Go Back  Bike Forums > Community Connections > Regional Discussions > Southern California
Reload this Page >

open note to all helmet nazis...

Search
Notices
Southern California Southern California

open note to all helmet nazis...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-10-09, 03:05 PM
  #101  
Whateverthehell
 
Chucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: U.S.S.A.
Posts: 7,432

Bikes: '06 Blue Competition RC5AL w/ritchey pro fork, spinergy stealth PBO, etc.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It's about cheese-eating surrender monkeys!
__________________
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return." - Leonardo daVinci
Chucklehead is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 03:06 PM
  #102  
Whateverthehell
 
Chucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: U.S.S.A.
Posts: 7,432

Bikes: '06 Blue Competition RC5AL w/ritchey pro fork, spinergy stealth PBO, etc.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by thompsonpost
Actually, isn't gravity the real problem? If you don't fall, you can't hit your head. Or is it riding bikes that make you hit your head? Silly me, I can't remember. Guess I've hit my head on car bumpers too many times.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The question is, was it wearing helmet?
__________________
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return." - Leonardo daVinci
Chucklehead is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 03:09 PM
  #103  
My bicycle is fixed
 
Brian Sorrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: '08 Surly Steamroller, '07 Surly Cross Check

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Silly gravity haters.
The problem isn't falling so much as getting smacked into by cars. So the problem is momentum, or even more generally, force. We have to fight the right abstractions here.
Brian Sorrell is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 03:58 PM
  #104  
Despite all my rage, I am
 
rooftest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,613

Bikes: LeMond Zurich, Colnago C-50

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian Sorrell
Oh I know. Hence my righteous anger.
And this is why I'm talking *SEVERE* penalties. Like, you lose the car + spend time in prison (in which case you won't have to worry about the job that you're about to lose) + 2,000 hours of community service, etc. The legal system goes waaaaaay too easy on people.

And get more cars off the road. They kill far too many people.
It's a good idea in theory, but the reality is tougher. Drunk driving arrests are, sadly, more common that you'd think. Especially here in California - if we were to start handing out prison terms to first time DUI's, that would mean a lot of money. (we don't have money for the prisoners we do have now.)

In LA, a second DUI carries mandatory jail time. However, as highlighted by a few celebrities' cases, the money or space isn't there to keep them - so they are released in a matter of hours or even minutes.

What I'm most surprised by is - how did I end up on this rant in a helmet thread?
rooftest is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 04:05 PM
  #105  
My bicycle is fixed
 
Brian Sorrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: '08 Surly Steamroller, '07 Surly Cross Check

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
^^ That doesn't address how easy it is to just take the car. Forever.

Plus, Drunk Driving, while obviously quite a large problem, is a only subset of my favorite point: get CARS off the roads. Operators over a wide range of sobriety levels kill kill kill with cars. And all this death that surrounds our auto-centric culture costs us hundreds of billions of dollars and more lives than wars.
Brian Sorrell is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 04:07 PM
  #106  
Over the hill
 
urbanknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 24,388

Bikes: Giant Defy, Giant Revolt

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked 1,218 Times in 697 Posts
Originally Posted by rooftest
It's a good idea in theory, but the reality is tougher. Drunk driving arrests are, sadly, more common that you'd think. Especially here in California - if we were to start handing out prison terms to first time DUI's, that would mean a lot of money. (we don't have money for the prisoners we do have now.)
That is the sort of faulty logic that got us in this mess in the first place. When we sit around going "gee, I'd like to punish him but we just can't afford it", he gets off scott free and not only does that let him go do it again, but he tells the story to 10 of his drinking buddies who also become more careless. If we would just bite the bullet and pay for the stiff penalties for a while, the crimes will become less frequent and we won't need to pay for as much prison, or court cases, or police investigatios, or emergency services, or coroner's services, or or or.

It's the same reason my students don't see the point in trying to get passing grades in their classes. We pass them on to the next grade level anyway.


Originally Posted by rooftest
In LA, a second DUI carries mandatory jail time. However, as highlighted by a few celebrities' cases, the money or space isn't there to keep them - so they are released in a matter of hours or even minutes.
As the relative of someone who has been caught DUI twice, in posession of marijuana twice, and domestic battery once, yet hasn't spent more than one night in jail waiting for an arraignment, I question the government's ability to define the term "mandatory".


