Originally Posted by CarlJStoneham

In the words of The Torch: "Flame on!"

Again, your analogy was of the weakest kind. Second-smoke is physiologically capable of causing me cancer. I can not prevent it if I wanted to. If someone lights up near me, any smoke I inhale will have potentially serious health consequences. Though I do my best to leave or ask the person to put out the cigarette, I have no control over my well-being in that situation. This has been proved a million times over. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a study proving that Lance Armstrong dropping a helmet on an uphill climb will in any way, shape or form causes me physical injury. The only way I will suffer harm is through a conscious decision to do as Lance does. A choice. Your argument was/is inherently flawed because second-hand smoke has no choice associated with it (on my part). I cannot inhale the smoke and *choose* not to be affected by it. In order to eliminate any adverse effects, I must leave the area where the smoke is. I can watch Lance and *choose* not to chuck my helmet. I do not need to stop watching Lance. You said it yourself: TV imagery "influences" (and even this is weak since I have seen for "no helmets on the pros" years and have not been "influenced" to do anything but wear a helmet). Second-smoke does not. It *causes*.

Your analogy is of the worst kind. It attempts to cloud an issue by linking it to a controversial cause when no real connection exists. The helmet issue is purely one of *choice*. The smoke is one of *biology*. They are not related. Find a better one.

And as for legislating rules, you need to walk lightly there. There are some for whom you are a role model. Perhaps your behavior should be legislated so they will not follow you to some mistake, especially if you have children. Perhaps you should be fined if you *ever* do something that might sway your children (present or future) to do anything wrong or foolhardy. (Oh, and don't pull the "but they're professional athletes" crap. Someone needs to run that old Charles Barkley "I am not a role model" commerical again). When people start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming it on others, we'll be in much better shape. I'm waiting for the day when the "peas up the nose" admonition is no longer "pc". I'm moving to France then and I'll watch the flames of Anarchy race across America while I dance on a picture of George Bush (and ride my bike up the first 500m of Alpe d'Huez before keeling over dead, a happy man (oh, and I won't be wearing a helmet ))

"Flame off"

Originally Posted by CarlJStoneham

Good strategy: always preface a weak counter-argument with a similarly weak insult. Pathetic.


Um, I don't. See it all the time but I still know I need a helmet when I ride. Guess I'm just smarter than the average bear, eh?

And as for the NIH, they also say that mammograms from 50-69 are extrememly benficial but from 40-50, the evidence is unclear. So at 49, unclear. At 50, beneficial. Thank goodness my 28-year-old wife ignores the NIH on that one... The NIH assumes a reality where discrete points in time completely alter your life. Watching Lance ride up a mountain w/ no helmets is the defining moment in your life where you firmly toss aside any notions of protection while riding a bike. Other, more important influences, such as whether your parents are there to point out he's a pro and you're not, what the guy at the bike shop says, etc are irrelevant. Please.

See, you're suggesting that Lance taking off a helmet in the last .5% of a race overrides the fact that he was wearing it the other 99.5% of the time; that he's always wearing one in a commercial; that the UCI required actual crash protection in the TT helmets this year. The fact of the matter is simply that many people will look for any excuse to do something foolish. Heck, Lance could wear one 24/7 and someone would say "Well, it's bcause he's a pro and goes so fast. I'm slower so I don't need one." For the most part, you cannot legislate against stupidity, nor should you try. If you honestly think the UCI should require helmets 100% of the time, you need to insist that the riders wear knee and elbow pads and dress in high-visibility colors to influence viewers to take the safest ride they can. It's somewhat hypocriticl to stop puching safety when the potential injury is no longer lethal. Heck, the UCI should outlaw descents faster than about 40mph. THAT is far more dangerous than not wearing a helmet on a climb. If a person doesn't advocate these points as well, then the argument loses much of its strength.

The UCI has done a fine job and I applaud their efforts. They have found a reasonable balance.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, this argument is over. Post all you want, and I'll even read your responses, but your points just aren't very strong IMHO and I'm getting bored...

Originally Posted by lotek

To answer Stretch's request to close this thread: