Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????



Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
> Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
> such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
> wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.
>
Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
or not.

As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't appear
to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.

So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak?

--
Tony Green
Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, http://www.beermad.org.uk
* This has been a Microsoft-free message *
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> The bad news for all you URC AHZ data-whores is that personal
> experience trumps statistics and mental masturbation *every time*,
> sorry.

Hmmm... Interesting turn of phrase.

Are you so insecure in your opinion that you can only respond with abuse?

--
Tony Green
Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, http://www.beermad.org.uk
* This has been a Microsoft-free message *
 
Tony Green <[email protected]> writes:

> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
>> Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
>> Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
>> such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
>> wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.
>>
> Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
> zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
> determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
> or not.

Really? I havent seen a single post to that affect in this thread. Most
are continually questioning the dismissal by a core few of the benefits
of helmet wearing for cyclists.

>
> As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't
> appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.
>
> So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak?

Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection and
that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the
pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as
the sun goes down.
 
"Tony Green" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
> > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
> > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
> > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.
> >
> Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
> zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
> determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
> or not.
>
> As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't appear
> to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.
>
> So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak?
>

They are imagined, just like the imagined "breach of confidence" and
imagined "sexual deviance" which Ozark came up with, prompting him to start
threads to attempt to smear the people who kept pointing out to him that

a) he was wrong; and
b) why he was wrong.
 
> Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection

You've misrepresented the arguments. <http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?
1013>

> and that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the
> pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as
> the sun goes down.

You've misrepresented the arguments.
<http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf>
 
Hadron Quark wrote:
> Tony Green <[email protected]> writes:

>> Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
>> zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
>> determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
>> or not.
>
> Really? I havent seen a single post to that affect in this thread. Most
> are continually questioning the dismissal by a core few of the benefits
> of helmet wearing for cyclists.

Who said anything about this referring /only/ to this thread? I'm
referring to real life where proposals are frequently put formward to
force all cyclists to wear helmets (sadly in some countries, successfully.)
>
>> As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't
>> appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.
>>
>> So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak?
>
> Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection and
> that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the
> pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as
> the sun goes down.

I think you need to look up the definition of "zealot".

These are people arguing from a different point of view from yours. They
can only sensibly be referred to as zealots if they try to /impose/
their views on you. I doubt there's a single person who chooses not to
wear a helmet who would attempt to stop you wearing one if you so wished.

--
Tony Green
Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, http://www.beermad.org.uk
* This has been a Microsoft-free message *
 
"Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> > Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection
>
> You've misrepresented the arguments. <http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?
> 1013>
>
> > and that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the
> > pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as
> > the sun goes down.
>
> You've misrepresented the arguments.
> <http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf>

Common helmet zealot tactic. Cue Ozark/Sorni...
 
Hadron Quark wrote:
> Tony Green <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
> > zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
> > determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
> > or not.
>
> Really? I havent seen a single post to that affect in this thread. Most
> are continually questioning the dismissal by a core few of the benefits
> of helmet wearing for cyclists.

Umm.. how about the posts pointing out that increased helmet wearing
may lead to an MHL in UK. Or did you mean effect?

> > As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't
> > appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.
> >
> > So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak?
>
> Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection and
> that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the
> pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as
> the sun goes down.

And you have the data to show that they are incorrect? or just wild
unsubstantiated assumption?

I think it is actually anti-(Helmet Zealot) rather than (Anti Helmet)
Zealot.

...d
 
Tony Green wrote:

> Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
> zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
> determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
> or not.

Um, what threads have you ben reading? In RBT, at least, it's really not
like that. Just expressing the /opinion/ that helmets are prudent invites
scorn, ridicule, abuse, etc. One must be a DOLT to think that.

> As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't
> appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.

Um, what threads have you been reading? Besides being "shamed" for wearing
lids (why don't you wear one whilst walking, showering, crapping, etc.),
we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs.

> So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak?

They're everywhere! In fact, there's one ri----- {arrggghh..... gurgle
gurgle......unhhhhhh..........}
 
In article <[email protected]>, Sorni wrote:
>Tony Green wrote:
>
>> Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
>> zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
>> determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
>> or not.
>
>Um, what threads have you ben reading? In RBT, at least, it's really not
>like that. Just expressing the /opinion/ that helmets are prudent invites
>scorn, ridicule, abuse, etc. One must be a DOLT to think that.

So you are cross-posting to raise the tone compared with RBT? That's a
novel excuse.
There's more to the world than Usenet you know - in real life, cycling
events which require helmets are far more common that ones that ban them,
and helmet laws and campaigns for them are far more common than attempts
to ban them. In fact I doubt there's ever been any attempt to ban helmets,
the whole "Anti Helmet Nazi Zealot" thing is completely bogus.


>> As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't
>> appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.
>
>Um, what threads have you been reading? Besides being "shamed" for wearing
>lids (why don't you wear one whilst walking, showering, crapping, etc.),

No, you get shamed for not thinking clearly or being able to present a
coherent argument.


>we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs.

No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_"
appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively
support a MHL.
 
[email protected] (Alan Braggins) writes:

> In article <[email protected]>, Sorni wrote:
>
>>we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs.
>
> No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_"
> appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively
> support a MHL.

See : you just did it. You have insinuated through clever snipping and
unfinished blanket declarations that people who think helmets do have
value are also active supporters of an MHL.

How on earth is it utterly pointless to claim that through experience
one thinks that a Helmet can and does protect a rider but that one
wouldnt support an MHL? Some of us do believe in choice.
 
Alan Braggins wrote:

> So you are cross-posting to raise the tone compared with RBT?

You DID cross-post this, you know. (Nice little trick with the null
followup notwithstanding.)
 
Hadron Quark wrote:
> [email protected] (Alan Braggins) writes:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Sorni wrote:
>>
>>> we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively
>>> supporting/ MHLs.
>>
>> No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a
>> MHL, _BUT_" appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the
>> poster didn't actively support a MHL.
>
> See : you just did it. You have insinuated through clever snipping and
> unfinished blanket declarations that people who think helmets do have
> value are also active supporters of an MHL.
>
> How on earth is it utterly pointless to claim that through experience
> one thinks that a Helmet can and does protect a rider but that one
> wouldnt support an MHL? Some of us do believe in choice.

Bingo.
 
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:12:15 +0100, Tony Green
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
>> Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
>> Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
>> such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
>> wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.
>>
>Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
>zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
>determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
>or not.

I haven't seen that in rbt.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
In article <[email protected]>, Sorni wrote:
>Alan Braggins wrote:
>
>> So you are cross-posting to raise the tone compared with RBT?
>
>You DID cross-post this, you know.

Yes - I have no idea which group you are reading or posting in.

But I've been trying to reduce followups, not crossposting replies
to groups that weren't in the post I was following up to the way some
****-stirrers have.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Hadron Quark wrote:
>[email protected] (Alan Braggins) writes:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Sorni wrote:
>>
>>>we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs.
>>
>> No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_"
>> appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively
>> support a MHL.
>
>See : you just did it.

What part of "No, merely passively" don't you understand?


> You have insinuated through clever snipping and
>unfinished blanket declarations that people who think helmets do have
>value are also active supporters of an MHL.

Not all of them.
 
[email protected] (Alan Braggins) writes:

> In article <[email protected]>, Hadron Quark wrote:
>>[email protected] (Alan Braggins) writes:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Sorni wrote:
>>>
>>>>we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs.
>>>
>>> No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_"
>>> appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively
>>> support a MHL.
>>
>>See : you just did it.
>
> What part of "No, merely passively" don't you understand?
>

See below. Once again you twist like a skewered eel.

>
>> You have insinuated through clever snipping and
>>unfinished blanket declarations that people who think helmets do have
>>value are also active supporters of an MHL.
>
> Not all of them.

Again :

"But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_" appear in
posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively
support a MHL."


What part of someone saying they appreciate helmet protection but dont
support MHLs dont you understand?
 
Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Sorni wrote:
>> Alan Braggins wrote:
>>
>>> So you are cross-posting to raise the tone compared with RBT?
>>
>> You DID cross-post this, you know.

