Sanity from Ireland

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Not a novel view, of course; I think most of us are aware that
promotion of helmets and promotion of cycling go together like fish
and bicycle.


http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15193

Cyclist.ie chairperson Dr Mike McKillen said the government’s
Smarter Travel policy is to get as many people as possible to make
daily journeys by bicycle. If this aim is be realised, we must not
get distracted by counterproductive debates about helmet
wearing, he said.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

[Simon Mason]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> Not a novel view, of course; I think most of us are aware that
> promotion of helmets and promotion of cycling go together like fish
> and bicycle.
>
>
> http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15193
>
> Cyclist.ie chairperson Dr Mike McKillen said the government's
> Smarter Travel policy is to get as many people as possible to make
> daily journeys by bicycle. If this aim is be realised, we must not
> get distracted by counterproductive debates about helmet
> wearing, he said.


I have never entertained the idea of wearing a bit of expanded polystyrene
on my bonce, Guy - stupid idea. In fact, when I crashed in a time trial and
did this>
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/elbow.jpg

my line manager asked me why I wasn't wearing a helmet!

In fact, all my managers have said this, but it only because they hate the
fact they have ruined their bodies, get stuck in massive jams twice a day
and don't see why I should enjoy myself. They want you to a) look a tit and
b) make your head sweat in the summer. I ask them why they don't wear
helmets in cars like F1 and rally drivers - that stumps them.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

[Nuxx Bar]

On Mar 15, 5:42*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote:
> Not a novel view, of course; I think most of us are aware that
> promotion of helmets and promotion of cycling go together like fish
> and bicycle.

Damn straight. Because cycling is about anarchism, isn't it? And
cyclists shouldn't have to follow any restrictions or rules, however
sensible, simply because they're morally superior to other road
users. Therefore helmets should never be advocated, however safe they
make cyclists, because that might "discourage cycling". It's about
getting as many people as possible on their bikes, regardless of
safety, in order to achieve that "Critical Mass".

[Simon Mason]

"Nuxx Bar" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 15, 5:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote:
> Not a novel view, of course; I think most of us are aware that
> promotion of helmets and promotion of cycling go together like fish
> and bicycle.

>Damn straight. Because cycling is about anarchism, isn't it?
>And cyclists shouldn't have to follow any restrictions or rules, however
>sensible, simply because they're morally superior to other road
>users.

Driving at speeds exceeding the local limit is breaking the law.

Riding a bicycle with no helmet is not breaking the law.

Simple.



--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

[judith smith]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:42:44 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>Not a novel view, of course; I think most of us are aware that
>promotion of helmets and promotion of cycling go together like fish
>and bicycle.
>
>
>http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15193
>
>Cyclist.ie chairperson Dr Mike McKillen said the government’s
>Smarter Travel policy is to get as many people as possible to make
>daily journeys by bicycle. If this aim is be realised, we must not
>get distracted by counterproductive debates about helmet
>wearing, he said.
>
>Guy


"Furthermore, cyclists who put their trust in helmets are likely to be
less wary at junctions, the group said. "


Fascinating - I wonder where they picked this gem from - or are they
just assuming that all cyclists are ****wits.




--




The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) is an independent body with the message:
Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists - unless the evidence forces them to a dramatically different conclusion.

[judith smith]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:08:00 -0000, "Simon Mason"
> wrote:

>
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
>> Not a novel view, of course; I think most of us are aware that
>> promotion of helmets and promotion of cycling go together like fish
>> and bicycle.
>>
>>
>> http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15193
>>
>> Cyclist.ie chairperson Dr Mike McKillen said the government's
>> Smarter Travel policy is to get as many people as possible to make
>> daily journeys by bicycle. If this aim is be realised, we must not
>> get distracted by counterproductive debates about helmet
>> wearing, he said.
>
>
>I have never entertained the idea of wearing a bit of expanded polystyrene
>on my bonce, Guy - stupid idea. In fact, when I crashed in a time trial and
>did this>
>http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/elbow.jpg
>
>my line manager asked me why I wasn't wearing a helmet!
>
> In fact, all my managers have said this, but it only because they hate the
>fact they have ruined their bodies, get stuck in massive jams twice a day
>and don't see why I should enjoy myself. They want you to a) look a tit and
>b) make your head sweat in the summer. I ask them why they don't wear
>helmets in cars like F1 and rally drivers - that stumps them.


chip?

what do you mean?

--
Is the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation biased?
What do you think?
Published evidence supportive of helmet effectiveness or promotion - number of references 19.
Published evidence sceptical of helmet effectiveness or promotion - number of references 57.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On 15 Mar, 20:08, Judith Smith > wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:42:44 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
> > wrote:
> >Not a novel view, of course; I think most of us are aware that
> >promotion of helmets and promotion of cycling go together like fish
> >and bicycle.
>
> >http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15193
>
> >Cyclist.ie chairperson Dr Mike McKillen said the government’s
> >Smarter Travel policy is to get as many people as possible to make
> >daily journeys by bicycle. If this aim is be realised, we must not
> >get distracted by counterproductive debates about helmet
> >wearing, he said.
>
> >Guy
>
> "Furthermore, cyclists who put their trust in helmets are likely to be
> less wary at junctions, the group said. "
>

This is a well known trait called "risk compensation". Cyclists, no
doubt brainwashed by idiots who haven't a clue about cycling, become
convinced that wearing a plastic hat confers on them a Captain Scarlet
like indestructibility. They will then sail out of junctions, thinking
that if anything does hit them then the hat will save their skin.
Without the hat, they take more care as they imagine themselves to be
more vulnerable.

The same goes for motorists, but in reverse. A recent study showed
motorists giving cyclists wearing helmets less room than ones without
hats. This was thought to be due to the motorist seeing an unhelmeted
rider as more vulnerable and so giving them more room.

Wikipedia says:

In ethology, risk compensation is an effect whereby individual people
may tend to adjust their behaviour in response to perceived changes in
risk. It is seen as self-evident that individuals will tend to behave
in a more cautious manner if their perception of risk or danger
increases. Another way of stating this is that individuals will behave
less cautiously in situations where they feel "safer" or more
protected.

Cycle helmets
A study published in the March 2007 issue of Accident Analysis &
Prevention showed that drivers drove an average of 8.5 cm closer, and
came within 1 meter 23% more often, when a cyclist was wearing a
helmet.


--
Simon Mason

[judith smith]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 04:19:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On 15 Mar, 20:08, Judith Smith > wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:42:44 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >Not a novel view, of course; I think most of us are aware that
>> >promotion of helmets and promotion of cycling go together like fish
>> >and bicycle.
>>
>> >http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15193
>>
>> >Cyclist.ie chairperson Dr Mike McKillen said the government’s
>> >Smarter Travel policy is to get as many people as possible to make
>> >daily journeys by bicycle. If this aim is be realised, we must not
>> >get distracted by counterproductive debates about helmet
>> >wearing, he said.
>>
>> >Guy
>>
>> "Furthermore, cyclists who put their trust in helmets are likely to be
>> less wary at junctions, the group said. "
>>
>
>This is a well known trait called "risk compensation". Cyclists, no
>doubt brainwashed by idiots who haven't a clue about cycling, become
>convinced that wearing a plastic hat confers on them a Captain Scarlet
>like indestructibility. They will then sail out of junctions, thinking
>that if anything does hit them then the hat will save their skin.
>Without the hat, they take more care as they imagine themselves to be
>more vulnerable.
>
>The same goes for motorists, but in reverse. A recent study showed
>motorists giving cyclists wearing helmets less room than ones without
>hats. This was thought to be due to the motorist seeing an unhelmeted
>rider as more vulnerable and so giving them more room.


Details - name - Journal - of the study please.


--

In the UK in 2007
There were 30,959 pedestrians injured in traffice accidents
There were 16,415 cyclists injured in traffic accidents

I wonder what the relative numbers of pedestrians and cyclists
in the UK is?

It looks like cycling is much more dangerous than being a pedestrian.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On 16 Mar, 13:24, Judith Smith > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 04:19:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> >On 15 Mar, 20:08, Judith Smith > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:42:44 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >Not a novel view, of course; I think most of us are aware that
> >> >promotion of helmets and promotion of cycling go together like fish
> >> >and bicycle.
>
> >> >http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15193
>
> >> >Cyclist.ie chairperson Dr Mike McKillen said the government’s
> >> >Smarter Travel policy is to get as many people as possible to make
> >> >daily journeys by bicycle. If this aim is be realised, we must not
> >> >get distracted by counterproductive debates about helmet
> >> >wearing, he said.
>
> >> >Guy
>
> >> "Furthermore, cyclists who put their trust in helmets are likely to be
> >> less wary at junctions, the group said. "
>
> >This is a well known trait called "risk compensation". Cyclists, no
> >doubt brainwashed by idiots who haven't a clue about cycling, *become
> >convinced that wearing a plastic hat confers on them a Captain Scarlet
> >like indestructibility. They will then sail out of junctions, thinking
> >that if anything does hit them then the hat will save their skin.
> >Without the hat, they take more care as they imagine themselves to be
> >more vulnerable.
>
> >The same goes for motorists, but in reverse. A recent study showed
> >motorists giving cyclists wearing helmets less room than ones without
> >hats. This was thought to be due to the motorist seeing an unhelmeted
> >rider as more vulnerable and so giving them more room.
>
> Details *- name - Journal *- of the study please.
>
> -- * * *
>
> In the UK in 2007
> There were 30,959 pedestrians injured in traffice accidents
> There were 16,415 cyclists injured in traffic accidents
>
> I wonder what the relative numbers of pedestrians and cyclists
> in the UK is?
>
> It looks like cycling is much more dangerous than being a pedestrian.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Go the the Wikipedia article on risk compensation - do I have to lead
you by the hand? ;-)

--
Simon Mason

[Peter Grange]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:50:47 +0000, Judith Smith
> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:00:49 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> A recent study showed
>>> >motorists giving cyclists wearing helmets less room than ones without
>>> >hats. This was thought to be due to the motorist seeing an unhelmeted
>>> >rider as more vulnerable and so giving them more room.
>>>
>>> Details *- name - Journal *- of the study please.
>>>
>
>>
>>Go the the Wikipedia article on risk compensation - do I have to lead
>>you by the hand? ;-)
>
>
>As I thought you have no peer reviewed journal reference.
>
>You are losing any credibility you had - Post something as fact - and
>then when asked for the source - refer to Wikipedia.
>
>
Unlike you of course, you just assert something ie "not true", then
justify it with "as far as I know".

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:41:34 +0000, Peter Grange
> said in
>:

>>>Go the the Wikipedia article on risk compensation - do I have to lead
>>>you by the hand? ;-)

>>As I thought you have no peer reviewed journal reference.

>>You are losing any credibility you had - Post something as fact - and
>>then when asked for the source - refer to Wikipedia.

>Unlike you of course, you just assert something ie "not true", then
>justify it with "as far as I know".

"Go to the Wikipedia article" is generally good advice because
Wikipedia policy mandates the use of reliable independent secondary
sources. And let's face it, Wikipedia is the most-used reference
site on the Internet so it's hardly an odd place to look for
information.

Now, this policy is unevenly applied and there are many articles
which cite no sources at all. This article cites eight sources of
varying reliability, and those sources should enable you to start
reading around the issue. One of those sources is the one most of
us would probably recommend to anyone looking to understand the
concept, John Adams' Risk. Wilde's Target Risk is free on the web
but a bit less mainstream.

I think it's fair to say that these days the real debate is about
the extent of risk compensation, not its existence.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Contents packed by intellectual weight and may settle
after posting. May contain traces of irony.

[judith smith]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:41:34 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:50:47 +0000, Judith Smith
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:00:49 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> A recent study showed
>>>> >motorists giving cyclists wearing helmets less room than ones without
>>>> >hats. This was thought to be due to the motorist seeing an unhelmeted
>>>> >rider as more vulnerable and so giving them more room.
>>>>
>>>> Details *- name - Journal *- of the study please.
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>>Go the the Wikipedia article on risk compensation - do I have to lead
>>>you by the hand? ;-)
>>
>>
>>As I thought you have no peer reviewed journal reference.
>>
>>You are losing any credibility you had - Post something as fact - and
>>then when asked for the source - refer to Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>Unlike you of course, you just assert something ie "not true", then
>justify it with "as far as I know".


Yes - it's called honesty - that's why I added it.
--

In the UK in 2007
There were 30,959 pedestrians injured in traffice accidents
There were 16,415 cyclists injured in traffic accidents

I wonder what the relative numbers of pedestrians and cyclists
in the UK is?

It looks like cycling is much more dangerous than being a pedestrian.

[JNugent[_5_]]

Simon Mason wrote:

[ ... ]

> I have never entertained the idea of wearing a bit of expanded
> polystyrene on my bonce ... my line manager asked me why I wasn't
> wearing a helmet!

> In fact, all my managers have said this, but it only because they hate
> the fact they have ruined their bodies, get stuck in massive jams twice
> a day and don't see why I should enjoy myself. They want you to a) look
> a tit [ ... ]

Stop right there.

You have admitted your motivation.

Thank you. It's the first completely honest anti-helmet post I remember seeing.

[JNugent[_5_]]

wrote:

[ ... ]

> Cyclists, no doubt brainwashed by idiots who haven't a clue about cycling, become
> convinced that wearing a plastic hat confers on them a Captain Scarlet like indestructibility.

Are cyclists particularly prone to this alleged brainwashing, then?

Careful, you'll have other posters calling you a troll, especially now you've
admitted that you don't want to wear a helmet because you don't want to look
"like a tit".

[Simon Mason]

"Judith Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:00:49 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> A recent study showed
>>> >motorists giving cyclists wearing helmets less room than ones without
>>> >hats. This was thought to be due to the motorist seeing an unhelmeted
>>> >rider as more vulnerable and so giving them more room.
>>>
>>> Details - name - Journal - of the study please.
>>>
>
>>
>>Go the the Wikipedia article on risk compensation - do I have to lead
>>you by the hand? ;-)
>
>
> As I thought you have no peer reviewed journal reference.
>
> You are losing any credibility you had - Post something as fact - and
> then when asked for the source - refer to Wikipedia.



I shall soon be replying - big style! To you personally.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Judith Smith wrote:

> You are losing any credibility you had - Post something as fact - and
> then when asked for the source - refer to Wikipedia.

""a defendant has been unable to prove by medical evidence that the
wearing of a helmet" - not true - he was not unable - as far as I know
he did not try"

.... and?

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Colin Reed]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> Simon Mason wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> I have never entertained the idea of wearing a bit of expanded
>> polystyrene on my bonce ... my line manager asked me why I wasn't
>> wearing a helmet!
>
>> In fact, all my managers have said this, but it only because they hate
>> the fact they have ruined their bodies, get stuck in massive jams twice a
>> day and don't see why I should enjoy myself. They want you to a) look a
>> tit [ ... ]
>
> Stop right there.

No, he hasn't finished yet.
>
> You have admitted your motivation.

No, only a part of his motivation.
>
> Thank you. It's the first completely honest anti-helmet post I remember
> seeing.

And this is a completely dishonest, skewed bit of snipping to try to make
your argument. I had thought that you were argumentative, maybe wanting to
play Devil's Advocate quite a bit, but at least open to discussion more than
this. That you appear to have searched through posts to find one fragment
of a sentence that will support a view that you think makes cyclists who
don't wear helmets appear like vain fashion victims suggests that you are
going somewhat further than mere devil's advocate. Have you ever looked at
some of the webpages of cyclists on this group? I come here to read a lot
of interesting technical advice and information about cycling routes, but
not exactly for the fashion advice. If you think that someone who has said
they wear cycling tights under loose shorts, and then rolls up the tights to
their knees when it's warm worries about the fashion side of wearing a
helmet, then you really need to step away from the computer and go and look
outside at the real world in natural light! Try it from a bike, you get to
see so much more at a better pace than from a car.

Colin

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, JNugent wrote:
>Simon Mason wrote:
>> In fact, all my managers have said this, but it only because they hate
>> the fact they have ruined their bodies, get stuck in massive jams twice
>> a day and don't see why I should enjoy myself. They want you to a) look
>> a tit [ ... ]
>
>Stop right there.

Don't bother, no one will love you forever.

[judith smith]

On 17 Mar 2009 09:27:05 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
wrote:

>Judith Smith wrote:
>
>> You are losing any credibility you had - Post something as fact - and
>> then when asked for the source - refer to Wikipedia.
>
>""a defendant has been unable to prove by medical evidence that the
>wearing of a helmet" - not true - he was not unable - as far as I know
>he did not try"
>
>... and?

