Helmets cramp my style
09-25-08, 11:47 AM
#4076
Harsh Generation
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lake City, FL
Posts: 178
Bikes: GMC Yukon XL
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
"Nice hair bro!" 
Dream on kid! Are you gay?
Nobody says "Nice hair bro!", you really are suffering from brain damage (delusional). You're also dreaming of picking up the ladies. Guys who do pick up the ladies, don't go online boasting about it so you're obviously picking up nothing at all! It's the typical sign of the beta-male seeking peer approval. Loser!
It seems that you're the one who's living in fear. Fear of the helmet!
Dream on kid! Are you gay?Nobody says "Nice hair bro!", you really are suffering from brain damage (delusional). You're also dreaming of picking up the ladies. Guys who do pick up the ladies, don't go online boasting about it so you're obviously picking up nothing at all! It's the typical sign of the beta-male seeking peer approval. Loser!
It seems that you're the one who's living in fear. Fear of the helmet!
09-25-08, 11:52 AM
#4077
e-Biker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 951
Bikes: Gary Fisher, Strong GT-S eBike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I respect people who choose to wear helmets because they feel that some protection is better than none. I certainly don't tell them that this decision is "worthless". But the *facts* are that cycling without a helmet is safer than driving in a car, both with respect to traumatic brain injuries and with respect to fatalities. So why can't the pro-helmet people practice a little reciprocity and respect those who don't wear helmets?
Returning to cycling after so many years, the issue of helmets was one of genuine concern. I decided at the outset upon a certain threshold of evidence, beyond which I would wear a helmet. After months of research, I did not find that evidence, so no helmet. I also feel that cycling without a helmet is a better way to encourage cycling than wearing one, and encouraging more people to bicycle is more important to me than mitigating the small amount of risk I incur when I ride without a helmet. But like vegetarianism, this decision is not an indictment of those who use helmets (meat eaters). It's just a personal decision that makes sense for me. I don't try to impose vegetarianism on others, even though I feel it's best for me. And I really think the helmet issue should be likewise, whether you wear one or not.
It always seems to play out this way, at its root:
Non-helmet person: You are a puss.
Helmet person: No, I'm not. I'm smart and safe. And you are a risk-taking fool.
Non-helmet person: Look, the evidence is that helmets don't make a very big difference. You're a puss.
Helmet person: Fool. They DO make a difference, and that's all that matters.
Non-helmet person: Puss. The difference they make is insignificant.
And so on....and so forth....
I think it comes down to the fact that people have different ideas of what a significant difference is, and that's fine. Why not just recognize that, and practice a live and let live philosophy?
{And by the way, nice trolling with the "you're essay is worthless" comment. Classy.}
Returning to cycling after so many years, the issue of helmets was one of genuine concern. I decided at the outset upon a certain threshold of evidence, beyond which I would wear a helmet. After months of research, I did not find that evidence, so no helmet. I also feel that cycling without a helmet is a better way to encourage cycling than wearing one, and encouraging more people to bicycle is more important to me than mitigating the small amount of risk I incur when I ride without a helmet. But like vegetarianism, this decision is not an indictment of those who use helmets (meat eaters). It's just a personal decision that makes sense for me. I don't try to impose vegetarianism on others, even though I feel it's best for me. And I really think the helmet issue should be likewise, whether you wear one or not.
It always seems to play out this way, at its root:
Non-helmet person: You are a puss.
Helmet person: No, I'm not. I'm smart and safe. And you are a risk-taking fool.
Non-helmet person: Look, the evidence is that helmets don't make a very big difference. You're a puss.
Helmet person: Fool. They DO make a difference, and that's all that matters.
Non-helmet person: Puss. The difference they make is insignificant.
And so on....and so forth....
I think it comes down to the fact that people have different ideas of what a significant difference is, and that's fine. Why not just recognize that, and practice a live and let live philosophy?
{And by the way, nice trolling with the "you're essay is worthless" comment. Classy.}
"live and let live" would be appropriate if one's life wasn't involved. You think I'm going to stand by and let you commit suicide? My own crash... with a helmet I might add, and my paramedic friend's stories of picking up non-helmeted "clients" off the pavement are enough to convince me that helmets help and non-helmeted riders need to be saved... from themselves.
09-25-08, 02:05 PM
#4078
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the amount of kinetic energy. That is the equation of how much energy the cyclist and bicycle would be if converted to all energy. I think you want 1/2mv^2. But, maybe a paramedic friend told you that was the correct equation, so no amount of reading/learning will change you mind.
