Helmet Nazis at It Again!

writes:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:01:14 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


Your own "reasoning" would suggest that wearing helmets in a
construction zone (as construction workers sometimes must do)
discourages people from entering that line of work. Do you think
anyone believes that?


Your extension is false and without merit.


Nope (and you snipped what you had stated to hid the fact that
I gave you an apropos analogy).


I think it quite likely that some people choose not to seek employment
in situations that they consider dangerous - and reasonably so if the
danger is real, and the compensation insufficient. That construction
workers are required to wear helmets I assume is a different situation
from cyclists being similarly required; the difference being both that
construction IS dangerous and their helmets ARE protective.

You aren't addressing the issue, which was whether you think that
merely requiring helmets while on a job site discourages people from
wanting to be construction workers - that is basically what you said
about bicycle helmets.

I might add that some construction workers will probably tell you that
riding a bicycle in traffic is too dangerous to contemplate. It isn't
the helmets, but knowing that they lack the skill to ride in traffic
(and not knowing that such skills can be learned).



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:05:51 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:35:23 GMT, (Bill Z.)

I've never seen such announcements in the newspapers around here. Don't
know about the radio as I've more or less permanently shut the goddamn
thing off due to excessive loud, obnoxious advertising, but before I
gave up on radio, I never heard any such announcements.


There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.

Krygowski apparently has such limited reading skills that he is dependent
on people reading the newspapers to him, and then he imagines what
must be in them.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

Where I live there are "public service" announcements on
the radio from the local police force, stating that helmets prevent
88% of head injuries.

I've never seen such announcements in the newspapers around here. Don't
know about the radio as I've more or less permanently shut the goddamn
thing off due to excessive loud, obnoxious advertising, but before I
gave up on radio, I never heard any such announcements.

Bill's introduced an Interesting debate technique: saying "I'm
ignorant, so you must be wrong."

First, to correct my reply to JTaylor, I inadvertently typed your
name. But other than that, since when is putting up with loud,
obnoxious, "screaming idiot" advertising a requirement to particpate
in any discussion. Does Krygowski have a problem with (gasp)
reading or talking to people?


I have repeatedly seen such false helmet-promotion statements, in
newspaper articles, in helmet promotional pamplets, in web pages, and
in testimonial materials provided to legislators.

You may choose to go through life ignoring all media, if you like. But
the resulting ignorance does NOT work as proof. What you don't know
about can certainly exist!

Krygowski, dishonest as ever, is trying to deflect the fact that the
*local police force* is not putting this stuff out around here. He
says one thing and then when called on it, he pretends he was talking
about something else. It is his typical "debating" tactic, and one of
the reasons I have no respect for him.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

di wrote:
How long can this crap go on, this must be some kind of record of wasted
time, either wear one and be happy, or don't wear one and be happy

You should understand, some people care enough about cycling to counter
the anti-cycling hype, and to fight those who would take away the
second choice you proposed.

You're not required to join the fight. You're not even required to
learn about the issue.

So it's even simpler, di: either read the threads if you're interested,
or don't read them if you're not.


The reality is that Krygowski has been on his anti-helmet campaign
for a good 15 years or more. If he wanted you to make your own
decision, he wouldn't be arguing with me about it (as I'v never
told anyone to not make their own decision).


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:01:14 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


Your own "reasoning" would suggest that wearing helmets in a
construction zone (as construction workers sometimes must do)
discourages people from entering that line of work. Do you think
anyone believes that?


Your extension is false and without merit.


Nope (and you snipped what you had stated to hid the fact that
I gave you an apropos analogy).

Flailor snipped something dishonestly? Good thing I'm sitting down! LOL

(Having plonked him weeks ago, a wave of nause--- err, nostalgia laps at my
toes.)

Bill "OK, I'm over it" S.

i understand recent medical studies have shown tht cycles who wear helmits
have more serious injuries than does who dont--question are cycles who wear
helmets taking more chances than does who doiont?--i sort of think so at
least from what i see here in ny
"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
writes:

di wrote:
How long can this crap go on, this must be some kind of record of
wasted
time, either wear one and be happy, or don't wear one and be happy

You should understand, some people care enough about cycling to counter
the anti-cycling hype, and to fight those who would take away the
second choice you proposed.

You're not required to join the fight. You're not even required to
learn about the issue.

So it's even simpler, di: either read the threads if you're interested,
or don't read them if you're not.


The reality is that Krygowski has been on his anti-helmet campaign
for a good 15 years or more. If he wanted you to make your own
decision, he wouldn't be arguing with me about it (as I'v never
told anyone to not make their own decision).


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"ilaboo" writes:

i understand recent medical studies have shown tht cycles who wear helmits
have more serious injuries than does who dont--question are cycles who wear
helmets taking more chances than does who doiont?--i sort of think so at
least from what i see here in ny

You mean the people who are "serious" enough about it to get in good
enough shape to get up very steep hills, which are then descended at a
high rate of speed (most of these individuals wear helmets, if only
because their friends do) tend to have worse accidents than "grandma"
does when riding around the block on quiet streets? While serious
cyclists certainly have a much higher skill level than "grandma", they
ride a lot more as well.

All you found out is that people who ride a lot tend to use helmets
and can also handle more difficult conditions. With the increased
skill levels, they have a low accident rate but when accidents do
occur, the accidents can be much worse due to the higher speeds and
more difficult traffic conditions.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB