|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Pippen wrote:
"p e t e f a g e r l i n" wrote in message om... Pippen wrote: "P e t e F a g e r l i n" wrote in message ... Yes, cyclist die all the time with helmet on but many are saved because of them. Period! What do you know that the designers, testers and manufacturers of helmets are missing? What? Where is that question coming from? You are making claims that those folks don't make. Heck, some of those folks actually refute your claims. Hence the question. Let me reiterate so you get it. Cyclist rides out in front of a bus wearing a helmet... most likely cyclist dies with helmet on. Cyclist does a head plant into a boulder cracks / crushes the helmet, cyclist has severe concussion, second degree shoulder separation and scrapes and cuts on head but lives to ride another day because he was wearing a helmet. What is the basis for your claim? It's obvious that you are unfamiliar with the forces that helmets are designed to protect against. This is my last post on the topic. Perfect. Run away while still living in your fantasy world where helmets are magical live saving devices. I never expected to win an argument with someone who takes the stand that helmets do not save lives. It was hard for me to let someone make such a statement and have it go not contested. You didn't contest a thing, just reiterated some common myths. Common sense indeed. Do us all a favor and wear your helmet. I usually do. I'm just not naive enough to think that it was designed to save my life. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:28:46 -0000, Shaun aRe wrote:
Not the issue here, is it? The issue is, someone gets hurt, riding without a helmet, in that park, it goes toward making the park close - right or wrong, that's the way it is. That seems to be the thinking here, but does anyone know of a case where this has actually happened? -- -BB- To e-mail me, unmunge my address |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Zilla" wrote in message . .. There is a sign with 10 park rules in it, the the "Wear a helmet" rule is the 3rd or 4th line. It's not prominent enough. If the first and second lines are permutations of "Don't ride like an ass", then yes, it's prominent enough. Pete |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Pippen wrote:
"G.T." wrote in message ... [snip] You're funny. The place that Darwinism comes in is where people think that bicycle helmets can save their lives. They do nothing but prevent cuts, contusions, and bruises. It's comical how many people ignore the physics and miraculously think a helmet is going to save their lives. Greg I'm think you would fall into the "too dumb to know" category. -p On the contrary Greg's posts in this thread suggest he's read some of the real world research on helmets and is aware of their limitations. -- Tim. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Shaun aRe wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Zilla wrote: For safety, and for keeping the bike trails opened for bikers. If someone without a helmet gets hurt, then the park managers may close the trails for the rest of us. If someone trips on a shoelace will they require everyone to wear velcro? Not the issue here, is it? The issue is, someone gets hurt, riding without a helmet, in that park, it goes toward making the park close - right or wrong, that's the way it is. Yes it is the issue. Joe Blow can approach the park commission with the same stupid shoe lace analogy and convince them to take measures to prevent an accident. Anyone can dream up a dangerous situation and bring it up before the board resulting in park closure or stupid rules. What happens when someone wearing a helmet is still injured? It's going to happen sooner or later. What then? No bikes will be my guess. A more sensible approach would be a warning that it may be dangerous to ride and people accept that risk by using the trails. Look - we aren't talking about *sensible* here, or rational, or right - we're talking about how the park sees it - they're just trying to cover there arses. Now whether or not this is a well informed way to go about it doesn't count - they've made their decision already. How likely do you think it is, that they would listen to a rational argument contrary to their decision? It'd be like arguing with that ****wit Vandeman. HTH. Shaun aRe |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Shaun aRe wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Shaun aRe wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Zilla wrote: For safety, and for keeping the bike trails opened for bikers. If someone without a helmet gets hurt, then the park managers may close the trails for the rest of us. If someone trips on a shoelace will they require everyone to wear velcro? Not the issue here, is it? The issue is, someone gets hurt, riding without a helmet, in that park, it goes toward making the park close - right or wrong, that's the way it is. Yes it is the issue. Joe Blow can approach the park commission with the same stupid shoe lace analogy and convince them to take measures to prevent an accident. Anyone can dream up a dangerous situation and bring it up before the board resulting in park closure or stupid rules. What happens when someone wearing a helmet is still injured? It's going to happen sooner or later. What then? No bikes will be my guess. A more sensible approach would be a warning that it may be dangerous to ride and people accept that risk by using the trails. Look - we aren't talking about *sensible* here, or rational, or right - we're talking about how the park sees it - they're just trying to cover there arses. Now whether or not this is a well informed way to go about it doesn't count - they've made their decision already. How likely do you think it is, that they would listen to a rational argument contrary to their decision? It'd be like arguing with that ****wit Vandeman. Ok ok. Geeze. You are right. I am wrong. I'm crying now. Happy? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... Shaun aRe wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Shaun aRe wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Zilla wrote: For safety, and for keeping the bike trails opened for bikers. If someone without a helmet gets hurt, then the park managers may close the trails for the rest of us. If someone trips on a shoelace will they require everyone to wear velcro? Not the issue here, is it? The issue is, someone gets hurt, riding without a helmet, in that park, it goes toward making the park close - right or wrong, that's the way it is. Yes it is the issue. Joe Blow can approach the park commission with the same stupid shoe lace analogy and convince them to take measures to prevent an accident. Anyone can dream up a dangerous situation and bring it up before the board resulting in park closure or stupid rules. What happens when someone wearing a helmet is still injured? It's going to happen sooner or later. What then? No bikes will be my guess. A more sensible approach would be a warning that it may be dangerous to ride and people accept that risk by using the trails. Look - we aren't talking about *sensible* here, or rational, or right - we're talking about how the park sees it - they're just trying to cover there arses. Now whether or not this is a well informed way to go about it doesn't count - they've made their decision already. How likely do you think it is, that they would listen to a rational argument contrary to their decision? It'd be like arguing with that ****wit Vandeman. Ok ok. Geeze. You are right. I am wrong. I'm crying now. Happy? Points, Nelson Muntz ha-haaahhh Yep - I'm ecstatic - I love making grown men cry LOL! Shaun aRe |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Long] ASA vs CTC | Not Responding | UK | 18 | January 20th 05 12:36 AM |
What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet. | John Doe | UK | 304 | December 5th 04 01:32 PM |
Bicycle helmets help prevent serious head injury among children, part one. | John Doe | UK | 3 | November 30th 04 03:46 PM |
Does public health care pay for your head injuries? | John Doe | UK | 187 | November 30th 04 02:51 PM |
Fule face helmet - review | Mikefule | Unicycling | 8 | January 14th 04 05:56 PM |