An experiment to prove the helmet law proponants RIGHT (or wrong)

wrote in message
oups.com...
Well I think it is safe to say the helmet law proponants are
wrong-plain and simple.
I have rode my bike almost every day for the past three months and
without any serious head injury.
Some may consider this miracle. I say it is common sense.
The verdict is in, and it had been PROVED beyond ANY DOUBT. YOU can
safely bet you can ride your bike without realistic risk of a head
injury.
All of you that think otherwise are stupid. Those of you that want
laws based on this stupidity are worse.
Those of you that want to wear a helmet but want to leave that decision
to an individual, are smart (although it isn't rocket science).

Disco Duck again! My God! This guy has a mono mania about helmet laws. I
give up! Disco Duck is right and the rest of the world is wrong. Now if he
would only shut up and retire to soggy old Victoria, BC, Canada and ride his
bike sans helmet.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
an individual, are smart (although it isn't rocket science).

Disco Duck again! My God! This guy has a mono mania about helmet
laws. I
give up! Disco Duck is right and the rest of the world is wrong. Now
if he
would only shut up and retire to soggy old Victoria, BC, Canada and
ride his
bike sans helmet.

Actually Edward, you are wrong again-it isn't the rest of the world as
you claim. As a matter of fact most of the world does NOT have such a
preposterous law. Especially places like Amsterdam where cycling is
far more common. Even China doesn't have such a moronic law. They
value the benefits of cycling and freedom of choice. IT is only a few
jurisdictions with little to do but waste resources on pet peeves and
imposes their will on others when an individual hurts no one. People
how support this law need therapy since they want to force others to
obey their will.
Don't you get tired of being so wrong so often?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:31:57 -0600, "Edward Dolan"
wrote in message :

Disco Duck again! My God! This guy has a mono mania about helmet laws.

Not half as much as the helmet law proponents - they apparently think
that helmets are the first, best thing a cyclist can do for their
safety, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Funnily
enough, most of the helmet law proponents I've come across are not
cyclists.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Good point. IT does annoy me that other people impose thier will upon
others in regards to this issue. They are unhappy leaving the choice
to individuals as thye feel less power than.
Lets face it, this law is nothing but a pet peeve legislated away.

DiscoDuck wrote:
Good point. IT does annoy me that other people impose thier will
upon
others in regards to this issue. They are unhappy leaving the choice
to individuals as thye feel less power than.
Lets face it, this law is nothing but a pet peeve legislated away.

This afternoon I hurt my right knuckle (on my little finger) when
someone accidentally moved my bike when my hand was at the end of the
bar-the result was a nasty little gash which may require stitches.
Since the tax payer will pick up the tab (stitches or not as I am
seeing the doctor), shouldn't steel mesh gloves be mandated by law?

Still alive and cycling safely with NO helmet.

"DiscoDuck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Still alive and cycling safely with NO helmet.

How do we know you aren't wearing a helmet? :)

In the years I have visited this newsgroup, this is the most brilliant
and hilarious post, yet.
Seriously that was an EXCELLENT answer.
DD

PS: I wasn't, wearing one, no.

Mark Leuck wrote:
"DiscoDuck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Still alive and cycling safely with NO helmet.

How do we know you aren't wearing a helmet? :)

DiscoDuck wrote:
Still alive and cycling safely with NO helmet.

As am I, but you risk venturing into the area of cargo-cult scientific
"proofs" of the numpties trying to force us to wear them if you try and
mark out your single data point as being in any significant sense
meaningful to the wider cycling population.

Your experiment doesn't offer any proof, just an anecdotal data point.
And just as "But a helmet saved my life!" should have scorn poured upon
it in practically all cases, so it doesn't ultimately help the cause of
Clueful assessment of the true utility (or otherwise) of helmets to
shout anecdotes the other way.

Stick to the good science and then the difference between the
compulsionists and their opponents becomes clearer. The former are
shouting loud and flinging mud, best if the latter stick with Actual
Relevant data that can support rational science based argument IMHO...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Science is al ready on our side. A shame that some cannot apply simple
common sense however. Yes every proponent, with whom I argue, claims a
helmet saved their life, or the life of their little child. A
surprisingly large number of people lie and state a helmet saved their
life when they know no such incident occurred.
So when I point out that out to them (this works well in groups) why do
they not know a LARGE number of people with head injuries which
occurred PRIOR to the law? They soon realize my point that this law was
never needed and only catered to a popular misconception that cycling
was dangerous-it isn't. That those injuries are literally freak
accidents and the law only scared people from cycling.
Most soon admit the law is moronic. The others resort to name calling
and belittling since that is all they got.