Originally Posted by D1andonlyDman (Post 17424532)

No, the interventionist aspect of eugenics is problematic. In Darwin's observations, the gene-pool selection occurs naturally. If you crack a helmet and emerge unimpaired, you're not selected out of the gene-pool. If, irrespective of whether or not you wear a helmet, you wreck and are no longer capable of reproduction, natural selection has done it's job.

In a modern society, physical skills such as bicycle handling may lose value relative to cognitive skills such as the decision to protect one's cranium during cycle.

Originally Posted by asmac (Post 17425219)

Me too. Slid into a curb and cracked the helmet. Can't be completely sure but I figure this would otherwise have caused some serious head damage.

And on the hearsay side, I had a chance to speak with the head of neurosurgery at a major trauma centre. He is passionate about the benefit of bike helmets but, really, what would he know? Probably better to trust contrary opinions of random internet dudes.

In any event, helmet laws aren't the answer. We have such a law for people under 16 and, ironically, this is the group that rarely seems to wear a helmet at least not when they're out of their parents' sight/control.

Originally Posted by asmac (Post 17425219)

Me too. Slid into a curb and cracked the helmet. Can't be completely sure but I figure this would otherwise have caused some serious head damage.

And on the hearsay side, I had a chance to speak with the head of neurosurgery at a major trauma centre. He is passionate about the benefit of bike helmets but, really, what would he know? Probably better to trust contrary opinions of random internet dudes.

In any event, helmet laws aren't the answer. We have such a law for people under 16 and, ironically, this is the group that rarely seems to wear a helmet at least not when they're out of their parents' sight/control.

Originally Posted by Six jours (Post 17425333)

Kind of amazing to me that there are people so useless they cannot go for a bicycle ride without suffering life-threatening injuries.

Even more amazing is when those same folks shout "Darwin!" at cyclists who can manage to go for a bicycle ride without suffering life threatening injuries.

Originally Posted by Six jours (Post 17425385)

So not only are we dealing with a fellow who can't go for a bike ride without life threating injury, AND who yells "Darwin!" at anyone who can, we ALSO have fellow who thinks his helmet is going to save his life when he gets hit by a car.

So welcome to the thread. You'll fit right in.

Originally Posted by Six jours (Post 17425406)

Are you going to pretend that you didn't suggest being hit by a car is a good reason to wear a bicycle helmet? Or are you just going to do another edit?

And speaking of erroneous assumptions, I'll note you haven't bothered to learn whether I myself actually do or do not wear a helmet. Hell, for all you know, my helmet costs more than yours. Using your brand of "logic", that'd make my brain more valuable!

Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets (Post 17425513)

Can we get an Organ Donor?

Originally Posted by Six jours (Post 17425339)

You should ask the doctor how much training he's had WRT the ability of bicycle helmets to prevent brain trauma. If he's like almost every doctor out there, the answer is zero, and what he "knows" about bicycle helmets is primarily the result of medical journals still reprinting the long-disproven 85% figure.

Originally Posted by D1andonlyDman (Post 17424166)

The reason bike helmets make the compromises you cite is because wearing a several pound helmet while pedaling in hot humid weather would create greater dangers than simply protecting the forehead and cranial areas as well as they can weighing less than a pound, that road bike helmets do.

Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari (Post 17426193)

And what do you know, the moment you start using helmeteer logic against helmeteers, they start pulling "facts" out of their arse to keep their challenged belief-system intact. "Facts" like "It's always hot humid weather"; which is apparently extremely dangerous for anyone wearing a full face motor cycle helmet on a bicycle.


Motor cycle helmets are safer. Heck even full-face bicycle helmets are better. The problem is that cyclists aren't going to buy those because they're more interested in things like comfort and weight, so Bell sells what people want, not necessarily what they need. They're in the business of selling things to you, not some form of charity.


And yet you're here, arguing with me. Other than that, you're not here to promote the libertarian POV, you're here to shame people who don't conform to your standards.



The fact that you seem to think that cycling is very risky and border-line suicidal when done without a helmet, (Darwin Award worthy, am I right?) is probably an indication that you take way too much risks; Most probably because you're simply an incompetent cyclists, you wouldn't be the first helmet-monger whose clueless in that respect. It's might be a good idea to take a primer course on the subject, so you can familiarize yourself with the basics of cycling safety.

Originally Posted by D1andonlyDman (Post 17426199)

Yawn

Originally Posted by asmac (Post 17425790)

You're right. All he does is open up people's heads to repair impact damage. As I said, what would he know?

Originally Posted by 905 (Post 17425545)

Here's a donor card I made earlier, if that helps. (Somebody once suggested I needed one. I took their advice.) It's modelled after the card distributed by the National Health Service.

http://www.notanothercyclingforum.ne...norcard700.gif

Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari (Post 17426233)

Sounds like the frustrated sound of failure.

Jay, I won the internet again!

Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari (Post 17426277)

Originally Posted by D1andonlyDman (Post 17425504)

It's irrelevant to me whether or not you wear a helmet - it's unnecessary in your case, just as it's not necessary to put a helmet on a bowling ball. And again, it requires quite a lack of reading comprehension skills to claim that my suggestion that wearing a helmet is a good idea in the event one were hit by a car has anything remotely close to the same meaning as "his helmet is going to save his life when he gets hit by a car". There's only one person in this conversation who's illiterate enough to suggest that those two statements have the same meaning, and it's not me. Sorry if you're too uneducated to grasp the quite different meaning of those two entirely distinct statements.

Oh, and perhaps you might elucidate what is typical of a Southern California cyclist. Because at least 98% of my entire existence as a cyclist has been living in the northeast portion of the U.S. I've been a "Southern California cyclist" for less than 3 months, compared to a couple of decades elsewhere.

Originally Posted by asmac (Post 17427147)

He's passionate about it because he's tired of telling parents that their child is dead or permanently disabled from what he believes is a preventable injury. Maybe you're right. I'll connect him with the helmet thread so he can learn some 'basic stuff about cycling helmets.'

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 17427477)

And remember----------------------helmetless riders make great organ donors. Fortunately tho their brain that was loaded without common sense cant be donated.

Originally Posted by asmac (Post 17427147)

He's passionate about it because he's tired of telling parents that their child is dead or permanently disabled from what he believes is a preventable injury. Maybe you're right. I'll connect him with the helmet thread so he can learn some 'basic stuff about cycling helmets.'