Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.

Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
or not.

As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't appear
to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.

So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak?

--
Tony Green
Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, http://www.beermad.org.uk
* This has been a Microsoft-free message *

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

The bad news for all you URC AHZ data-whores is that personal
experience trumps statistics and mental masturbation *every time*,
sorry.

Hmmm... Interesting turn of phrase.

Are you so insecure in your opinion that you can only respond with abuse?

--
Tony Green
Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, http://www.beermad.org.uk
* This has been a Microsoft-free message *

"Tony Green" wrote in message
...
Ozark Bicycle wrote:

Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.

Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
or not.

As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't appear
to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.

So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak?


They are imagined, just like the imagined "breach of confidence" and
imagined "sexual deviance" which Ozark came up with, prompting him to start
threads to attempt to smear the people who kept pointing out to him that

a) he was wrong; and
b) why he was wrong.

Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection

You've misrepresented the arguments. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?
1013

and that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the
pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as
the sun goes down.

You've misrepresented the arguments.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf

Hadron Quark wrote:
Tony Green writes:

Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
or not.

Really? I havent seen a single post to that affect in this thread. Most
are continually questioning the dismissal by a core few of the benefits
of helmet wearing for cyclists.

Who said anything about this referring /only/ to this thread? I'm
referring to real life where proposals are frequently put formward to
force all cyclists to wear helmets (sadly in some countries, successfully.)

As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't
appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.

So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak?

Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection and
that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the
pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as
the sun goes down.

I think you need to look up the definition of "zealot".

These are people arguing from a different point of view from yours. They
can only sensibly be referred to as zealots if they try to /impose/
their views on you. I doubt there's a single person who chooses not to
wear a helmet who would attempt to stop you wearing one if you so wished.

--
Tony Green
Ipswich, Suffolk, UK, http://www.beermad.org.uk
* This has been a Microsoft-free message *

"Mark Thompson"
pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_t o_reply*.com wrote in
message 70.163...
Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection

You've misrepresented the arguments. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?
1013

and that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the
pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as
the sun goes down.

You've misrepresented the arguments.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf

Common helmet zealot tactic. Cue Ozark/Sorni...

Hadron Quark wrote:
Tony Green writes:

Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
or not.

Really? I havent seen a single post to that affect in this thread. Most
are continually questioning the dismissal by a core few of the benefits
of helmet wearing for cyclists.

Umm.. how about the posts pointing out that increased helmet wearing
may lead to an MHL in UK. Or did you mean effect?

As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't
appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.

So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak?

Every single one who suggests that helmets provide no protection and
that you are more likely to get a hit on the head walking down the
pavement as opposed to cycling in bad weather in rush hour traffic as
the sun goes down.

And you have the data to show that they are incorrect? or just wild
unsubstantiated assumption?

I think it is actually anti-(Helmet Zealot) rather than (Anti Helmet)
Zealot.

...d

Tony Green wrote:

Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
or not.

Um, what threads have you ben reading? In RBT, at least, it's really not
like that. Just expressing the /opinion/ that helmets are prudent invites
scorn, ridicule, abuse, etc. One must be a DOLT to think that.

As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't
appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.

Um, what threads have you been reading? Besides being "shamed" for wearing
lids (why don't you wear one whilst walking, showering, crapping, etc.),
we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs.

So where are the "Anti-Helmet Zealots" of which you speak?

They're everywhere! In fact, there's one ri----- {arrggghh..... gurgle
gurgle......unhhhhhh..........}

In article , Sorni wrote:
Tony Green wrote:

Watching the helmet debate from a fairly neutral position, the only
zealotry I see seems to come from the pro-helmet lobby, who seem
determined that /everybody/ should wear a helmet, whether they want to
or not.

Um, what threads have you ben reading? In RBT, at least, it's really not
like that. Just expressing the /opinion/ that helmets are prudent invites
scorn, ridicule, abuse, etc. One must be a DOLT to think that.

So you are cross-posting to raise the tone compared with RBT? That's a
novel excuse.
There's more to the world than Usenet you know - in real life, cycling
events which require helmets are far more common that ones that ban them,
and helmet laws and campaigns for them are far more common than attempts
to ban them. In fact I doubt there's ever been any attempt to ban helmets,
the whole "Anti Helmet Nazi Zealot" thing is completely bogus.


As far as I can see, people who don't want to wear helmets don't
appear to want to stop those who /do/ want to wear them from doing so.

Um, what threads have you been reading? Besides being "shamed" for wearing
lids (why don't you wear one whilst walking, showering, crapping, etc.),

No, you get shamed for not thinking clearly or being able to present a
coherent argument.


we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs.

No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_"
appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively
support a MHL.

(Alan Braggins) writes:

In article , Sorni wrote:

we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/ MHLs.

No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL, _BUT_"
appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't actively
support a MHL.

See : you just did it. You have insinuated through clever snipping and
unfinished blanket declarations that people who think helmets do have
value are also active supporters of an MHL.

How on earth is it utterly pointless to claim that through experience
one thinks that a Helmet can and does protect a rider but that one
wouldnt support an MHL? Some of us do believe in choice.