Originally Posted by closetbiker
Sure, but that's not the argument. I was showing that by saying it is an insult to ******** people not to wear a helmet is not addressing who receives head injuries and how often they receive them. That the large majority of people who receive head injuries are not cyclists and that cyclists run the same risk of head injury as anyone else. Helmets help absolutely, but why we select cyclists to wear helmets on roads but don't think of others who may benefit from them goes against equal treatment for cyclists.
I'll encourage anyone to wear a helmet but I don't expect to need one on a bike any more than I'll need one if I'm walking down the street.
Again you quote a fragment of what I said to support your twisted views.
It is an insult to associate ******** people who (in cases not due to preventable brain damage) had no choice in the matter with people who have access to a device which could reduce the risk of them getting injured and choose not to because it's "not cool"
*********** is not stupidity.
Stupidity is defined as a poor ability to understand or to profit from experience without having an underlying cause such as brain damage. (ie being told that a device will help reduce the risk of receiving a potentially life threatening injury and then choosing not to use it)
*********** is defined as subnormal intellectual development or functioning that is the result of congenital causes, brain injury, or disease and is characterized by any of various deficiencies, ranging from impaired learning ability to social and vocational inadequacy.
As for your "equal treatment of cyclists" rhetoric: I can't believe that you would stoop to trying to use cyclists rights jargon in a helmet debate. Equal treatment for cyclists refers to being allowed equal use of roads and equal rights in traffic situations. It has nothing to do with the use of helmets you sanctimonious buffoon.
Originally Posted by RacerX
I think you've been riding without a helmet. I was saying helmet-less riders are STUPID compared to ******** people, that ******** people are SMARTER than riders without helmets, that helmet-less riders are mental-midgets.
I thought that was clear by the rest of my post that said
"It's just stupid to ride without a helmet in a group ride if only because it makes the rest of the group look like they condone ******** behavior to the casual observer.
I would hate to see some kid watch the group ride by and think riding without a helmet is ok.
Besides, with so many choices there is no excuse for style. The kids around my house love my Giro and always want to wear it because they think it looks so cool."
I was in agreement with you in the spirit of the post not the wording. I objected more to the usage of "couple of *******" and "condone ******** behavior" in reference to stupid people more than anything else.
Last edited by Raiyn; 06-15-04 at 02:44 PM.