Helmets, Rapha, and the "freedom of choice" argument
11-02-09, 03:47 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Helmets, Rapha, and the "freedom of choice" argument
I'm an unapologetic advocate of helmets. My words to any cyclist riding without a helmet: "No helmet, no brains".
Topping it off are those arrogant Rapha ads with models in tweed beanies dressed up to look like a "rugged" Ivy League MBA's spending some of their TARP subsidized bonus on a weekend ride in Norway. I'm reminded of Wayne McLaren, the now infamous Marlboro Man, who died of lung cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_McLaren. I doubt that many of you can remember when cigarette smoking was considered glamorous and that image of a "rugged" cowboy was the epitome of masculinity.
What's my problem with the ads or cyclists riding without helmets? Or more generally what is my problem with the "free choice" argument? The free choice argument: 1) ignores common sense, 2) suggests that helmets are not necessary for safety, 3) transfers the long term liability of an accident from an irresponsible individual to generous society, and 4) offers a horrible example for children.
Topping it off are those arrogant Rapha ads with models in tweed beanies dressed up to look like a "rugged" Ivy League MBA's spending some of their TARP subsidized bonus on a weekend ride in Norway. I'm reminded of Wayne McLaren, the now infamous Marlboro Man, who died of lung cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_McLaren. I doubt that many of you can remember when cigarette smoking was considered glamorous and that image of a "rugged" cowboy was the epitome of masculinity.
What's my problem with the ads or cyclists riding without helmets? Or more generally what is my problem with the "free choice" argument? The free choice argument: 1) ignores common sense, 2) suggests that helmets are not necessary for safety, 3) transfers the long term liability of an accident from an irresponsible individual to generous society, and 4) offers a horrible example for children.
11-02-09, 04:03 PM
#5
It's ALL base...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I wear one. My children do, too. All while riding bikes, of course.
Everyone I ride with wears one.
What else can I say?
Everyone I ride with wears one.
What else can I say?
11-02-09, 04:06 PM
#6
It's supposed to do that.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cincinnati, Oh
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Why is it the foam *** things they call bicycle helmets are the tipping point on the no brains scale? You would be exponentially better protected wearing a motorcycle helmet, full leathers and gloves just like someone roadracing motorcycles, correct?
11-02-09, 04:10 PM
#7
175mm crank of love
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm an unapologetic advocate of helmets. My words to any cyclist riding without a helmet: "No helmet, no brains".
Topping it off are those arrogant Rapha ads with models in tweed beanies dressed up to look like a "rugged" Ivy League MBA's spending some of their TARP subsidized bonus on a weekend ride in Norway. I'm reminded of Wayne McLaren, the now infamous Marlboro Man, who died of lung cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_McLaren. I doubt that many of you can remember when cigarette smoking was considered glamorous and that image of a "rugged" cowboy was the epitome of masculinity.
What's my problem with the ads or cyclists riding without helmets? Or more generally what is my problem with the "free choice" argument? The free choice argument: 1) ignores common sense, 2) suggests that helmets are not necessary for safety, 3) transfers the long term liability of an accident from an irresponsible individual to generous society, and 4) offers a horrible example for children.
Topping it off are those arrogant Rapha ads with models in tweed beanies dressed up to look like a "rugged" Ivy League MBA's spending some of their TARP subsidized bonus on a weekend ride in Norway. I'm reminded of Wayne McLaren, the now infamous Marlboro Man, who died of lung cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_McLaren. I doubt that many of you can remember when cigarette smoking was considered glamorous and that image of a "rugged" cowboy was the epitome of masculinity.
What's my problem with the ads or cyclists riding without helmets? Or more generally what is my problem with the "free choice" argument? The free choice argument: 1) ignores common sense, 2) suggests that helmets are not necessary for safety, 3) transfers the long term liability of an accident from an irresponsible individual to generous society, and 4) offers a horrible example for children.
11-02-09, 04:14 PM
#8
Up on the Down Side
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago(ish)
Posts: 6,334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
We passed the Rapha group as they were doing their Wisconsin ride back at the start of June. They were all wearing helmets.
It's hard advertise a $45 cycling cap in print media when the cap is under a helmet. No need to get uptight about it.
It's hard advertise a $45 cycling cap in print media when the cap is under a helmet. No need to get uptight about it.
