You really need to back this crap up. If you use ad-homimens, it's hypocritical to complain about it.

Apparently it isn't.

here's the sentence I asked about
I suspect that a few more (at least) have shifted from the "organ donor " stuff. (bold is in the original).

So I asked if you were referring to folks who called people organ donors, or people upset about being called organ donors and complaining about it here.

All you did was post more boldface type, saying it shouldn't have been that hard to figure out what you meant, but never actually answered.

It's like you are posting from some other dimension. Your responses don't have much of anything to do with what you are responding to. I mean, there's plenty of vehemence and bile, but it seems directed toward someone or something that is not actually present.

...well, apparently in order to properly understand the vast, worldwide conspiracy that will
eventually result in us all wearing helments not only on bicycles, but also in cars, in the shower,
and without much doubt, while engaging in sexual intercourse, one needs to be dimensionally
adaptable, as well as fluent in mathematics based on speculative hypotheses.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't, I guess.:)

Why do you think I underlined it? It should have been easy to figure out what I meant!

Do you really think there is any probability that "anti helmet" people upset at being called "organ donors" could shift to not caring about it? I think it should be clear to everybody that that would be very unlikely.

There have been a few people with fairly extreme "pro helmet" views who have indicated here than their views have shifted to being more moderate (to not yelling or calling people names).

I was talking about people shifting their opinion. That you think that I could have been referring to people whose position would not change is "interesting".


You either don't have any idea what I meant or you do and you want something else.

This isn't an argument.

For someone who calls people "little girls" when they can't argue, you are quite sensitive. This is a bad place for sensitive people. Try to get back onto the topic.

How about this. A very large percentage of people agree that young people should wear helmets. If that is the case, why does it not follow that helmets should be worn by older people?

Try to think of some reasons for that difference. Note that you don't have to agree. The idea is to see whether you have any ability to consider the other side of an argument.

Why isn't it OK for children to drink?

...because they will be forever stealing your good booze ?

They are stealing it anyway.

But falsely casting aspersions on someone else's obviously superior reading comprehension skillz and then complaining about ad-hominems is A-OK, huh?

There's an overview of some (probably most, given the people who run the page) of the research here:

http://cyclehelmets.org/1020.html

I agree. But some good people have made various reasonable attempts at estimating it (as described in the primary research linked from the above), and apparently a pattern really does emerge.

The linked page doesn't discuss how bike helmet laws kill bike-share programs, but I've seen various reports on that as well. The Google will help you, but here's a couple:

http://momentummag.com/features/bike...d-helmet-laws/
http://grist.org/cities/bike-sharing...elmet-problem/

Cheers!

...at a glance, those estimated percentages are astonishing to me.

I'll really need to look at some of the referenced studies, because, generally, when
numbers that are so supportive of a particular position get quoted, there is usually
a reason. it often shows up in methodology or statistical manipulation.

But thanks for the link....did I miss it in the other reference ?

Not personally a big fan of bike share programs as I've seen them here. Large amounts
of money seem to get used with less than maximal benefit due to theft, abuse, etc.

As a response to "Your responses don't have much of anything to do with what you are responding to", this pretty much proves my point.

The anti helmet types here must really be disgusted. There are surveys from all over the country showing that helmet use is up. Apparently their rants agains helmets are falling on deaf ears, and the general population have decided that helmets just make sense. Rave on guys.

Gen pop also thought pet rocks were a great idea. Doesn't mean it made them any safer.

You keep saying anti helmet to describe those who simply don't feel they're necessary. The number of anti helmet people is so miniscule as to be meaningless.

So folks like myself don't care one iota whether helmet use is up or down.

OTOH, increased helmet use may not reflect a general consensus as much as the effects of the regular and pounding lectures that helmets are required. So you may be happy that the pounding is working, but to me it simply means that more folks are becoming convince that bicycling is dangerous, which I don't think is such good news.

He's trolling. Every time the helmet discussion goes quiet for a few days, rydabent drops in another one of these.

howsteep

Trolling is always brought up by people that have nothing to add, and by those that just like to attack other people they dont agree with.

Most logical people agree that a helmet may prevent injury in a low speed accident. What is wrong with preventing injury?

We've been here a number of times. There's nothing wrong with preventing injury. But it's not a black and white question. If it were, we'd wear helmets full time, especially older people who account for the majority of all head injuries simply by falling.

It's a question of likelihood of injury vs. the effort at prevention. For some of us, the risk of head injury on a bicycle doesn't warrant a helmet. Those who disagree are free to wear one if they choose.

OTOH- if we're really concerned about preventing injury there are countless things we might do that are more likely to help than wearing a helmet on a bicycle. We could start by simply not riding such dangerous vehicles in traffic, we could change our diet, we could move to ranch houses to eliminate those dangerous staircases, etc.

So PLEASE stop saying "what's wrong with preventing injury?" because it's a meaningless question only a child would ask.

How many of those people contributing to surveys claiming helmet use is up are wearing helmets because they "may prevent injury in a low speed accident"? Vs. those wearing helmets because they have become a cycling fashion accessory (ref., Nutcase--great colors and designs, not so good at protection)? Vs. those who wear helmets "because you never know when you'll get hit by a car!!!"?

Where in this is anything about preventing injures of any type. Fact is that traffic on this forum slowed down so you thought you would stir the pot and get things going - in my book that's trolling.


Carry on, I really don't care, enough to engage.

http://www.chocolatefountaincheshire..._popcorn_1.jpg

...as long as this is going on, someone ought to make some money from it.:)

With all the phony research and polls the anti helmet crowd blathers about, and their idea they are such safe and wonderful bike handlers they cant disprove one thing. Schidt happens!!!!!!! There will alway be that unexpected patch of gravel, that glass shard, and the car out of no where that will put them on the ground.

Who here would rather be thrown to the ground without a helmet?

two points.

first, you could point out a few of these anti helmet types since I have absolutely no idea who you are talking about. Seems like your own invention.

and second. A glass shard? There's a reason I use tubeless mate. And don't you ride a trike? So a shard wont bother you much either.

as to cars out of nowhere. Where I live cars are not magical as in, they do not just appear. They always come from somewhere. From a side street, or from behind you, etc. etc. I have not been surprised by a sudden car in... forever.

unpredictable drivers are a problem but one can prepare for even them. It really is that simple. If the infra is in good order. As to getting rear ended in the highway. The helmet's not going to help there.