My wife insists that I wear a helmet. So I do.
Statistically.... the risks involved in cycling aren't really such a big deal. I am not implying that cycling itself doesn't have intrinsic dangers/risks. I accept that my chosen sport is a blood sport. So there will be injuries... and there might be a marginally greater risk of more serious injuries if a helmet isn't worn. But I'd like to see the actuary that can actually put numbers to those stats. I doubt it can be done.
Of course.... the safest and easiest solution is just to wear a helmet on the day(s) you have accidents. That's my plan. And it makes the wife happy too.
I am not parroting anything. I am repeating points I have already explained and already shown where you were dishonest in one way or another. But no, repeating doesn't make it true, but I did repeatedly show where you were dishonest and explained why it was dishonest. Now you want me to repost those things? You don't even know what a premise is, apparently, and you outright lie about my position, and when not, you misrepresent what I say, and when explained to you, you just pretend you said something else, as I have shown repeatedly in this very thread. I am not going to repost everything I said before, nor disseminate every word of your longer posts again, nor am I going to post full-length posts in their entirety, just so your invalid premises and whatnot can be ignored by you.
I also find it funny, that I caught you in an outright lie, yet, that is completely ignored by you, apparently you want me to repost everything I said in this thread to prove you wrong, even if that is less than practical. If you didn't lie, and what you said was true, it would be a matter of seconds to show exactly where I said what you claim I said. But no, better to pretend I haven't provided anything to back up my arguments (there's that intellectual dishonesty on your part again).
See the post you quoted here (and didn't respond to the context one bit which is a fine strategy when you want something to go away):Quote:
I'm really interested on that supposed lie. I really have no idea what you are talking about.
And my post that was quoted, including the thing I consider an outright lie:
Or, will you refuse to go back and read, and then claim victory because I haven't provided the text (and the complete text) again?
I have time and time again provided you with the reasoning, and why yours are invalid, and quoted you to show you where you moved the goalposts and shown you other fallacies too. Excuse me for not wanting to continue that, all while you just move the goalposts, pretend you didn't say something, or pretend I said something I didn't. But I guess the rules of logic doesn't apply to you, and as a result, this is just "parroting". :rolleyes:Quote:
But just to level the playground with exact same argumentative force:
You do the same thing.
And I will point this out again.
Lets assume driving a car is safe.
One can quite reasonably then state that driving a car is safe even though some driving disciplines are not safe (such as nascar or drifting). This is due to the fact that the majority of driving falls within the constraints of "safe" normal driving. When someone then says driving is safe that argument cannot be weakened by stating that it is not since not all driving is safe. It's majority against minority and majority wins.
Same thing with cycling and this time we need no fake assumptions. Cycling is safe. That works because the majority of cycling is safe. Majority of cycling is on par with walking in safety actually. But even though minority niches of cycling are dangerous it does not in fact affect the cycling as safe in general. It can skew the statistics towards unsafe which is of course a shame but it does not affect the safety on majority cycling (which is day to day or utility)
From me to the guy who has revealed himself not to understand the word "premise", nor its function, it is a simple matter of you rereading the thread, and you will notice, that your premises change constantly, and that when I addressed a specific premise, I only go back when said premise is a contradicts or a large moderation of a previous premise.Quote:
I had beforehand already differentiated between types of cycling which made all the difference in following posts and which you so graciously chose to disregard. But I guess you couldn't be bothered to take earlier posts into consideration.
I can't get anywhere with you. On the one hand, you demand that I quote your own post constantly, that I have to repost what have already been said by both of you. On the other hand, if I do that, I have to quote the post in it's entirety or close to it, otherwise it's out of context, and I shouldn't attach any value to your premises ("the building-up", as you put it), when you have moved on. Also, I shouldn't dare compare what you say now to what you said before, even in the same paragraph. And if I do, I "invent the order" of your quotes and whatnot. :rolleyes:
What a waste of time this has been.
I'm not against the wearing of helmets. It's sensible, but I choose not to do it because the only person it affects is me. I'm surprised that this has concentrated on the wearing, or not, of helmets. I think everyone would agree that for your own personal safety it's best to wear a helmet. Why hasn't there been more discussion of the number of cyclists that routinely put other road users (and themselves) at risk by breaking simple road rules that they would follow when driving a car.
But you're right. I don't wear a helmet all the time. I had a really old one, and because it was so scruffy, I got into the habit of only wearing it when I deemed it a real necessity. Now, with my new helmet, I have a hard time getting into the habit of donning it "because that's what I always do". I'd like to get into that habit again.
One of my pet peeves are those miniscule watch-battery leds that does next to nothing, and on the other end; people wearing superbright headtorches, blinding everyone, including motorists in the same streets as I am travelling. That, and people riding all over the place, as if they own the place (and is closed to the public) - often without any lights whatsover. But the thread was someone posting about not wearing a helmet, a sort of statement to that end, so of course people respond to that (both sides of the aisle).
The cyclist is not endangering anyone else, unless you think the cyclist may tip the bus over if he gets right hooked.
The cyclist also likely knows when the light will turn green and knows if he has time to pass the bus. I know the timing of the lights in the areas I regularly ride. On others, I often can see if the light on the cross street is green or if it has already turned yellow.
In fact the MVA death rate for bicyclists is currently lower than it was 5-10 years ago - before texting.
It appears to me that much of the unlawful cycling are simply the way inexperienced people on bikes compensate for the behavior of scofflaw motorists. They fear illegal/unsafe close passes, so they salmon. They fear being hit by either opening doors on parked cars or overtaking motorists on congested urban streets, so they ride on the sidewalk. They fear being run over while waiting at intersections, so they run the lights (Even Joey Bike has given this as a partial rationale for his style).
While none of these compensations are safer than riding lawfully, these people's fears are difficult to overcome when they can see with their own eyes that nearly all motorists run every stop sign, turn right on red without stopping or looking to the right, speed on every road and seem to have an incredible amount of difficulty keeping a seven foot wide vehicle in an eleven foot wide lane.
By the way, I'm an ass whole and a cyclist, but not an ass whole cyclist, if you know what I mean.