11-02-09, 04:30 PM
#10
bulletproof tiger
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,934
Bikes: Waterford 2200, Litespeed Tuscany, Salsa La Cruz, Kona Fire Mountain
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
11-02-09, 04:33 PM
#11
Galveston County Texas
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In The Wind
Posts: 33,221
Bikes: 02 GTO, 2011 Magnum
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1349 Post(s)
Liked 1,243 Times
in
621 Posts
Marlboro Man should have wore a helmet.
__________________
Fred "The Real Fred"
Fred "The Real Fred"
11-02-09, 04:57 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
oops...
I always heard that they could take their helmets off on a final climb but now read that that changed in 2003.
please disregard my earlier post as it is completely incorrect... I'll leave it up and accept any derision.
I always heard that they could take their helmets off on a final climb but now read that that changed in 2003.
please disregard my earlier post as it is completely incorrect... I'll leave it up and accept any derision.
11-02-09, 05:22 PM
#13
SLJ 6/8/65-5/2/07
I'm an unapologetic advocate of helmets. My words to any cyclist riding without a helmet: "No helmet, no brains".
Topping it off are those arrogant Rapha ads with models in tweed beanies dressed up to look like a "rugged" Ivy League MBA's spending some of their TARP subsidized bonus on a weekend ride in Norway. I'm reminded of Wayne McLaren, the now infamous Marlboro Man, who died of lung cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_McLaren. I doubt that many of you can remember when cigarette smoking was considered glamorous and that image of a "rugged" cowboy was the epitome of masculinity.
What's my problem with the ads or cyclists riding without helmets? Or more generally what is my problem with the "free choice" argument? The free choice argument: 1) ignores common sense, 2) suggests that helmets are not necessary for safety, 3) transfers the long term liability of an accident from an irresponsible individual to generous society, and 4) offers a horrible example for children.
Topping it off are those arrogant Rapha ads with models in tweed beanies dressed up to look like a "rugged" Ivy League MBA's spending some of their TARP subsidized bonus on a weekend ride in Norway. I'm reminded of Wayne McLaren, the now infamous Marlboro Man, who died of lung cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_McLaren. I doubt that many of you can remember when cigarette smoking was considered glamorous and that image of a "rugged" cowboy was the epitome of masculinity.
What's my problem with the ads or cyclists riding without helmets? Or more generally what is my problem with the "free choice" argument? The free choice argument: 1) ignores common sense, 2) suggests that helmets are not necessary for safety, 3) transfers the long term liability of an accident from an irresponsible individual to generous society, and 4) offers a horrible example for children.
If you really want to argue about helmets you should take this to A&S. Just ask.
__________________
“Life is not one damned thing after another. Life is one damned thing over and over.”
Edna St. Vincent Millay
“Life is not one damned thing after another. Life is one damned thing over and over.”
Edna St. Vincent Millay
11-02-09, 05:39 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 2,174
Bikes: 2007 Pergoretti Marcelo
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
+1<<64
__________________
Visit my blog -->MyOrangeBike
"There is love and there is work, and we only have one heart." Edgar Degas
Visit my blog -->MyOrangeBike
"There is love and there is work, and we only have one heart." Edgar Degas
11-02-09, 06:16 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I'm an unapologetic advocate of helmets. My words to any cyclist riding without a helmet: "No helmet, no brains".
Topping it off are those arrogant Rapha ads with models in tweed beanies dressed up to look like a "rugged" Ivy League MBA's spending some of their TARP subsidized bonus on a weekend ride in Norway. I'm reminded of Wayne McLaren, the now infamous Marlboro Man, who died of lung cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_McLaren. I doubt that many of you can remember when cigarette smoking was considered glamorous and that image of a "rugged" cowboy was the epitome of masculinity.
What's my problem with the ads or cyclists riding without helmets? Or more generally what is my problem with the "free choice" argument? The free choice argument: 1) ignores common sense, 2) suggests that helmets are not necessary for safety, 3) transfers the long term liability of an accident from an irresponsible individual to generous society, and 4) offers a horrible example for children.
Topping it off are those arrogant Rapha ads with models in tweed beanies dressed up to look like a "rugged" Ivy League MBA's spending some of their TARP subsidized bonus on a weekend ride in Norway. I'm reminded of Wayne McLaren, the now infamous Marlboro Man, who died of lung cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_McLaren. I doubt that many of you can remember when cigarette smoking was considered glamorous and that image of a "rugged" cowboy was the epitome of masculinity.
