Want cycle touring without the politics? This club might be for you...

davel wrote:

You justified calling anti-helmeters insane based on your experience of going into a car door.

Correction: drosco described "anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet" as insane. Most of us are not anti-helmet, we're pro-choice i.e. ANTI-COMPULSION. Is that so bad?

I find that blinkered, uninformed idiots like him don't want to listen or engage, they just cover their ears and shout louder. Don't waste your energy.

Also, it seems that nearly every other helmet-compulsion maniac has a "my polystyrene hat saved my life" anecdote they like to ram down your throat at every opportunity. Perhaps they just have poor road skills and/or spatial awareness issues?

Simon E wrote:

davel wrote:

You justified calling anti-helmeters insane based on your experience of going into a car door.

Correction: drosco described "anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet" as insane. Most of us are not anti-helmet, we're pro-choice i.e. ANTI-COMPULSION. Is that so bad?

Sound correction: that is what I intended to articulate, and didn't.

Simon E wrote:

davel wrote:

You justified calling anti-helmeters insane based on your experience of going into a car door.

Correction: drosco described "anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet" as insane. Most of us are not anti-helmet, we're pro-choice i.e. ANTI-COMPULSION. Is that so bad?

I find that blinkered, uninformed idiots like him don't want to listen or engage, they just cover their ears and shout louder. Don't waste your energy.

Also, it seems that nearly every other helmet-compulsion maniac has a "my polystyrene hat saved my life" anecdote they like to ram down your throat at every opportunity. Perhaps they just have poor road skills and/or spatial awareness issues?

Thank you, you've summed up perfectly the sort of person I have absolutely no interest in sharing the details of a relatively serious accident and injuries on a public forum for.  I'm neither a helmet compulsion maniac or someone with poor road skills, I'm just someone who had a nasty accident through no fault of my own, for whom wearing a helmet was key in avoiding more serious injury. 

I suggest for those of you who want to try, run into the edge of a car door at speed with and without a helmet and see how you get on. 

Good luck and goodbye..

drosco wrote:

Thank you, you've summed up perfectly the sort of person I have absolutely no interest in sharing the details of a relatively serious accident and injuries on a public forum for.  I'm neither a helmet compulsion maniac or someone with poor road skills, I'm just someone who had a nasty accident through no fault of my own, for whom wearing a helmet was key in avoiding more serious injury. 

 

I suggest for those of you who want to try, run into the edge of a car door at speed with and without a helmet and see how you get on. 

 

Good luck and goodbye..

Sadly, you have given an excellent demonstration of the phenomenon I described.

Perhaps you aren't a helmet compulsion maniac but you are doing a terrific job of giving us that impression.

I was never interested in your crash or the resulting injuries, that's something you chose to raise below this article. I certainly have no desire to replicate it and I sincerely hope you are thinking ways to avoid a similar incident in future instead of blindly insulting people who don't agree with you about the efficacy of cycle helmets.

drosco wrote:

Just listen to yourselves. Geez.

OK, as davel has said: you brought helmets up, in your story about an accident where the wearing of a helmet defnitely saved you from serious injury.

And yet when asked for more details about this accident (after all, you were the one saying that any right-minded person would have worn a helmet if they'd had an accident the same as your's, so it's not unreasonable to want more detail to know whether any of us ever have been in that exact same situation) you went very quiet.

I think it's time to call BS on your anecdote.

There.  I've said it. 

johngu wrote:

Recent comments on this topic are all getting a bit tiresome

Thanks Dad.

Judge dreadful wrote:

They should rename it, 'the helmet refusenik organ donor cycle touring club'. You could get an organ donor card as a joining incentive.

Without wishing to re-open the helmet debate yet again, it would help if people didn't post ludicrous comments like that above.  For the record, nowhere with a helmet law can show any reduction in risk to cyclists and the biggest ever study found an increase in risk with helmet wearing.  cyclehelmets.org

burtthebike wrote:

Judge dreadful wrote:

They should rename it, 'the helmet refusenik organ donor cycle touring club'. You could get an organ donor card as a joining incentive.

