A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Helmet Required" sign???



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old March 18th 05, 12:41 AM
p e t e f a g e r l i n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 18th 05, 12:45 AM
BB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 18th 05, 01:21 AM
Pete
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old March 18th 05, 10:38 AM
Tim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 18th 05, 02:25 PM
Shaun aRe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old March 18th 05, 03:32 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old March 21st 05, 12:27 PM
Shaun aRe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[Long] ASA vs CTC Not Responding UK 18 January 20th 05 01:36 AM
What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet. John Doe UK 304 December 5th 04 02:32 PM
Bicycle helmets help prevent serious head injury among children, part one. John Doe UK 3 November 30th 04 04:46 PM
Does public health care pay for your head injuries? John Doe UK 187 November 30th 04 03:51 PM
Fule face helmet - review Mikefule Unicycling 8 January 14th 04 06:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.