And another +1 with Brian. Not only does taking the car not need any prison space, but it could possibly pay the legal system back.
__________________
It's like riding a bicycle
urbanknight is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 04:12 PM
  #107  
thompsonpost
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Originally Posted by rooftest
how did I end up on this rant in a helmet thread?
Actually, it's a thread about some old guy expressing concern about a twit with anger issues' safety. Go figure.
 
Old 08-10-09, 04:18 PM
  #108  
My bicycle is fixed
 
Brian Sorrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: '08 Surly Steamroller, '07 Surly Cross Check

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by urbanknight
It's the same reason my students don't see the point in trying to get passing grades in their classes. We pass them on to the next grade level anyway.
Another nice point. This, in my mind, underscores how *entitlement* trumps reason so often these days --- students seem to think that, what the heck, they went to class (or showed up for tests), so they earned advancement to the next level. Nope. Advancing is not a god-given right just because you show up.

Similarly, driving is not a god-given right just because you turned 16. It mystifies me that we don't have regular skill tests for licensed drivers. Given that driving is probably the most dangerous activity that any of us will ever do, this shocks me. (Again, 1 in 130 Americans are injured in an automobile every year (around 2.5 million) The system is failing us miserably, especially cyclists.)
Brian Sorrell is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 04:20 PM
  #109  
My bicycle is fixed
 
Brian Sorrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: '08 Surly Steamroller, '07 Surly Cross Check

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by thompsonpost
Actually, it's a thread about some old guy expressing concern about a twit with anger issues' safety. Go figure.
That's so three pages ago. It's about the Axis of Evil now.
Brian Sorrell is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 04:23 PM
  #110  
thompsonpost
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
My bad.
 
Old 08-10-09, 04:36 PM
  #111  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 353

Bikes: Colnago C40

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think UCLA will finally beat USC in football.

Ian in SD
IanInSD is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 04:38 PM
  #112  
My bicycle is fixed
 
Brian Sorrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: '08 Surly Steamroller, '07 Surly Cross Check

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Especially if USC doesn't wear helmets.
Brian Sorrell is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 05:08 PM
  #113  
Despite all my rage, I am
 
rooftest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,613

Bikes: LeMond Zurich, Colnago C-50

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by urbanknight
That is the sort of faulty logic that got us in this mess in the first place. When we sit around going "gee, I'd like to punish him but we just can't afford it", he gets off scott free and not only does that let him go do it again, but he tells the story to 10 of his drinking buddies who also become more careless. If we would just bite the bullet and pay for the stiff penalties for a while, the crimes will become less frequent and we won't need to pay for as much prison, or court cases, or police investigatios, or emergency services, or coroner's services, or or or.

.
As any parent will tell you; the threat of punishment needs to be followed by actual punishment, or else it's useless. It's not that we don't WANT to punish drunk drivers (I'm all for throwing the book at them), it's that we physically don't have the money or prisons to pay for locking them up. "Hope" isn't going to build more jails, pay more guards, and provide more meals.


Originally Posted by urbanknight
As the relative of someone who has been caught DUI twice, in posession of marijuana twice, and domestic battery once, yet hasn't spent more than one night in jail waiting for an arraignment, I question the government's ability to define the term "mandatory".
The most important fact there is "Where was that person convicted?" In Orange County, you can get up to 4 DUIs without serving time (unless you hurt somebody), and in all of California, marijuana possession of under an ounce is essentially a ticket - no jail time ever comes into play. (unless it can be proven that it's outside "personal use."

Originally Posted by IanInSD
I think UCLA will finally beat USC in football.

Ian in SD
Yeah, right - did they hire a whole new football team?
rooftest is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 05:17 PM
  #114  
My bicycle is fixed
 
Brian Sorrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: '08 Surly Steamroller, '07 Surly Cross Check

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by rooftest
... It's not that we don't WANT to punish drunk drivers (I'm all for throwing the book at them), it's that we physically don't have the money or prisons to pay for locking them up. "Hope" isn't going to build more jails, pay more guards, and provide more meals. ...
Take the car. Don't give it back. Total cost to society = towing, recouped upon sale of said vehicle.
Plus 2000 hours community service for a first offense.
Brian Sorrell is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 05:32 PM
  #115  
Senior Member
 
Mansram01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,344

Bikes: '17 Trek Emonda, '16 Yeti ASR5, '14 Cdale F29 '08 Orbea Orca.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I don't think the argument of getting rid of cars is the answer. I would suggest that we extend the cash for clunkers to all large cars, trucks and SUV's. Small cars can't kill, everyone knows that.