Perhaps too subtle for you - it underlines the objectivity of the
writer:

"a defendant has been unable to prove by medical evidence that the
wearing of a helmet"

is not the same as:

"the defendant failed to offer any evidence that the wearing of a
helmet...."

It is like me saying that *you* have failed to show that helmets are
pointless.

You may not have actually tried to do so.



--

Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:
Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians : 384
All casualties:
Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795

Which do you think is the most dangerous?

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Judith Smith wrote:

> On 17 Mar 2009 09:27:05 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
> wrote:
>
> > Judith Smith wrote:
> >
> >> You are losing any credibility you had - Post something as fact -
> and >> then when asked for the source - refer to Wikipedia.
> >
> > ""a defendant has been unable to prove by medical evidence that the
> > wearing of a helmet" - not true - he was not unable - as far as I
> > know he did not try"
> >
> > ... and?
>
> Perhaps too subtle for you

>>>> Whoosh ...

I was pointing out that you seem to find it acceptable that you use
"..as far as I know" for your justification of a point, yet others who
cite sources such as Wiki are wrong.
This seems hypocritical or disingenuous at best, or maybe just plain
st00pidity on your part.Or, hey it could happen, a mistake perhaps.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[judith smith]

On 17 Mar 2009 15:42:10 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
wrote:

>Judith Smith wrote:
>
>> On 17 Mar 2009 09:27:05 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Judith Smith wrote:
>> >
>> >> You are losing any credibility you had - Post something as fact -
>> and >> then when asked for the source - refer to Wikipedia.
>> >
>> > ""a defendant has been unable to prove by medical evidence that the
>> > wearing of a helmet" - not true - he was not unable - as far as I
>> > know he did not try"
>> >
>> > ... and?
>>
>> Perhaps too subtle for you
>
>>>>> Whoosh ...
>
>I was pointing out that you seem to find it acceptable that you use
>"..as far as I know" for your justification of a point, yet others who
>cite sources such as Wiki are wrong.
>This seems hypocritical or disingenuous at best, or maybe just plain
>st00pidity on your part.Or, hey it could happen, a mistake perhaps.


It is quite reasonable to use "as far as I know" if there is perhaps
some uncertainty. It was not "justification" of the point - it was an
admission that it may not be true.

I would not quote Wikipedia as a definite source - anyone who does
may as well say "I do not know" when asked for a source.









--

There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury.

The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should wear one.

Mr Justice Griffith Williams

[JNugent[_5_]]

Colin Reed wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote:
>> Simon Mason wrote:

>> [ ... ]

>>> I have never entertained the idea of wearing a bit of expanded
>>> polystyrene on my bonce ... my line manager asked me why I wasn't
>>> wearing a helmet!
>>> In fact, all my managers have said this, but it only because they hate
>>> the fact they have ruined their bodies, get stuck in massive jams twice a
>>> day and don't see why I should enjoy myself. They want you to a) look a
>>> tit [ ... ]

>> Stop right there.

> No, he hasn't finished yet.

Indeed he hadn't.

But that bit was still important in its own right and was well worth
highlighting as a standalone point.

>> You have admitted your motivation.

> No, only a part of his motivation.

Maybe. It's still a motivation that others have denied exists.

>> Thank you. It's the first completely honest anti-helmet post I remember
>> seeing.

> And this is a completely dishonest, skewed bit of snipping to try to make
> your argument.

I am not seeking to prevent anyone from making an argument. I merely point
out something very significant: the first poster to admit to something that
others have refused to admit.

> I had thought that you were argumentative, maybe wanting to
> play Devil's Advocate quite a bit, but at least open to discussion more than
> this.

I am very open to discussion. That does not mean that I necessarily accept
all of the assertions that others have posted when denying that "looking
uncool" was part of their reason for being against helmets.

Be clear: AFAIAC, if people don't want to look uncool, that's fine. I just
wish they'd admit their fashion victimhood. That's all.

> That you appear to have searched through posts to find one fragment
> of a sentence that will support a view that you think makes cyclists who
> don't wear helmets appear like vain fashion victims

I certainly *wasn't* searching for it. I very definitely *didn't* expect to
find it. It just jumped off the screen at me - it was that startling. And I
think it has struck you the same way.

The PP was perhaps unaware of recent threads which touched on this very
subject, with several posters hotly denying that fear of "looking like a tit"
[that isn't how it was put, but it means the same thing] was a factor.

