A different look at the helmet debate: was cycling links -

Surely the dumbest thing ever written. The reason Guy Chapman does not wear
a helmet is because he does not want to muss his hair. He is like a woman
that way and about on the same level of intelligence. Women are not known
for their large brains and neither is Guy Chapman.

And this is what helmet legislationists are always reduced to in the
end:simple insults and ''s'obviusinit''.

You weren't known in a former incarnation as Sorcerer were you, some
of your arguments are most entertaining, but strangely familiar.

viz:
Two wheeled transport should be outlawed. It's obsolete,
and maybe if they were forced to get normal lives,
they'd lose their sexual perversions.

I hate them, it's true. I pray to Jesus to help me with
my patience, with my Road Rage, try to be more humane.
But damn do they **** me off!!!!!!!!!!!

There is empirical evidence... in my case, when I fell off my motorcycle, I
distinctly remember 3 thumps as I rolled down the road. It was my head
hitting the road.... my only injury was a broken clavicle..... my helmeted
head was in fine shape, not even headache...

I have also heard on several occasions, "I would have been killed if I
wasn't wearing my helmet". Actually, the name Gary Busey comes to mind.

Otherwise, this is one of the dumbest discussions I've run into in a long
time....
..
Arne, USA
..
When you've quite finished missing the point, here it is again: I
know of no credible evidence that they prevent serious injuries or
death. And I have looked. So which study do you think provides the
missing evidence? Cite it please.

Edward Dolan Wrote:
Sorry Ken, but I sure don't agree with you about that. People have to
be
protected from their own stupidity - and that is the job of government.
I
would pass laws requiring helmet use by cyclists and motorcyclists and
anyone who didn't agree with me could spend the rest of their life in
jail
contemplating the error of their ways. This would have the added
benefit of
keeping them off our roads and highways and thereby not incurring any
health
care for their inevitable accidents.
--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

So... Since far more individuals far prey to "HEAD INJURIES" via baths
and showers (a statistical fact) than cycling, it seems only logical
(Ed's logic) to apply the same legal requirement(s) in everyone's
bathroom. (Right Ed?)

The after-effects of such, would no doubt produce the same
*unhealthful* results as the helmet requirement in australia did.


--
PaPa

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:25:22 -0600, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:

Guy
most likely does not want to wear a helmet because it will muss up his hair.

I must take exception to this statement.

Guy doesn't want to wear a helmet because his head is already
surrounded by his own bony pelvis, which is protection enough in its
own right and suffices well for his purposes.

Edward Dolan Wrote:
Sorry Ken, but I sure don't agree with you about that. People have to
be
protected from their own stupidity - and that is the job of government.
I
would pass laws requiring helmet use by cyclists and motorcyclists and
anyone who didn't agree with me could spend the rest of their life in
jail
contemplating the error of their ways. This would have the added
benefit of
keeping them off our roads and highways and thereby not incurring any
health
care for their inevitable accidents.
--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

So... Since far more individuals fall prey to "HEAD INJURIES" via baths
and showers (a statistical fact) than cycling, it seems only logical
(Ed's logic) to apply the same legal requirement(s) to every American's
personal hygiene (Right Ed?)

The after-effects of such, would no doubt produce the same
*unhealthful* results as the helmet requirement in australia did.


--
PaPa

"DiscoDuck" wrote in message
om...
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...
How many helmet studies have you actually read, Ed?

None, nor do I plan to. Why reinvent the wheel? Bike helmets are
necessary
for the same reason that motorcycle helmets are necessary and for the
same
reason that race car drivers also wear helmets. It protects the old
noggin
in the event of an accident.

Then you oviously advocate helmets for motorists, right?

Motorists have a heavy metal shield surrounding them whereas cyclists,
motorcyclists and race car drivers don't. Next question!

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Wise - Minnesota

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:37:44 -0600, "Edward Dolan"
wrote in message :

I do not care if you and Guy want to get yourselves killed because you do
not want to wear helmets. But I do object most strongly to having to bear
the expense of your health care if and when you have an accident because
you
were not wearing a helmet.

So which study do you think shows that helmets prevent death or
serious brain injury? Cite it. The manufacturers would love to see
it, they don't think helmets do that.

You also need to read Curnow on the mechanisms of brain injury.

So why is the entire world, except for Guy Chapman and DiscoDuck, wearing
helmets? Is this some kind of vast right wing conspiracy?

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Conspirator - Minnesota

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:51:46 -0600, "Edward Dolan"
wrote in message :

Here is a simple fact for you: helmets are not designed for, and have
no proven efficacy in, impacts with motor vehicles. Neither the
manufacturers nor the standards support the idea. Honestly.

So then, the only reason not to be wearing a helmet is in the event you
impact a motor vehicle.

No, there are lots of reasons to wear or not to wear a helmet. The
major reason advanced by helmet proponents, especially compulsionists,
is the prevention of serious injuries, among which road traffic
injuries dominate. There is no credible evidence to suggest that
helmets have any measurable effect on serious injuries, whether
involving motor vehicles or not.

Here is your own answer from your above statement:

"The
major reason advanced by helmet proponents, especially compulsionists,
is the prevention of serious injuries, among which road traffic
injuries dominate."

However, considering there are a thousand and one
other ways you can hurt your noggin riding a bike, I guess will continue
to
wear a helmet despite your very profound ignorance on these matters.

I have a suspicion it is you who are ignorant. Which figure for
efficacy do you believe, and from what source? I almost certainly
have the original source in my database and if I don't I will be able
to get it probably within 48 hours, so I'd be happy to debate the
detail. Which figure? There are plenty to choose from, ranging from
-40% to +186%.

Helmets probably prevent a large proportion of trivial injuries, but I
know of no credible evidence that they prevent serious injuries or
death. ...

Surely the dumbest thing ever written. The reason Guy Chapman does not
wear
a helmet is because he does not want to muss his hair.

When you've quite finished missing the point, here it is again: I
know of no credible evidence that they prevent serious injuries or
death. And I have looked. So which study do you think provides the
missing evidence? Cite it please.

The point is that helmets will prevent injuries, some more serious than
others and others less so. Any study that says otherwise is flawed and was
mostly likely done by idiots who do not want to wear helmets for one reason
or another. I believe the motorcycle crowd have their own version of this
particular delusion also. I know some of those guys and they are all without
exception total idiots.

Oh, and you are also making a fundamental error in your base
assumption regarding my helmet use. Hardly a surprise, it's much
easier to fight straw men than the real thing.

If you could ever follow anyone else's thinking other than your own, you
would know by now that it is time to tell the world why you do not like to
wear a helmet. Jeez! Talking to you is like talking to a 5 year old kid.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Helmet Man - Minnesota

"Terry" wrote in message
om...

Edward Dolan wrote:

Surely the dumbest thing ever written. The reason Guy Chapman does not
wear
a helmet is because he does not want to muss his hair. He is like a woman
that way and about on the same level of intelligence. Women are not known
for their large brains and neither is Guy Chapman.

And this is what helmet legislationists are always reduced to in the
end:simple insults and ''s'obviusinit''.

You weren't known in a former incarnation as Sorcerer were you, some
of your arguments are most entertaining, but strangely familiar.

viz:
Two wheeled transport should be outlawed. It's obsolete,
and maybe if they were forced to get normal lives,
they'd lose their sexual perversions.

I hate them, it's true. I pray to Jesus to help me with
my patience, with my Road Rage, try to be more humane.
But damn do they **** me off!!!!!!!!!!!

The Sorcerer is a man after my own heart. I find I no longer have any
patience with my fellow man. Instruction and education is a waste of time
because we are essentially dealing with nothing but naked (hairless) apes.
Evolution stopped short of creating Homo Sapiens and instead left us Homo
Stupiens.

I am like the man who is constantly pointing out that the king has no
clothes on. Women of course have their own strong points when it comes to
intelligence, but it is not the same as a man's intelligence. Women also
have very many other virtues which men are totally bereft of, but that is
another message for another thread.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Man - Minnesota

"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:40:16 -0600 "Edward Dolan"
used 31 lines of text to write in newsgroup:
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent

Sorry Ken, but I sure don't agree with you about that. People have to be
protected from their own stupidity - and that is the job of government. I
would pass laws requiring helmet use by cyclists and motorcyclists and
anyone who didn't agree with me could spend the rest of their life in jail
contemplating the error of their ways. This would have the added benefit
of
keeping them off our roads and highways and thereby not incurring any
health
care for their inevitable accidents.


So you're saying it's better to pay for their health care in jail?

Every society is going to have those who are basically just criminals. The
main thing I want is that they be kept away from society, even if it means
we have to take care of them while they are in prison.

Hey Ed, what do you think about prisoners with life sentences getting
heart transplants paid for by you and I?

I would not get a heart transplant even for myself, even if I could afford
it. It think when the old ticker is gone, then you are gone. Time to die and
make some room on the earth for the young.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Undead - Minnesota