Plus we reap the benefits of going green.
Mansram01 is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 05:32 PM
  #116  
Senior Member
 
reef58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 1,690

Bikes: Serotta Nove

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hate to get involved in this but I think the only way to determine if helmets are effective would be to look at deaths on bikes not involving a car impact. I see a lot of knuckleheads that are riding bikes facing oncoming traffic and weaving all over the place. I have even seen them at night with no lights. I suspect they are the majority of the deaths.

Richard
reef58 is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 05:34 PM
  #117  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cruiserhead
There is a US DOT chart of the last 13 years clearly provided.
From 1994-2006, 83%-97% of cycling deaths are non-helmeted riders.

2005 - no helmet-deaths->676 (86%)--helmet-deaths->77(10%) total bicycle deaths-->784
2006 - no helmet-deaths->730 (95%)--helmet-deaths->37(5%) total bicycle deaths-->770
LOL that doesn't prove anything. 99.99% of all bicycle deaths were of riders not wearing clown shoes. If you've ever studied science and logic, you would know correlation does not equal causation. But if you are an average person, you are easily swayed by intentionally misleading statistics

The statistic they leave out, which is the only one that matters, is the RATE of serious injury or death between helmeted and non-helmeted riders in the same types of accidents.

Do you realize that if everyone wore helmets, 100% of serious injury and death of riders would be helmeted? Would you then call for the removal of helmets because they cause serious injury or death?
turbo2L is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 05:38 PM
  #118  
My bicycle is fixed
 
Brian Sorrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: '08 Surly Steamroller, '07 Surly Cross Check

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by mchacon01
I don't think the argument of getting rid of cars is the answer. I would suggest that we extend the cash for clunkers to all large cars, trucks and SUV's. Small cars can't kill, everyone knows that.

Plus we reap the benefits of going green.
But it's the cars that do all the killing!
This is like saying that it's fine to leave all the murderers out on the streets --- we just have to wear protective clothing so that they can't hurt us.

Absurd!
Brian Sorrell is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 05:52 PM
  #119  
IrvineDan
 
deitman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 44

Bikes: 1996 GT LTS-1, 1998 Trek 2300, 2009 Trek Madone 5.2 (6/1/09)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Fine. I can live with being called a Helmet Advocate, but not anything more than that.

Helmets are what allow me to spell correctly, use correct grammar, and hopefully add something to the original post. I agree with lowlife1975 in that we're better served helping each other out with a kind word than with a shout while passing by that urges conformity. We all have anectdotal evidence (I've broken two snowboarding helmets and three bicycle helmets in crashes in the past 15 years while coming to a "sudden stop") that helmets help survivability, just like the early arguments for seat belts. Until someone does an actual study, or engages in an activity where the risk to themselves results in a decision to wear a helmet, live and let live.

I'd much rather shout at the people doing 25mph on a multi-use trail, blowing by families out for a walk, giving the rest of us a bad name. I'd much rather shout at a driver that nearly hits a group of cyclists while talking on his celll-phone while driving. I'd much rather see if anyone in this post so far has been wearing their helmet enough to find the spelling errors.

And I'd shout if those socks didn't match the streamers and saddle on the bike.
deitman is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 06:06 PM
  #120  
Chasing the horizon.
 
DArthurBrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 500

Bikes: 2016 Felt F75, 2008 Mercier Corvus Steel, 2006 Trek 4300, 1985 Trek 620 (modernized)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by lowlife1975
especially the old man on the colnago in shady canyon this morning (i really hope that you are a BF member).

please, please do not interrupt my pleasant weekend ride by shouting at me and my friend to "wear a helmet" as you are passing by. not only is it incredibly rude, but the holier-than-thou attitude is liable to get you a massive knuckle sandwich next time, seriously. i grew up abiding by the old adage that if you got nothing good to say, then don't say anything at all. why you don't comprehend this is beyond me. i also grew up learning that this adage was especially important when dealing with complete strangers b/c who knows what sort of short tempered crazy nut bags are out there.

the great helmet debate has been discussed to death and basically comes down to individual preference, unless you're racing or on a club or organized ride. individual choice... what a great concept, kind of like what this country was founded on? my not wearing a helmet has no bearing on you or your ride or safety whatsoever. you have no idea why i am making the choices that i am making so just shut the eff up. i know what those helmet nazis are going to say, "hey i am just looking out for your saftey." thanks but i already got a mom for that... and besides, what's next, are you going to start shouting at people for not wearing sunglasses, gloves, cycling shoes, etc? are you going to lecture the guy with the creaky brakes and out of true wheel b/c that is also a safety concern?

