|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:07:25 -0600, Beaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:32:27 -0800, Cheto quoth: BTW...the good one's I've seen cost a lot more than $20. The $20 ones are plenty good enough. bkr They are probably better than the $200 ones, as they have fewer ventilation holes and defects, and therefore more "protective" polystyrofoam. Peter -- If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or good -- will ever happen to you. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
loki Wrote: Yeah sure it will be... I have to ask everyone who chooses not to wear a helmet. [ I'm not passing judgement. I'm an agnostic myself when it comes to brain buckets] If a helmet law is passed in your jurisdiction would you: 1] Stop cycling? 2] Flout the law? 3] Submit to the man? -- 'If I seem unduly clear to you you must have misunderstood what I said' -alan greenspan [4] apply for an exemption and flout the law in the meantime (Yes, I've got one - this is in NZ, it was procured a couple of months after the law was introduced - apparently exemptions are not available in Australia) -- RogerDodger |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Beaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:48:43 -0800, Cheto quoth: I suppose I would submit and buy one. I don't wear one now primarily because 1) they're expensive You can't manage $20? ($13 on sale, even) ANSI approved helmets are available for under $20. I bought a bunch of closeout Bell helmets for $1 each, just to have them for guests. Not high style, but good enough. The cost is not even an issue in the whole helmet debate. Here are the types of people in the debate: 1. The people who don't like wearing helmets, but that recognize the overwhelming evidence that helmets reduce injuries in crashes involving the head. They are perfectly willing to accept the small extra risk because instances of such crashes are rare. These people are opposed to MHL. 2. The people who wear helmets because of the safety aspect, but that also recognize that the reduction in head injuries represents a statistically very small portion of injuries incurred while bicycling. These people are likely to be opposed to MHL, because they don't like telling other people what they should do. 3. The people who don't like wearing helmets, and that try to justify their behavior by mis-stating the facts on the proven reduction of head injuries. These people usually attempt to change the subject into one that examines all injuries in all areas of life, concluding that there is no statistical evidence that wearing a helmet has any effect on injuries. Occasionally (though rarely), they'll claim that they are safer not wearing a helmet, because if they were wearing one they might not try to protect their head in a crash. Often they’ll claim that MHLs reduce the number of cyclists, though of course there is no evidence to support this contention. One foolproof method for recognizing these people is that they'll often launch into side issues, i.e. suggest that people wear helmets while driving. Often they’ll launch into lengthy diatribes about how everyone who doesn't agree with them is clueless. These people are strongly opposed to MHL 4. The people who wear helmets, and want to force everyone else to wear them as well. These people tend to only look at the head injury statistics, ignoring the fact that head injuries incurred while bicycling are very unlikely compared to overall causes of injury in other areas of life. These people are likely to be in favor of MHL. Fortunately, I haven't seen any such people in this most recent thread, even Bill is only pointing out the facts, and doesn't seem in favor of MHLs. I'm not sure who is more annoying, #3 or #4, but there are lot more people in the #3 category. In this entire thread I did not see anyone advocating MHLs. Perhaps the people in #3 believe that anyone that wears a helmet is in favor of MHLs, but this is not the case. The bicycle club I was in had a debate raging for years about whether or not the club should require helmets on rides. A bunch of leaders, myself included, threatened to not lead any more rides if such a rule was enacted. Finally the club were forced into requiring helmets because they couldn't get liability insurance otherwise; the alternative would have been to disband, and since most people wore helmets anyway, and many ride leaders required them, it wasn’t a big deal. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:04:09 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote: ANSI approved helmets are available for under $20. I bought a bunch of closeout Bell helmets for $1 each, just to have them for guests. Not high style, but good enough. The cost is not even an issue in the whole helmet debate. Bad move. Bell do not have a single brand with even one lid certified to Snell B95. Specialized are the only brand that my contact in the helmet test lab will recommend. The rest of your post was bull****, basically. You were begging the question at every stage Here's a little poser for you: what was the result of the largest study ever undertaken on the relationship between cycle helmets and cyclist injury rates, which looked in detail at over eight million separate injuries and fatalities over a 15 year period? Hint: you won't like it. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message hlink.net... Here are the types of people in the debate: You left one out: The person who doesn't feel cycling is dangerous and therefore doesn't see the need to strap a bunch of plastic crap to his head. Cheto |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:32:27 -0800, ,
"Cheto" wrote: BTW...the good one's I've seen cost a lot more than $20. The expensive ones cost more than $20. That doesn't make them good helmets if they don't fit properly or split in half when you toss them in the corner with your shoes and pack containing a hardened steel chain with attached killer padlock. Mine's a $17.95 generic hardshell hat and better than that. -- zk |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:04:09 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" wrote: ANSI approved helmets are available for under $20. I bought a bunch of closeout Bell helmets for $1 each, just to have them for guests. Not high style, but good enough. The cost is not even an issue in the whole helmet debate. Bad move. Bell do not have a single brand with even one lid certified to Snell B95. Specialized are the only brand that my contact in the helmet test lab will recommend. The rest of your post was bull****, basically. You were begging the question at every stage Here's a little poser for you: what was the result of the largest study ever undertaken on the relationship between cycle helmets and cyclist injury rates, which looked in detail at over eight million separate injuries and fatalities over a 15 year period? Hint: you won't like it. Guy Sounds interesting, do you have a link to the study? I'd be interested in reading it. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Ferris wrote:
Sounds interesting, do you have a link to the study? I'd be interested in reading it. The citation is: Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988. I don't think it's online but your library may be able to get it for you. -- Guy |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Steven M. Scharf Wrote: ...Here are the types of people in the debate: ...blah blah... What Steven M. Scharf (does that rhyme with chaff? - there might be more than just a "sounds-like" similarity here - a semantic similarity -= his name sounds like chaff, as does the cognitive content) whoops - naughty me -indulging in ad hominem. I'll start that sentence again...What Steven M. Chaff omits in his catalogue of types is where he himself fits... So we need to add item (5.0) Pretentious prattlers who take their position high upon a fence (alongside Humpty Dumpty) and stroke their overblown ego assuming a middle-of-the-road and know-it-all mantle and taking muddle headed pot shots at both sides and casting nonsense-on-stilts comments from their self appointed, on high, position. "Don't confuse correlation for causation" loftily admonishes Master Chaff, repeating a pretentious pronouncement he made on another thread. "There's a good knock down argument for you" says Humpty Dumpty. "I'm not sure that what you're saying has appropriate meaning" said Alice, a little bewildered. "A word means exactly what I want it to mean - nothing more and nothing less" said Master Chaff triumphantly, assuming a mantle of self assured certainty and assuming he could bluff his way through... (a variation on Alice in wonderland) It's not for no good reason that people like Master Chaff - Janus faced twerps who run with the hares and hunt with the hounds - attract contempt from both camps in the debate. RogerDodger -- RogerDodger |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Helmets | Vivian | UK | 460 | April 28th 04 09:38 PM |
Cricket helmets may slow the brain, says study (D. Telegraph, 15.4.2004) | Scott Leckey | UK | 7 | April 17th 04 08:57 PM |
Convincing people to use helmets | Oliver Keating | UK | 391 | February 25th 04 11:50 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |