consider,
Try to outlaw homosexuality as it once was and you will be howled down in the name of freedom, personal choice etc.
Try to out law smoking, riding a bike without a helmet etc. and you will be hailed as a saviour,
It just does not make sense.
Thanks for that generous comment filsgreen, it's much appreciated.
An amusing note for a change. Coming out of Sainsburys a short while ago saw a mum and her son of about 11 years old carrying a cycle helmet as they headed to their car. The lad put on the helmet before getting into the car!!
I wonder if that was a comment on his mum's driving.
An amusing note for a change. Coming out of Sainsburys a short while ago saw a mum and her son of about 11 years old carrying a cycle helmet as they headed to their car. The lad put on the helmet before getting into the car!!
I wonder if that was a comment on his mum's driving.
It's always baffled me too. I'd go as far as to include many drugs in the unnecessary banning category. I see California has just legalised cannabis, in a stroke wiping out a large part of their crime "problem" and expected to earn $80 millions in state revenues.
I've never used any drugs myself, but if people want to waste their lives using them, who am I to stop them.
I haven't the faintest idea how you ride Phil, it could be side-saddle on a tricycle for all I knowI hope you aren't accusing me of riding 'hell for leather'?
. I mostly had in mind the kamikaze brigade who infest London's commuter routes, though they do seem to have their equals in other areas.
I sometimes feel like putting mine on when I get in the car with my wife.An amusing note for a change. Coming out of Sainsburys a short while ago saw a mum and her son of about 11 years old carrying a cycle helmet as they headed to their car. The lad put on the helmet before getting into the car!!
I wonder if that was a comment on his mum's driving.
OMG! You've been stalking meI haven't the faintest idea how you ride Phil, it could be side-saddle on a tricycle for all I know
Most of my riding is of a rural nature, with only occasional forays into urban areas nowadays. The hills are too up for 'ell for leather, and too down (and poorly surfaced) for a sensible soul like me to really go for it.
C
Cyclezee
Guest
If anybody has cheap head like me, Aldi have reduced their ski/snowboard helmets to clear. I bought one Wednesday along with my favourite Herring fillets in mango and peppercorn sauce, last adult size one in our local store reduced to £10.49, keeps my ears lovely and warm.
, last adult size one in our local store reduced to £10.49, keeps my ears lovely and warm.
So comparing ones sexuality, to a drug proven to cause massive health problems and a device that can be shown to potentionally save lives and injury, makes sense to you?
It makes sense to me when the subject under discussion is freedom of the individual's choice.
I've been very impressed with the quality of mine. The fit (adaptable) is excellent, and the bonus of warm ears in winter is worth the money alone.If anybody has cheap head like me, Aldi have reduced their ski/snowboard helmets to clear. I bought one Wednesday along with my favourite Herring fillets in mango and peppercorn sauce
Incidentally; I'm sure I've seen these helmets used in a film or TV programme as military hard hats. For the life of me I can't remember which.
Fully agreed, but the freedom of choice still existed, to practice or not to practice, so still relevant to the subject of a right to choose.
Australia having a compulsory cycle helmet law is their governmental right of choice overriding individual choice. I'm just glad the UK government and the European Commission see this issue rather differently.
Lol . Aldi herrining fillets ymmmIf anybody has cheap head like me, Aldi have reduced their ski/snowboard helmets to clear. I bought one Wednesday along with my favourite Herring fillets in mango and peppercorn sauce
Seriously the Aldi helmets are not a bad bang for the buck.I see a lot of opposition to mandatory helmet use. Where I lived in Canada it was mandatory. When I was struck from behind, training for a race there, 4 years ago I was more than happy I was wearing one even though my head did not sustain an impact. That time. Fast forward to two 1/2 years ago, here in England, I hit oil on a corner doing about 20mph. The first thing to hit to ground was my head. Glad I chose not to enjoy the "freedom" of not wearing one just because I could go without. I would vote for mandatory use.
But why Emo rider? Ok, you've bounced your head on one occasion and could have done on another, but in 67 cycling years I never have. The community cost isn't a valid reason since those like me who haven't bounced their head on the tarmac prove they are not accident prone. Indeed I've never cost any health service a penny for a single slightest accident of any kind in 77 years. It's the accident prone who are an additional cost to the health services and that's regardless of whether they wear protection or not, cycle helmets being wholly inadequate to prevent injuries.
The "it could happen to you" argument isn't valid either, since it's just a "what if" argument that works both ways. I can equally say "what if a truck runs over you" like the six recent deaths in London, what use is your helmet then?".
Why not just exercise your own choice and leave others free to do the same for themselves?
Using your "logic" anyone that has never had a car accident shouldn't have to pay for compulsory third party insurance, but after they have had one they should as they are "accident prone".
Rider skill is a factor but luck is a major player as well, also the first time you do fall maybe the one that causes a permanent brain injury.
The truck agument is silly, its the same as saying there is no need for seat belts or airbags in cars as if you have a head on with a truck they wont save you, the fact that in the more common accidents they will which is why they are there.
I wont post to this thread any further.