get over yourself my friend and think twice before you open your big mouth b/c one day someone is going to close it for you, senior citizen or not, b/c no one is above a good old fashioned ass whupping.
You gave up your common law right to be an idiot as soon as you cash in on any government subsidized health care. The arguments you make like "it's a free country" are incomplete. It is a free country, but only because you do not have to accept government or employer health care. If your employer says you must, and you accept the job, then you are giving up your right to be an idiot on this issue. If you want to go do whatever the hell you want and cause injury to yourself, be my guest, but don't do it on my cent, and don't impression kids that see you do it either.
DArthurBrown is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 06:14 PM
  #121  
My bicycle is fixed
 
Brian Sorrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: '08 Surly Steamroller, '07 Surly Cross Check

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by deitman
... Until someone does an actual study, or engages in an activity where the risk to themselves results in a decision to wear a helmet, live and let live.
How about a study showing that the leading killer of 16-24 year olds is the automobile.
Or a study that shows how nearly 2.5 million Americans will be injured in an automobile accident this year.
Or a study that shows how automobiles kill 700 cyclists in the US every year.
All those stats are available on the DOT and NHTSA web sites.

Enough with the ridiculous helmet talk already....
Brian Sorrell is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 06:14 PM
  #122  
thompsonpost
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Originally Posted by deitman
Fine. I can live with being called a Helmet Advocate, but not anything more than that.

Helmets are what allow me to spell correctly, use correct grammar, and hopefully add something to the original post. I agree with lowlife1975 in that we're better served helping each other out with a kind word than with a shout while passing by that urges conformity. We all have anectdotal evidence (I've broken two snowboarding helmets and three bicycle helmets in crashes in the past 15 years while coming to a "sudden stop") that helmets help survivability, just like the early arguments for seat belts. Until someone does an actual study, or engages in an activity where the risk to themselves results in a decision to wear a helmet, live and let live.

I'd much rather shout at the people doing 25mph on a multi-use trail, blowing by families out for a walk, giving the rest of us a bad name. I'd much rather shout at a driver that nearly hits a group of cyclists while talking on his celll-phone while driving. I'd much rather see if anyone in this post so far has been wearing their helmet enough to find the spelling errors.

And I'd shout if those socks didn't match the streamers and saddle on the bike.
Back off, man, don't make me beat my other three dogs.
 
Old 08-10-09, 06:31 PM
  #123  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 308
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DArthurBrown
You gave up your common law right to be an idiot as soon as you cash in on any government subsidized health care. The arguments you make like "it's a free country" are incomplete. It is a free country, but only because you do not have to accept government or employer health care. If your employer says you must, and you accept the job, then you are giving up your right to be an idiot on this issue. If you want to go do whatever the hell you want and cause injury to yourself, be my guest, but don't do it on my cent, and don't impression kids that see you do it either.
dbrown- your argument (if you can call it that) makes no sense whatsoever... in fact its so way out there in terms of any sort of logical reasoning, its actually kind of funny. haha
lowlife1975 is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 06:53 PM
  #124  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by reef58
Hate to get involved in this but I think the only way to determine if helmets are effective would be to look at deaths on bikes not involving a car impact. I see a lot of knuckleheads that are riding bikes facing oncoming traffic and weaving all over the place. I have even seen them at night with no lights. I suspect they are the majority of the deaths.

Richard
yeah it was their direction, weaving and no lights that killed em...nothing involving an impact with a car. Dude...I gotta ask...are you wearing a helmet...like now?
__________________
"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
chipcom is offline  
Old 08-10-09, 07:20 PM
  #125  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DArthurBrown
You gave up your common law right to be an idiot as soon as you cash in on any government subsidized health care. The arguments you make like "it's a free country" are incomplete. It is a free country, but only because you do not have to accept government or employer health care. If your employer says you must, and you accept the job, then you are giving up your right to be an idiot on this issue. If you want to go do whatever the hell you want and cause injury to yourself, be my guest, but don't do it on my cent, and don't impression kids that see you do it either.
Putting aside the fact that bicycle helmets were not designed to prevent, and have not been shown to prevent, the types of injuries seen in car-bicycle collisions, which are the real killers...are you saying that we should always chose the safest of any given option because we owe it to our fellow taxpayers?

By that logic, wouldn't staying at home, training on a trainer instead of going into the street on a bicycle, cut the bicycle accident rate to 0%? Wouldn't that be cheaper for health care?
turbo2L is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.