> Yes - I have no idea which group you are reading or posting in.

> But I've been trying to reduce followups, not crossposting replies
> to groups that weren't in the post I was following up to the way some
> ****-stirrers have.

Fine. Go after the original cross-poster then. (Although if it's on topic
for all groups, then what's the problem?)

You made it sound like *I* initiated the cross-posting, which I did not. I
hit "Reply Group".

Post nanny.

B
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Cathy Kearns wrote:
> > Even in my 40's I was willing to go for headers in soccer,
> > figuring I didn't need those brain cells anyway. And for the life of me I
> > don't get why we have no problems with kids heading soccer balls if we are
> > so worried about them losing brain cells. I've seen the studies on that.
> >
>
> You won't be surprised to learn that some people have advocated banning
> heading in soccer
> http://www.safety-council.org/info/sport/soccer.html

Heading is too difficult to do properly in a fast game, as
one usually cannot bring the correct area of the skull to
bear; and too easy to hurt oneself.

There is one portion of the skull that can be used as a
mallet: the dome near and above the hairline on the
forehead. That point can be found by tapping a pencil
around that area.

Saw an ice hockey game where a Russian player new to the
NHL got into a fight with an opposing player. They each
had a two handed grip on the other, then the Russian
butted the opponent's face. Opponent went down like a sack
of potatoes. Apparently nutting is illegal in the NHL.

A heavy blow can be delivered without hurting oneself.

--
Michael Press
 
GaryG wrote:<[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
> Helmets are, in fact, used in other activities that involve a degree of risk
> of head injury (motorcycling, horse-back riding, martial arts, American
> football and baseball, etc.).

But helmets are not worn for many other activities with similar degrees
of risk. As is often mentioned, riding in cars causes by far the
greatest number of serious to fatal head injuries in America - DESPITE
seat belts and air bags. (Motorists are roughly half such deaths;
cyclists are less than one percent!) Yet this great burden on
America's health care system somehow doesn't warrant the obvious
remedy.

(BTW, it's not a "per hour" thing either. The risk of fatal head
injury per hour is roughly similar on a bike or in a car, and both are
infinitesmal.)

In truth, people's judgement on this matter is shaped much more by
fashion and well-cultivated beliefs than by actual facts. Before Bell
began aggressively marketing the Bell Biker (in the 1970s, to
capitalize on the recent surge in adult cycling) nobody associated
cycling with head injury. Look at books, magazines, or other cycling
information before 1975 to see.

First came the product, the opportunity for Bell to branch out and make
more money. Then came the massive promotion campaigns, including the
funds provided to earnest lobbyists like Safe Kids Inc. Then came the
"common sense" judgements. Now - only now - are we getting data that
shows how false the promotions are.

> For most people, the cost-benefit ratio is
> pretty clear...their use involves little cost or discomfort, and their
> ability to prevent at least some injuries has been accepted by most rational
> folks.

I'm curious where you get those ideas! "Most people" do NOT choose
helmets to bicycle, unless (and until) they are subject to marketing,
rules, laws, peer pressure or other influences. Normal people simply
do not see cycling as being a special head injury danger - and they are
correct.

This is very obviously true if you take a trip either to Europe or to
Asia - places where bike use is much higher, per person, than the USA,
and where marketing efforts are several years behind the American
hyper-safety, consumer-product frenzy. It's even true in the US, once
you get past the idea that only a person wearing "full mating plumage"
counts as a cyclist.

- Frank Krygowski
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Re: This is getting expensive (helmets)
Replies
15
Views
1K
Recumbent bicycles
Ozark Bicycle
O
P
Prymegear helmets
Replies
5
Views
1K
Recumbent bicycles
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
J
E
Helmets
Replies
110
Views
3K
Recumbent bicycles
Buck
B
N
No Helmets Needed?
Replies
209
Views
7K
Recumbent bicycles
NYC XYZ
N
F
  • Locked
How many TT helmets are CPSC legal?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Recumbent bicycles
Dave Larrington
D
Top Bottom Back