|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A different look at the helmet debate: was cycling links -
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:35:00 GMT, "Robert Haston" wrote in message et: My real belief is the near mythical belief in bike helmets stems from how incredibly convenient this belief is for drivers who don't cycle. Check. This 2-3 cm of foam crushing is the last item in a long chain of much more powerful opportunities to avoid injury. Check To me the biggest risk in cycling is people who think all they need to do regarding bicycle safety is to put on a helmet. Check Consider that 90% of bike fatalities are actually car fatalities, since the car does the killing, and that most are from multiple trauma. Check We used to teach them bicycle safety, now "bicycle safety" programs are often just people handing out bicycle helmets. That's the real problem to me. Check I agree 100% with every word you say, Robert. An AOL post, I know, but you said it so well I just had to say "amen to that". Especially the last point: the arrogation of the cycle safety agenda by helmet monomaniacs flies in the face of every analysis I have ever seen of the relative merits of different cycle safety interventions, all of which, to my knowledge, put helmets last. Guy Guy needs to check himself into a psychiatric clinic and have his brains "checked." Anyone who wants to go with this nut on the subject of helmets is as nutty as he is. But that is what is wrong with Usenet and groups like ARBR. All the nuts and screwballs come out of the wood work with their half baked theories. Guy most likely does not want to wear a helmet because it will muss up his hair. A lot of idiotic women cyclists are like that too. The only lesson to be learned from all of this is that a little learning is a dangerous thing. It is the sort of thing that will get you killed. Listen to Guy Chapman and you will be as dead as he is going to be someday from a head injury due to a bike accident. -- Regards, Ed Dolan the Wise and All-Knowing - Minnesota |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:25:22 -0600, Mr. Ed wrote in
message : Guy needs to check himself into a psychiatric clinic and have his brains "checked." Anyone who wants to go with this nut on the subject of helmets is as nutty as he is. Really? What proportion of serious head injuries do you think helmets prevent? To the nearest 10%, please. Preferably with citations for the evidence supporting the figure. How would you rate the relative merit of traffic safety measures, traffic law enforcement, rider and driver training, lighting and conspicuity measures, bike maintenance initiatives, and helmet promotion, as measures to improve cyclist safety? Give your best estimate of the relative weightings. The only lesson to be learned from all of this is that a little learning is a dangerous thing. It is the sort of thing that will get you killed. Correct. And the majority of helmet zealots have very little learning indeed. Some of them still quote the 1989 Seattle study, for example, despite the fact that it is Clearly ********. How many helmet studies have you actually read, Ed? Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:25:22 -0600, Mr. Ed wrote in message : Guy needs to check himself into a psychiatric clinic and have his brains "checked." Anyone who wants to go with this nut on the subject of helmets is as nutty as he is. Really? What proportion of serious head injuries do you think helmets prevent? To the nearest 10%, please. Preferably with citations for the evidence supporting the figure. There is no need for anyone to do as you suggest. The preponderance of world knowledge is in on the subject of helmets. The only question is what is your credibility on the subject. You have apparently read one or two studies and have come to an erroneous conclusion. The PREPONDERANCE is against you. That is all anyone ever has to know. How would you rate the relative merit of traffic safety measures, traffic law enforcement, rider and driver training, lighting and conspicuity measures, bike maintenance initiatives, and helmet promotion, as measures to improve cyclist safety? Give your best estimate of the relative weightings. There is no need for anyone to do as you suggest. The preponderance of world knowledge is in on the subject of helmets. The only question is what is your credibility on the subject. You have apparently read one or two studies and have come to an erroneous conclusion. The PREPONDERANCE is against you. That is all anyone ever has to know. The only lesson to be learned from all of this is that a little learning is a dangerous thing. It is the sort of thing that will get you killed. Correct. And the majority of helmet zealots have very little learning indeed. Some of them still quote the 1989 Seattle study, for example, despite the fact that it is Clearly ********. There is no need for anyone to do as you suggest. The preponderance of world knowledge is in on the subject of helmets. The only question is what is your credibility on the subject. You have apparently read one or two studies and have come to an erroneous conclusion. The PREPONDERANCE is against you. That is all anyone ever has to know. 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. -- Regards, Ed Dolan the Man Who Knows All - Minnesota |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Ken_in_Michgan" wrote in message om... [...] ....Everyone should be free to decide to wear one or not to for themselves. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE STATE SHOULD PASS HELMET LAWS FOR CYCLISTS (EVEN THOSE THAT RIDE HARLEY DAVISONS). We should keep the state our of our lives as much as possible. 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. Have you ever noticed that stupid people are thorough going stupid. I mean, they do not have one shred of intelligence. Most of them have their brains in their testicles so they are in effect sitting on their brains when they are riding their bikes. Maybe that is why they think they do not need to wear a helmet. -- Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message ...
Guy needs to check himself into a psychiatric clinic and have his brains "checked." Anyone who wants to go with this nut on the subject of helmets is as nutty as he is. Did you feel that way when the law was suggested by proponants? But that is what is wrong with Usenet and groups like ARBR. All the nuts and screwballs come out of the wood work with their half baked theories. Guy most likely does not want to wear a helmet because it will muss up his hair. A lot of idiotic women cyclists are like that too. Actually that is what is RIGHT with it as we do fear weirdo control freaks like you who want to force thier will on others. The only lesson to be learned from all of this is that a little learning is a dangerous thing. It is the sort of thing that will get you killed. Listen to Guy Chapman and you will be as dead as he is going to be someday from a head injury due to a bike accident. Three words: Ignorant control freak. Clearly trying to belittle those who value truth, and freedom of choice. Please get therapy. Ed's method is classic ego driven drivel. Cannot admit he is wrong therefore belittles. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... On 27 Nov 2004 14:40:33 -0800, (Ken_in_Michgan) wrote in message : I am aware that wearing a helmet when riding a 'bent is not as critical as when riding the old fashioned DF "safety bikes," but when you consider that we often share the road with some heavy metal (cars, SUVs, and trucks) driven by people who are ofted distracted by cell-phones, kids in the car, or - my favorite terror - reading while driving, we should wear anything that can make us a little safer. Sorry, Ken, but I am getting a little weary of this right now - there are at least three helmet wars going on right now, so I might not be as tactful as I otherwise would be here. 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. 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. 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. 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. -- Regards, Ed Dolan Who Always Wears A Helmet - Minnesota |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"DiscoDuck" wrote in message om... "Robert Haston" wrote in message ink.net... My real belief is the near mythical belief in bike helmets stems from how incredibly convenient this belief is for drivers who don't cycle.... One of the most reasonable and honest posts I have read here in years. Well done. One observation though. This hysteria has extended to cyclists as well. I've been called "crazy" for "risking" riding bareheaded BY cyclists. I think the reason for this, is that THEY (cyclists who agree with the law) feel silly wearing a helmet, therefore want to ensure every one "feels" as silly. I'm not saying they are, or look silly. Indeed some helmets are quite cool looking. But their resistance is based on ego - not reasoning or intelligence. Whoops! Sorry there DiscoDuck! I wear a helmet because I feel silly NOT wearing a helmet. What would you have me wear - one of those ridiculous looking baseball caps? Hells Bells, I have to wear something on my head, so I figure it might as well be a bike helmet. If I were all that concerned about how I looked, I would just stay at home and hide in the closet. I would then be a closet cyclist. -- Regards, Ed Dolan the Brave - Minnesota |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"DiscoDuck" wrote in message om... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... Guy needs to check himself into a psychiatric clinic and have his brains "checked." Anyone who wants to go with this nut on the subject of helmets is as nutty as he is. Did you feel that way when the law was suggested by proponants? I am always in favor of lots of laws to control nuts and freaks like you and Guy Chapman. But that is what is wrong with Usenet and groups like ARBR. All the nuts and screwballs come out of the wood work with their half baked theories. Guy most likely does not want to wear a helmet because it will muss up his hair. A lot of idiotic women cyclists are like that too. Actually that is what is RIGHT with it as we do fear weirdo control freaks like you who want to force thier will on others. Their is spelled their, not thier. The only lesson to be learned from all of this is that a little learning is a dangerous thing. It is the sort of thing that will get you killed. Listen to Guy Chapman and you will be as dead as he is going to be someday from a head injury due to a bike accident. Three words: Ignorant control freak. Clearly trying to belittle those who value truth, and freedom of choice. Please get therapy. 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. Do I want to control slobs like you? You bet - for the good of society. Maybe you should think about moving to Antarctica if you do not like to be "controlled." Ed's method is classic ego driven drivel. Cannot admit he is wrong therefore belittles. I do not have the slightest problem whatsoever admitting I am wrong - when I am wrong. I do not need to belittle anyone here as everyone is very good at doing that all by themselves every time they post without any help from me - including you DiscoDuck. But I admit I do like to rub it in a bit, just in case others here are too dense to pick up on all the idiocies being constantly expressed on this newsgroup. -- Regards, Ed Dolan the Classic - Minnesota |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Kahn" wrote in message ... On 27 Nov 2004 14:29:30 -0800, (DiscoDuck) wrote: One observation though. This hysteria has extended to cyclists as well. I've been called "crazy" for "risking" riding bareheaded BY cyclists. I think the reason for this, is that THEY (cyclists who agree with the law) feel silly wearing a helmet, therefore want to ensure every one "feels" as silly. I'm not saying they are, or look silly. Indeed some helmets are quite cool looking. But their resistance is based on ego - not reasoning or intelligence. It's less a case of wanting everyone else to look silly too than of persuading yourself that you've made the only logical choice. This is a well established psychological phenomenon known as "cognitive dissonance". Before making a decision, such as the one to wear a helmet, we weigh up the pros and cons. After making it the cons produce uncomfortable feelings - dissonance. These feelings are most effectively reduced by an attitude change that increases the weight given to the pros and reduces that given to the cons. "I thought I would feel silly in a helmet, but now that I've got one I'm convinced I'm not only safer but look cool too". That sort of thing. -- Dave... Exactly so, or as Guy Chapman would say ... check. -- Regards, Ed Dolan the Decided - Minnesota |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 | Mike Iglesias | General | 4 | October 29th 04 07:11 AM |
Richard Keatinge in the Irish Medical Times | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 111 | August 18th 04 05:43 PM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | Social Issues | 14 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |