"Helmet Required" sign???

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.

"G.T." wrote in message
...

"Pippen" wrote in message
...

"JD" wrote in message
oups.com...

G.T. wrote:
"Zilla" wrote in message
. ..
I'm trying to help out a local bike club to get a more prominent
sign up to tell folks to wear their helmets.

Why?


It's definitely a two edged sword. On one hand, yeah some doof might
get hurt and sue the land manager for no sign. If the park already has
a small sign with "helmet required" on it though, there should not be a
prudent jury in the country who would find a land manager liable. On
the other, cleansing the gene pool is not such a bad thing, at least
according to Darwinism. Maybe that's why j pouloser aka puddinhead
disappeared. He bumped his empty noggin and is now at a terminal BYOB
(bring your own bib) drool party.

JD


I was wondering when Darwinism would come up. What I have found is that
if
you mention anything to one of these fools they get defensive. So I agree
if
they are too dumb to know and too stupid to care, let natural selection
take
it's toll. In actuality I would imagine this type of behavior lends
itself
to other activities in there life and it is really only a matter of time
for
them.

-p (life saved by a helmet)

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

"Pippen" wrote in message
...

"G.T." wrote in message
...

"Pippen" wrote in message
...

"JD" wrote in message
oups.com...

G.T. wrote:
"Zilla" wrote in message
. ..
I'm trying to help out a local bike club to get a more prominent
sign up to tell folks to wear their helmets.

Why?


It's definitely a two edged sword. On one hand, yeah some doof might
get hurt and sue the land manager for no sign. If the park already
has
a small sign with "helmet required" on it though, there should not be
a
prudent jury in the country who would find a land manager liable. On
the other, cleansing the gene pool is not such a bad thing, at least
according to Darwinism. Maybe that's why j pouloser aka puddinhead
disappeared. He bumped his empty noggin and is now at a terminal BYOB
(bring your own bib) drool party.

JD


I was wondering when Darwinism would come up. What I have found is that
if
you mention anything to one of these fools they get defensive. So I
agree
if
they are too dumb to know and too stupid to care, let natural selection
take
it's toll. In actuality I would imagine this type of behavior lends
itself
to other activities in there life and it is really only a matter of time
for
them.

-p (life saved by a helmet)

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

I think you would fall into the "too dumb to know" category.

-or-

I'm thinking you would fall into the "too dumb to know" category.

Take your pick...

-p

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:52:29 -0700, "Pippen" wrote:


I'm think you would fall into the "too dumb to know" category.

Irony, it's what's for lunch today.

Oh, and it seems you don't know much about what helmets were, and were
not, designed to do.

You're funny. Ride like you think your helmet will save your life and
you'll just prove Darwin right.

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:52:29 -0700, "Pippen" wrote:


I'm think you would fall into the "too dumb to know" category.

Irony, it's what's for lunch today.

Oh, and it seems you don't know much about what helmets were, and were
not, designed to do.


I have read some of your posts before and you seem like a guy with average
or better intelligence. I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you
going to try to tell me next that seat belts and air bags don't save lives?
Yes, people die everyday with a seat belt on but there are many that are
saved because of them. Bicycle helmets same thing. Yes, cyclist die all the
time with helmet on but many are saved because of them. Period!

Anyone that thinks that you are not safer with a helmet on is foolish and
deserve the Gene/Jean name JD gives to them.

Please don't pull a Mikey on me and pull up some BS study that says
different. I'm sure some Darwin think tank somewhere has put one together.
Remember what Mark Twain said "There are lies, damed lies and statistics".

Common sense is not all that common,

-p

"G.T." wrote in message
oups.com...
You're funny. Ride like you think your helmet will save your life and
you'll just prove Darwin right.


You are twisting the argument. I ride the way I ride, I wear a helmet to
mitigate the unforeseeable. See my comment below to Pete, it applies to you
too.

-p

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?

"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? 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.

This is my last post on the topic. 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. Zilla
is correct when he states that:

"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."

Do us all a favor and wear your helmet.

-p

Quit while you're behind. Your magical helmet is defying the laws of
nature.