09-25-08, 03:17 PM
#4079
Senior Member
) among a myriad of other detrimental-to-one's-health behaviors (as determined by Zeuser) that are going on as we speak. If cycling without a helmet is the biggest issue in your world, you've been quite sheltered.
09-25-08, 03:30 PM
#4081
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
my view on helmets (purely for myself this is. i don't suggest it to the masses), is that when i crash, i am always focusing on keeping my head safe, above everything else. i've never hit my head, and i've done some pretty crazy woods riding. sometimes i feel that it's necessary, like when riding in the city, or when swerving around trees in the woods, or when jumping on hard surfaces, but for the most part, riding in open spaces, and long trips on the side of a not-busy-at-all road, i feel safe enought to go without one. so i'll say it depends on where i am, and if i'm riding for fun, or to get around.
Last edited by KasbeKZ; 09-25-08 at 03:31 PM. Reason: typo
09-25-08, 08:15 PM
#4082
e-Biker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 951
Bikes: Gary Fisher, Strong GT-S eBike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the amount of kinetic energy. That is the equation of how much energy the cyclist and bicycle would be if converted to all energy. I think you want 1/2mv^2. But, maybe a paramedic friend told you that was the correct equation, so no amount of reading/learning will change you mind.
You're so caught up in the details you fail to see that the overall picture is the same. Since you obviously missed it, here it is: The increase in speed makes the activity riskier thus making a helmet more appropriate.
09-25-08, 08:19 PM
#4083
e-Biker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 951
Bikes: Gary Fisher, Strong GT-S eBike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
09-25-08, 08:25 PM
#4084
e-Biker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 951
Bikes: Gary Fisher, Strong GT-S eBike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Seriously, get a grip. I can't believe you just uttered the above nonsense on a public forum. If you truly believe the above, you better get moving and start grabbing cigarettes out of people's mouths immediately (please video tape these encounters too ) among a myriad of other detrimental-to-one's-health behaviors (as determined by Zeuser) that are going on as we speak. If cycling without a helmet is the biggest issue in your world, you've been quite sheltered.
) among a myriad of other detrimental-to-one's-health behaviors (as determined by Zeuser) that are going on as we speak. If cycling without a helmet is the biggest issue in your world, you've been quite sheltered.Oh and by the way... I do grab cigarettes out of people's mouths. When a chick smokes in front of me, I grab the cigarette and throw it on the ground and follow up with: "There's no smoking when I'm around young lady." You'd be surprised about what happens next. LOL!
09-25-08, 09:05 PM
#4086
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Whatever, the key here is c^2 or v^2 , that is the exponential increase with velocity. Both formulas have the key element so you're just backing up my original argument anyway.
You're so caught up in the details you fail to see that the overall picture is the same. Since you obviously missed it, here it is: The increase in speed makes the activity riskier thus making a helmet more appropriate.
You're so caught up in the details you fail to see that the overall picture is the same. Since you obviously missed it, here it is: The increase in speed makes the activity riskier thus making a helmet more appropriate.
09-25-08, 11:50 PM
#4087
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 1,051
Bikes: Specialized Allez (2007)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Correct- I've yet to see him actually reference a paper- only spew "facts" that I've not seen in any studies yet. He thinks cycling is more dangerous than walking for gods sakes?!?
I'm not surprised to hear he's a smoking Nazi, it figures. I wonder, is he also an evangelical Christian, who spends his spare time standing on a soap box shouting at people in the high street?
I'm not surprised to hear he's a smoking Nazi, it figures. I wonder, is he also an evangelical Christian, who spends his spare time standing on a soap box shouting at people in the high street?
09-26-08, 06:31 AM
#4088
Senior Member
There seems to be faith, beyond the quality of evidence.
09-26-08, 07:49 AM
#4089
e-Biker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 951
Bikes: Gary Fisher, Strong GT-S eBike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
No, you seem to miss the point. E=mc^2 has nothing to do with speed. I did understand you, that is why I gave you the correct formula. My point was that you are careless in what you are saying. You see other's post about scientific papers. Instead of arguing the validity of the paper or the conclusion, you just blow it off as not facts. Then you turn around and mention that a friend told you helmets are safer, so you believe that over scientific papers.
And my point is that when you get bogged down in the details, like validating the specifics of research papers, you miss out on the bigger picture.
While you try to compute equations and read research papers to prove or disprove something I use simple common sense. In simple common sense the following apply:
1 - If you put on a helmet and bang your head against a wall, it'll hurt a lot less than if you didn't wear a helmet!
2 - Some protection is always better than no protection!
You don't need fancy research to see the sense in those two statements. If you don't, then you lack complete common sense.
I keep telling people at work that "Common sense doesn't seem to be so common anymore". You're just proving me right.
Oh and if you want to do some research, read about "Human computation" to see how human "common sense" can solve problems that computers with fancy algorithms simply can't. I think "Google Tech Talks" even has a video on it.
PS: I'm a software engineer by trade. And even I know of the limitations of computers, software algorithms, research data and so on. In all my years of work I've found that the human brain is always the best at solving problems. "intuition" is often more correct than "numbers".
Last edited by Zeuser; 09-26-08 at 08:11 AM.
09-26-08, 08:03 AM
#4090
e-Biker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 951
Bikes: Gary Fisher, Strong GT-S eBike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Correct- I've yet to see him actually reference a paper- only spew "facts" that I've not seen in any studies yet. He thinks cycling is more dangerous than walking for gods sakes?!?
I'm not surprised to hear he's a smoking Nazi, it figures. I wonder, is he also an evangelical Christian, who spends his spare time standing on a soap box shouting at people in the high street?
I'm not surprised to hear he's a smoking Nazi, it figures. I wonder, is he also an evangelical Christian, who spends his spare time standing on a soap box shouting at people in the high street?
Cycling is more dangerous than walking. If you can't see the common sense in that, you're quite dumb. The vehicle used is unstable; which is the reason kids learn with training wheels and use tricycles before that. The speeds involved are higher, thus more damage will occur when the rider collides with an object or animal/human. And the chance of mechanical breakdown causing an accident is higher because the vehicle has more moving parts than shoes.
BY THE WAY, YOU JUST PROVED YOU'RE A LOSER! You just lost the internet argument. You brought up "Nazi". Don't you know the internet rules? More specifically Godwin's Law? He who stoops down to using Nazis in an internet argument has effectively lost the argument.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Godwin's law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.
In popular culture
While Godwin's Law initially was best known in Usenet, it has clearly spread to other forms of online communication. In 2007, Slashdot noted that Godwin's law affected an ongoing, highly public dispute between Linux founder Linus Torvalds and the GNOME project.[10] A May 2007 issue of Randall Munroe's webcomic xkcd anachronistically portrays Allied officers trying to discuss Axis military tactics, but being interrupted by Godwin's Law.[11] Similarly, a November 2007 issue of Jeph Jacques's webcomic Questionable Content, entitled "Godwin Wars", referenced (and contrasted) Godwin's law and the reductio ad Hitlerum.[12] Such appearances, without explanatory material, may suggest that it is increasingly assumed that web users are generally already familiar with the adage. In its October 2007 issue and on its website, Wired published a "Geekipedia" piece that includes an entry for "Godwin's law" among "people, place, ideas, and trends you need to know now".[13]
The concept appears to have entered the public consciousness more broadly, as well. In 2005, the aphorism was the subject of a question in the British television quiz show University Challenge.[14] By 2007, The Economist had declared that "a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument."[15] And in October 2007, the "Last Page" columnist in The Smithsonian stated that when an adversary uses an inappropriate Hitler or Nazi comparison, "you have only to say 'Godwin's Law' and a trapdoor falls open, plunging your rival into a pool of hungry crocodiles."[16]
While Godwin's Law initially was best known in Usenet, it has clearly spread to other forms of online communication. In 2007, Slashdot noted that Godwin's law affected an ongoing, highly public dispute between Linux founder Linus Torvalds and the GNOME project.[10] A May 2007 issue of Randall Munroe's webcomic xkcd anachronistically portrays Allied officers trying to discuss Axis military tactics, but being interrupted by Godwin's Law.[11] Similarly, a November 2007 issue of Jeph Jacques's webcomic Questionable Content, entitled "Godwin Wars", referenced (and contrasted) Godwin's law and the reductio ad Hitlerum.[12] Such appearances, without explanatory material, may suggest that it is increasingly assumed that web users are generally already familiar with the adage. In its October 2007 issue and on its website, Wired published a "Geekipedia" piece that includes an entry for "Godwin's law" among "people, place, ideas, and trends you need to know now".[13]
The concept appears to have entered the public consciousness more broadly, as well. In 2005, the aphorism was the subject of a question in the British television quiz show University Challenge.[14] By 2007, The Economist had declared that "a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument."[15] And in October 2007, the "Last Page" columnist in The Smithsonian stated that when an adversary uses an inappropriate Hitler or Nazi comparison, "you have only to say 'Godwin's Law' and a trapdoor falls open, plunging your rival into a pool of hungry crocodiles."[16]
Last edited by Zeuser; 09-26-08 at 08:21 AM.
09-26-08, 11:35 AM
#4091
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 1,051
Bikes: Specialized Allez (2007)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Sorry about my lack of understanding of the "rules" of internet debate. I'm keen on debating medical research, it's something I've been trained to do. However, it's become steadily more clear that this is not a rational debate, more of a mud slinging match. Apologies if the term "smoke nazi" offended you- it's a causual expression various friends of mine use in verbal conversation in the real world, for example "music nazi" for the person who insists on playing their choice all the time and deriding others personal tastes.
Thanks for informing me I have lost... what do I do now? I suppose as the defeated I will have to accept your terms. I will now always wear a helmet when having an internet argument.
I must say before I depart, that I'm quite disillusioned with the internet forum scene- I hoped for a lot more, it seems quite vulgar to me. I can discuss bike parts, technique, training, safety and so forth with my clubmates without it degenerating into a barbaric insult match worthy of the house of commons. What is it about the internet that brings out the worst in people?
Thanks for informing me I have lost... what do I do now? I suppose as the defeated I will have to accept your terms. I will now always wear a helmet when having an internet argument.
I must say before I depart, that I'm quite disillusioned with the internet forum scene- I hoped for a lot more, it seems quite vulgar to me. I can discuss bike parts, technique, training, safety and so forth with my clubmates without it degenerating into a barbaric insult match worthy of the house of commons. What is it about the internet that brings out the worst in people?
09-26-08, 11:50 AM
#4092
Great State of Varmint
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dante's Third Ring
Posts: 7,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
15 Posts
This is silly. Wear a helmet - or don't. Let Darwin sort out who is who. I'm all for curtailing population growth.
May I suggest a good film for the next rainy day? Idiocracy - directed/written by Mike Judd of Beavis & Butthead fame.
May I suggest a good film for the next rainy day? Idiocracy - directed/written by Mike Judd of Beavis & Butthead fame.
09-26-08, 01:25 PM
#4093
e-Biker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 951
Bikes: Gary Fisher, Strong GT-S eBike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
To get an answer to that one, think about why you called me "Smoke Nazi".
I call people names online all the time, I already have my own answer to that question. You must look within yourself to find yours.
I call people names online all the time, I already have my own answer to that question. You must look within yourself to find yours.
09-26-08, 01:27 PM
#4095
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Hi All
I never wear one, so if you please sneak up behind me in your SUV and run over my head?
That will teach me to rationalize statistics on safety
I never wear one, so if you please sneak up behind me in your SUV and run over my head?
That will teach me to rationalize statistics on safety
09-26-08, 03:25 PM
#4096
Senior Member
In defense of my mocking your grammar, it's tough to stay serious in an argument when someone seems to constantly resort to name calling in an apparent attempt to bolster their argument.
09-26-08, 10:03 PM
#4099
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Naptown
Posts: 1,133
Bikes: NWT 24sp DD; Brompton M6R
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
1 Post
Wait...so if Darwin killed off all of the non-helmet wearers, the future would be populated by idiots gulled into mindless consumerism...because they would be the descendants of helmet wearers? I'm not unsympathetic to this interpretation, especially wrt helmets and mindless consumerism. Although I have to wonder if that was the point you actually wanted to make.
09-26-08, 10:09 PM
#4100
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
But, you don't believe in science. You put your faith in "common sense". Well, then doesn't common sense say if your head is bigger, you are more likely to hit it during a fall? Would this be safer? Common sense has no sense. It was common knowledge that the earth was flat, until science proved otherwise. It was common sense that blacks were not as intelligent as whites. Common sense changes through time with the help of science.
For some reason, you have decided that no matter what, wearing a helmet will make cycling safer. Studies have shown otherwise. Studies have shown that ridership falls after mandatory helmet laws. Studies have shown that the more the riders there are, the less accidents there are. This would indicate that helmet laws will reduce the number of riders, but these riders are at more risk of being in an accident. But, you have already mentioned that this is not true. I don't know why you say this, is it common sense that ridership doesn't fall after mandatory helmet laws?