Without wishing to re-open the helmet debate yet again, it would help if people didn't post ludicrous comments like that above.  For the record, nowhere with a helmet law can show any reduction in risk to cyclists and the biggest ever study found an increase in risk with helmet wearing.  cyclehelmets.org

Here's a nice link about the medical benefits of smoking. Maybe you could do that too?

http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html

Jackson wrote:

For a newcomer to the UK, what's all this about then? Sounds a bit like the various factions of the IRA.

The Cycling Touring Club (CTC) is an old organisation (over a 100 years old) and the top brass of this formidiable organisation decided they wanted to become a broader church (nothing wrong with that). However in trying to appeal to a wider range of people they abandoned the organisation's name and it's very ethos and reason for being becoming "Cycling UK". They did this without consulting the membership instead using focus groups who seemed to think that the Touring bit put people joining the CTC because they don't tour themselves (I don't tour but I'm a CTC member). Also the Cycling UK name is likely to get the organisation confused with British Cycling which is another kind of cycling group altogether (they're into the sport side of cycling)

Consequently this Touring Cyclist Club has formed for those who feel that the CTC/Cycling UK have moved away from the original organisation's remit. I wish them luck

drosco wrote:

After going into a car door this weekend, anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet must be insane.

People who ride in the door zone must be insane. Not wearing s helmet is a small increase in risk. Riding in thr door zone is much bigger. Wearing a plastic helmet will not save you if you are knocked down in front of a cat or bus.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Wearing a plastic helmet will not save you if you are knocked down in front of a cat or bus.

It could be argued that an even greater peril than falling in front of a predatory feline is that all of us should take as read such an obviously suspect statement as Steer away from "politics, campaigning and the wearing of helmets” with the new Touring Cyclist Club...

From the 'About us' page of the web site linked to in this article:

Touring Cyclist Club wrote:

The mission of the Touring Cyclist Club is to focus on the pleasures of cycle touring and steer away from "politics, campaigning and discussing the wearing of helmets"

Woldsman wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Wearing a plastic helmet will not save you if you are knocked down in front of a cat or bus.

It could be argued that an even greater peril than falling in front of a predatory feline is that all of us should take as read such an obviously suspect statement as Steer away from "politics, campaigning and the wearing of helmets” with the new Touring Cyclist Club...

From the 'About us' page of the web site linked to in this article:

Touring Cyclist Club wrote:

The mission of the Touring Cyclist Club is to focus on the pleasures of cycle touring and steer away from "politics, campaigning and discussing the wearing of helmets"

 

 

An even greater peril? Yeah I'd like to see the risk profiles broken down. After you...

davel wrote:

Woldsman wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Wearing a plastic helmet will not save you if you are knocked down in front of a cat or bus.

It could be argued that an even greater peril than falling in front of a predatory feline is that all of us should take as read such an obviously suspect statement as Steer away from "politics, campaigning and the wearing of helmets” with the new Touring Cyclist Club...

From the 'About us' page of the web site linked to in this article:

Touring Cyclist Club wrote:

The mission of the Touring Cyclist Club is to focus on the pleasures of cycle touring and steer away from "politics, campaigning and discussing the wearing of helmets"

 

 

An even greater peril? Yeah I'd like to see the risk profiles broken down. After you...

Just in case davel was being serious I've copied above my earlier - silly - comment and emboldened the text of two key words.  Just a throwaway bit of nonsense written around three o'clock this morning when I couldn't get to sleep. 

I'd read an article about a new cycling club.  After that I chuckled at the Python references and felt the familiar sinking feeling as the discussion drifted further off topic.  After reading wycombewheeler's forgivable typo I was then transported from Python to the Goodies.  Now some poor cyclist had hit a car door.  (It happened to me.  Once.) Just when it seemed the rider's day couldn't get any worse s/he was then set upon by the kitten from that TV comedy programme of my youth. Or something.

Back on topic.  It would appear that an earlier press release from Touring Cyclist Club has been faithfully reproduced by Sarah Barth for this article. In the statement it seems an unfortunate omission was made of the word 'discussing'.  (At the time of writing there are press releases on the 'News' page of TCC's web site.)

On the 'About us' page I scrolled past a photograph of the co-founder of this new club to read the mission statement. Again:

The mission of the Touring Cyclist Club is to focus on the pleasures of cycle touring and steer away from "politics, campaigning and discussing the wearing of helmets" [my bold]

In the photograph Dennis Snape is wearing a helmet.   

Woldsman wrote:

davel wrote:

Woldsman wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Wearing a plastic helmet will not save you if you are knocked down in front of a cat or bus.

It could be argued that an even greater peril than falling in front of a predatory feline is that all of us should take as read such an obviously suspect statement as Steer away from "politics, campaigning and the wearing of helmets” with the new Touring Cyclist Club...

From the 'About us' page of the web site linked to in this article:

Touring Cyclist Club wrote:

The mission of the Touring Cyclist Club is to focus on the pleasures of cycle touring and steer away from "politics, campaigning and discussing the wearing of helmets"

 

 

An even greater peril? Yeah I'd like to see the risk profiles broken down. After you...

 

Just in case davel was being serious I've copied above my earlier - silly - comment and emboldened the text of two key words.  Just a throwaway bit of nonsense written around three o'clock this morning when I couldn't get to sleep. 

I'd read an article about a new cycling club.  After that I chuckled at the Python references and felt the familiar sinking feeling as the discussion drifted further off topic.  After reading wycombewheeler's forgivable typo I was then transported from Python to the Goodies.  Now some poor cyclist had hit a car door.  (It happened to me.  Once.) Just when it seemed the rider's day couldn't get any worse s/he was then set upon by the kitten from that TV comedy programme of my youth. Or something.

Back on topic.  It would appear that an earlier press release from Touring Cyclist Club has been faithfully reproduced by Sarah Barth for this article. In the statement it seems an unfortunate omission was made of the word 'discussing'.  (At the time of writing there are press releases on the 'News' page of TCC's web site.)

On the 'About us' page I scrolled past a photograph of the co-founder of this new club to read the mission statement. Again:

The mission of the Touring Cyclist Club is to focus on the pleasures of cycle touring and steer away from "politics, campaigning and discussing the wearing of helmets" [my bold]

In the photograph Dennis Snape is wearing a helmet.   

Well, that was a disappointing breakdown of risk profiles (I wasn't being serious)...

wycombewheeler wrote:

drosco wrote:

After going into a car door this weekend, anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet must be insane.

People who ride in the door zone must be insane. Not wearing s helmet is a small increase in risk. Riding in thr door zone is much bigger. Wearing a plastic helmet will not save you if you are knocked down in front of a cat or bus.

You know precisely nothing about the circumstances of my accident so you'd do well not to speculate.

One thing is perfectly clear, that is, that a helmet saved me from much greater injury. If you seek to convince yourself otherwise then you're an idiot. If you try to convince others then you should be ashamed.

drosco wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

drosco wrote:

After going into a car door this weekend, anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet must be insane.

People who ride in the door zone must be insane. Not wearing s helmet is a small increase in risk. Riding in thr door zone is much bigger. Wearing a plastic helmet will not save you if you are knocked down in front of a cat or bus.

You know precisely nothing about the circumstances of my accident so you'd do well not to speculate.

One thing is perfectly clear, that is, that a helmet saved me from much greater injury. If you seek to convince yourself otherwise then you're an idiot. If you try to convince others then you should be ashamed.

It's a reasonable assumption to make that if you were car-doored you were riding in the door zone. I don't/can't speak for ww but I interpreted their post as flipping yours on its head.

Many helmet evangelists make the argument that a helmet protects them from harm. Many antis counter with 'ride safer' - and quote cause and effect and studies that show that risk-taking increases, via the impression of safety, when safety equipment is worn. So your post is one aspect of the debate in a microcosm.

Generalisms like 'people arguing against helmets must be insane' because of your experience, due to what some might interpret* as risky/naive riding, really don't further the debate.

*whose fault is this interpretation? You've provided exactly the right amount of detail to assume that you were riding in the door zone, and to try to use as justification for wearing a helmet.

davel wrote:

drosco wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

drosco wrote:

After going into a car door this weekend, anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet must be insane.

People who ride in the door zone must be insane. Not wearing s helmet is a small increase in risk. Riding in thr door zone is much bigger. Wearing a plastic helmet will not save you if you are knocked down in front of a cat or bus.

You know precisely nothing about the circumstances of my accident so you'd do well not to speculate. One thing is perfectly clear, that is, that a helmet saved me from much greater injury. If you seek to convince yourself otherwise then you're an idiot. If you try to convince others then you should be ashamed.

It's a reasonable assumption to make that if you were car-doored you were riding in the door zone. I don't/can't speak for ww but I interpreted their post as flipping yours on its head. Many helmet evangelists make the argument that a helmet protects them from harm. Many antis counter with 'ride safer' - and quote cause and effect and studies that show that risk-taking increases, via the impression of safety, when safety equipment is worn. So your post is one aspect of the debate in a microcosm. Generalisms like 'people arguing against helmets must be insane' because of your experience, due to what some might interpret* as risky/naive riding, really don't further the debate. *whose fault is this interpretation? You've provided exactly the right amount of detail to assume that you were riding in the door zone, and to try to use as justification for wearing a helmet.

You know what, interpret it whatever way you want, I could not be less interested in your opinion on my accident. I just hope any person who is unfortunate to be involved in a similar accident has read this and will have the common sense to be wearing a helmet too.  If you choose not to that's your doing.

Enough. 

drosco wrote:

davel wrote:

drosco wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

drosco wrote:

After going into a car door this weekend, anyone who is advocating not wearing a helmet must be insane.

People who ride in the door zone must be insane. Not wearing s helmet is a small increase in risk. Riding in thr door zone is much bigger. Wearing a plastic helmet will not save you if you are knocked down in front of a cat or bus.

You know precisely nothing about the circumstances of my accident so you'd do well not to speculate. One thing is perfectly clear, that is, that a helmet saved me from much greater injury. If you seek to convince yourself otherwise then you're an idiot. If you try to convince others then you should be ashamed.

It's a reasonable assumption to make that if you were car-doored you were riding in the door zone. I don't/can't speak for ww but I interpreted their post as flipping yours on its head. Many helmet evangelists make the argument that a helmet protects them from harm. Many antis counter with 'ride safer' - and quote cause and effect and studies that show that risk-taking increases, via the impression of safety, when safety equipment is worn. So your post is one aspect of the debate in a microcosm. Generalisms like 'people arguing against helmets must be insane' because of your experience, due to what some might interpret* as risky/naive riding, really don't further the debate. *whose fault is this interpretation? You've provided exactly the right amount of detail to assume that you were riding in the door zone, and to try to use as justification for wearing a helmet.

 

You know what, interpret it whatever way you want, I could not be less interested in your opinion on my accident. I just hope any person who is unfortunate to be involved in a similar accident has read this and will have the common sense to be wearing a helmet too.  If you choose not to that's your doing.

Enough. 

To be fair, drosco, you brought it in as a topic in a helmet debate.

And 'common sense' (ie biases and preconceptions) should be left at the door in any sensible cause and effect discussion.

drosco wrote:

You know what, interpret it whatever way you want, I could not be less interested in your opinion on my accident. I just hope any person who is unfortunate to be involved in a similar accident has read this and will have the common sense to be wearing a helmet too.  If you choose not to that's your doing.

Enough. 

OK, I'll bite: so what *were* the exact circumstances of your collision, that the helmet demonstrably saved you from greater head injury and that "any person who is unfortunate to be involved in a similar accident ... will have the common sense to be wearing a helmet too."?

I just think if you're going to use your anecdote as evidence in your argument then we need to know the circumstances.  You never know: it might be the data that tips someone from anti- to pro-helmet