Well, there's one poster who *admits* that it's a factor.

> suggests that you are
> going somewhat further than mere devil's advocate. Have you ever looked at
> some of the webpages of cyclists on this group?

Why are you so het up about this?

It's a free country (up to a point). You are free not to wear a helmet no
matter what your motivation. Why does it matter so much to you what others
believe [maybe only part of] your motivation is?

[Nuxx Bar]

On Mar 15, 7:00*pm, "Simon Mason" >
wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 15, 5:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote:
>
> > Not a novel view, of course; I think most of us are aware that
> > promotion of helmets and promotion of cycling go together like fish
> > and bicycle.
> >Damn straight. *Because cycling is about anarchism, isn't it?
> >And cyclists shouldn't have to follow any restrictions or rules, however
> >sensible, simply because they're morally superior to other road
> >users.
>
> Driving at speeds exceeding the local limit is breaking the law.
>
> Riding a bicycle with no helmet is not breaking the law.
>
> Simple.

Apparently so. Tell me, what would you be more upset by? One of your
closest friends smoking the occasional joint, or that same friend
cheating on his wife?

My point being that "the law" is not the only consideration.

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

JNugent wrote:
> Colin Reed wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>
>>> [ ... ]
>
>>>> I have never entertained the idea of wearing a bit of expanded
>>>> polystyrene on my bonce ... my line manager asked me why I wasn't
>>>> wearing a helmet!
>>>> In fact, all my managers have said this, but it only because they
>>>> hate the fact they have ruined their bodies, get stuck in massive
>>>> jams twice a day and don't see why I should enjoy myself. They
>>>> want you to a) look a tit [ ... ]
>
>>> Stop right there.
>
>> No, he hasn't finished yet.
>
> Indeed he hadn't.
>
> But that bit was still important in its own right and was well worth
> highlighting as a standalone point.
>
>>> You have admitted your motivation.
>
>> No, only a part of his motivation.
>
> Maybe. It's still a motivation that others have denied exists.

Perhaps is isn't a motivation as far as others are concerned.

>
>>> Thank you. It's the first completely honest anti-helmet post I
>>> remember seeing.
>
>> And this is a completely dishonest, skewed bit of snipping to try to
>> make your argument.
>
> I am not seeking to prevent anyone from making an argument. I merely
> point out something very significant: the first poster to admit to
> something that others have refused to admit.

Because others don't see it as an issue.

>
>> I had thought that you were argumentative, maybe wanting to
>> play Devil's Advocate quite a bit, but at least open to discussion
>> more than this.
>
> I am very open to discussion. That does not mean that I necessarily
> accept all of the assertions that others have posted when denying
> that "looking uncool" was part of their reason for being against
> helmets.
> Be clear: AFAIAC, if people don't want to look uncool, that's fine. I
> just wish they'd admit their fashion victimhood. That's all.

The don't need to admit what they are not guilty of.

>
>> That you appear to have searched through posts to find one fragment
>> of a sentence that will support a view that you think makes cyclists
>> who don't wear helmets appear like vain fashion victims
>
> I certainly *wasn't* searching for it. I very definitely *didn't*
> expect to find it. It just jumped off the screen at me - it was that
> startling. And I think it has struck you the same way.
>
> The PP was perhaps unaware of recent threads which touched on this
> very subject, with several posters hotly denying that fear of
> "looking like a tit" [that isn't how it was put, but it means the
> same thing] was a factor.
> Well, there's one poster who *admits* that it's a factor.
>
>> suggests that you are
>> going somewhat further than mere devil's advocate. Have you ever
>> looked at some of the webpages of cyclists on this group?
>
> Why are you so het up about this?
>
> It's a free country (up to a point). You are free not to wear a
> helmet no matter what your motivation. Why does it matter so much to
> you what others believe [maybe only part of] your motivation is?

Because falsely accusing people of things is extremely annoying to the
people concerned.

If I kept banging on that you only posted here to cause trouble and refused
to accept any denial from you, wouldn't that irritate you somewhat?

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:17:37 -0000, "Adam Lea" >
said in >:

>> Be clear: AFAIAC, if people don't want to look uncool, that's fine. I
>> just wish they'd admit their fashion victimhood. That's all.

>The don't need to admit what they are not guilty of.

That's really funny. I don't think there is anything on the streets
less hip than me on my Brompton!

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Contents packed by intellectual weight and may settle
after posting. May contain traces of irony.

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Just zis Guy, you know? > tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:17:37 -0000, "Adam Lea" >
> said in >:
>
>>> Be clear: AFAIAC, if people don't want to look uncool, that's fine.
>>> I just wish they'd admit their fashion victimhood. That's all.
>
>> The don't need to admit what they are not guilty of.
>
> That's really funny. I don't think there is anything on the streets
> less hip than me on my Brompton!

Try an upright trike. They're so unhip they make yer bum fall off, which
might be considered an advantage when attempting to make the bugger go round
a corner ;-)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Electricity comes from other planets.

[Daniel Barlow]

"Adam Lea" > writes:

>>> No, only a part of his motivation [for not wearing a helmet]
>>
>> Maybe. It's still a motivation that others have denied exists.
>
> Perhaps is isn't a motivation as far as others are concerned.

It's my *primary* motivation for not wearing one as a pedestrian.
Does that make me a fashion victim as well?

(My girlfriend would laugh long and hard to hear me so described)


-dan

[judith smith]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:44:30 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:17:37 -0000, "Adam Lea" >
>said in >:
>
>>> Be clear: AFAIAC, if people don't want to look uncool, that's fine. I
>>> just wish they'd admit their fashion victimhood. That's all.
>
>>The don't need to admit what they are not guilty of.
>
>That's really funny. I don't think there is anything on the streets
>less hip than me on my Brompton!
>
>Guy


Oh I don't know:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36093346@N07/3335857532/

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 11:53*am, Judith Smith > wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:44:30 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
> >That's really funny. I don't think there is anything on the streets
> >less hip than me on my Brompton!
>
> >Guy
>
> Oh I don't know:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/36093346@N07/3335857532/

You have an interesting interpretation of Flickr's terms of service:
http://www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne

Specifically:
-------------------
* Don’t upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photos, video and/or stuff you've
collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of
such collections may be terminated at any time.
* Don’t be creepy.
You know the guy. Don't be that guy.
------------------

Please... stop being creepy Judith.

[Clive George]

> wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 11:53 am, Judith Smith > wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:44:30 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>
>> >That's really funny. I don't think there is anything on the streets
>> >less hip than me on my Brompton!
>>
>> >Guy
>>
>> Oh I don't know:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/36093346@N07/3335857532/
>
>You have an interesting interpretation of Flickr's terms of service:
>http://www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne
>
>Specifically:
>-------------------
>* Don’t upload anything that isn't yours.
>This includes other people's photos, video and/or stuff you've
>collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of
>such collections may be terminated at any time.
>* Don’t be creepy.
>You know the guy. Don't be that guy.
>------------------
>
>Please... stop being creepy Judith.

Not to mention breaking copyright. If Guy hasn't explicitly allowed it, what
Judith has done is illegal.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 1:51*pm, "Clive George" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>
> >Please... stop being creepy Judith.
>
> Not to mention breaking copyright. If Guy hasn't explicitly allowed it, what
> Judith has done is illegal.

It's up to Guy to report it to flickr though. It's his copyright
that's been broken.
*regrets dragging self into this*

[Clive George]

> wrote in message
...

> *regrets dragging self into this*

Why? You've given us a giggle by pointing out yet another judith cockup.

[Simon Mason]

"Nuxx Bar" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 15, 7:00 pm, "Simon Mason" >
wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 15, 5:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote:
>
> > Not a novel view, of course; I think most of us are aware that
> > promotion of helmets and promotion of cycling go together like fish
> > and bicycle.
> >Damn straight. Because cycling is about anarchism, isn't it?
> >And cyclists shouldn't have to follow any restrictions or rules, however
> >sensible, simply because they're morally superior to other road
> >users.
>
> Driving at speeds exceeding the local limit is breaking the law.
>
> Riding a bicycle with no helmet is not breaking the law.
>
> Simple.

Apparently so. Tell me, what would you be more upset by? One of your
closest friends smoking the occasional joint, or that same friend
cheating on his wife?

My point being that "the law" is not the only consideration.


Neither - what they do in their private life is of no concern of mine.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:52:31 -0000, "Simon Mason"
> said in
>:

>Neither - what they do in their private life is of no concern of mine.

And false dichotomies are a fallacious argument anyway.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Contents packed by intellectual weight and may settle
after posting. May contain traces of irony.

[judith smith]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:51:08 -0000, "Clive George"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>On Mar 18, 11:53 am, Judith Smith > wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:44:30 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>>
>>> >That's really funny. I don't think there is anything on the streets
>>> >less hip than me on my Brompton!
>>>
>>> >Guy
>>>
>>> Oh I don't know:
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/36093346@N07/3335857532/
>>
>>You have an interesting interpretation of Flickr's terms of service:
>>http://www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne
>>
>>Specifically:
>>-------------------
>>* Don’t upload anything that isn't yours.
>>This includes other people's photos, video and/or stuff you've
>>collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of
>>such collections may be terminated at any time.
>>* Don’t be creepy.
>>You know the guy. Don't be that guy.
>>------------------
>>
>>Please... stop being creepy Judith.
>
>Not to mention breaking copyright. If Guy hasn't explicitly allowed it, what
>Judith has done is illegal.
>



Do you mean in the same way as some of those photos on Chapman's
server are not his.

The difference is that some of those actually have a copyright stamp
on them and look like they are professional ;-) - so he knows he has
broken their copyright.

There are some really awful photos - there is one of Angela Lee that
he has photo-shopped. I sent her a link.

He must have wanted them to be in the public domain - I can't believe
that he got the permissions wrong on his server - just like he did
with the time !!!








--

In the UK in 2007
There were 30,959 pedestrians injured in traffice accidents
There were 16,415 cyclists injured in traffic accidents

I wonder what the relative numbers of pedestrians and cyclists
in the UK is?

It looks like cycling is much more dangerous than being a pedestrian.

[Nuxx Bar]

On Mar 18, 4:52*pm, "Simon Mason" >
wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 15, 7:00 pm, "Simon Mason" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Nuxx Bar" > wrote in message
>
> ....
> > On Mar 15, 5:42 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote:
>
> > > Not a novel view, of course; I think most of us are aware that
> > > promotion of helmets and promotion of cycling go together like fish
> > > and bicycle.
> > >Damn straight. Because cycling is about anarchism, isn't it?
> > >And cyclists shouldn't have to follow any restrictions or rules, however
> > >sensible, simply because they're morally superior to other road
> > >users.
>
> > Driving at speeds exceeding the local limit is breaking the law.
>
> > Riding a bicycle with no helmet is not breaking the law.
>
> > Simple.
>
> Apparently so. *Tell me, what would you be more upset by? *One of your
> closest friends smoking the occasional joint, or that same friend
> cheating on his wife?
>
> My point being that "the law" is not the only consideration.
>
> Neither - what they do in their private life is of no concern of mine.

Right. So you would seem to think that "the law" shouldn't be
dictating whether people use cannabis in private, right? In other
words, "the law" isn't the perfect arbiter of what's OK and what's not
that you like to imply. It's just a man-made set of rules which can
and has frequently been shown to be lacking. Ergo, saying that one
thing's against the law and one isn't and therefore that's "simple"
and the end of the argument is, I would suggest, incorrect and not
particularly helpful.

Still, that's not as ludicrous as your assertion that speeding is the
same as shoplifting. Do you still stand by that assertion, or are you
now prepared to admit that it's an absurd thing to say?

[Nuxx Bar]

On Mar 18, 7:03*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:52:31 -0000, "Simon Mason"
> > said in
> >:
>
> >Neither - what they do in their private life is of no concern of mine.
>
> And false dichotomies are a fallacious argument anyway.

Who the **** asked you, you lying car-hating murderer?

[Nuxx Bar]

On Mar 16, 8:00*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
> "Go to the Wikipedia article" is generally good advice because
> Wikipedia policy mandates the use of reliable independent secondary
> sources. *And let's face it, Wikipedia is the most-used reference
> site on the Internet so it's hardly an odd place to look for
> information.

Except that some right ****wits have inexplicably been made
administrators there, and they regularly abuse their position to make
sure that their point of view is the one which prevails, even banning
dissenters who dare to point out their bias. And, in your case,
displaying brazen homophobia as well, among other unpleasant
tendencies.

Of course, that's not to say that there aren't good sites using the
same software as Wikipedia, like this one:

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/JzG