What's my problem with the ads or cyclists riding without helmets? Or more generally what is my problem with the "free choice" argument? The free choice argument: 1) ignores common sense, 2) suggests that helmets are not necessary for safety, 3) transfers the long term liability of an accident from an irresponsible individual to generous society, and 4) offers a horrible example for children.
11-02-09, 06:20 PM
#16
Passista
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,596
Bikes: 1998 Pinarello Asolo, 1992 KHS Montaña pro, 1980 Raleigh DL-1, IGH Hybrid, IGH Utility
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked 720 Times
in
395 Posts
Free choice seems to work OK in countries like the Netherlands, Denmark, etc.
11-02-09, 06:20 PM
#17
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
11-02-09, 06:52 PM
#19
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
I'm an unapologetic advocate of helmets. My words to any cyclist riding without a helmet: "No helmet, no brains".
Topping it off are those arrogant Rapha ads with models in tweed beanies dressed up to look like a "rugged" Ivy League MBA's spending some of their TARP subsidized bonus on a weekend ride in Norway. I'm reminded of Wayne McLaren, the now infamous Marlboro Man, who died of lung cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_McLaren. I doubt that many of you can remember when cigarette smoking was considered glamorous and that image of a "rugged" cowboy was the epitome of masculinity.
What's my problem with the ads or cyclists riding without helmets? Or more generally what is my problem with the "free choice" argument? The free choice argument: 1) ignores common sense, 2) suggests that helmets are not necessary for safety, 3) transfers the long term liability of an accident from an irresponsible individual to generous society, and 4) offers a horrible example for children.
Topping it off are those arrogant Rapha ads with models in tweed beanies dressed up to look like a "rugged" Ivy League MBA's spending some of their TARP subsidized bonus on a weekend ride in Norway. I'm reminded of Wayne McLaren, the now infamous Marlboro Man, who died of lung cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_McLaren. I doubt that many of you can remember when cigarette smoking was considered glamorous and that image of a "rugged" cowboy was the epitome of masculinity.
What's my problem with the ads or cyclists riding without helmets? Or more generally what is my problem with the "free choice" argument? The free choice argument: 1) ignores common sense, 2) suggests that helmets are not necessary for safety, 3) transfers the long term liability of an accident from an irresponsible individual to generous society, and 4) offers a horrible example for children.
Now off to A&S with you.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
11-02-09, 06:54 PM
#20
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
11-02-09, 07:15 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 785
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
11-02-09, 07:42 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
11-02-09, 09:48 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,931
Bikes: Old Bike: 1975 Raleigh Delta, New Bike: 2004 Norco Bushpilot
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
I'm an unapologetic advocate of helmets. My words to any cyclist riding without a helmet: "No helmet, no brains".
Topping it off are those arrogant Rapha ads with models in tweed beanies dressed up to look like a "rugged" Ivy League MBA's spending some of their TARP subsidized bonus on a weekend ride in Norway. I'm reminded of Wayne McLaren, the now infamous Marlboro Man, who died of lung cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_McLaren. I doubt that many of you can remember when cigarette smoking was considered glamorous and that image of a "rugged" cowboy was the epitome of masculinity.
What's my problem with the ads or cyclists riding without helmets? Or more generally what is my problem with the "free choice" argument? The free choice argument: 1) ignores common sense, 2) suggests that helmets are not necessary for safety, 3) transfers the long term liability of an accident from an irresponsible individual to generous society, and 4) offers a horrible example for children.
Topping it off are those arrogant Rapha ads with models in tweed beanies dressed up to look like a "rugged" Ivy League MBA's spending some of their TARP subsidized bonus on a weekend ride in Norway. I'm reminded of Wayne McLaren, the now infamous Marlboro Man, who died of lung cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_McLaren. I doubt that many of you can remember when cigarette smoking was considered glamorous and that image of a "rugged" cowboy was the epitome of masculinity.
What's my problem with the ads or cyclists riding without helmets? Or more generally what is my problem with the "free choice" argument? The free choice argument: 1) ignores common sense, 2) suggests that helmets are not necessary for safety, 3) transfers the long term liability of an accident from an irresponsible individual to generous society, and 4) offers a horrible example for children.
These days I usually wear one, not because I think I need it, but because it's a ready identifier to cagers that I am on a bicycle, when they can't see the bicycle, so they expect me to be capable of moving faster then a pedestrian.