Replies are closed for this discussion.
Its like patting a cat, you could, but what's the point.
i don't know why people get so funny about this ridiculous debate. Take your helmets off, fools, and crack your skulls. It's your head.
Yep, take them off going down Norton or Greenhill to feel the wind in ur hair. If you Dare but still expect a medico to put all your plumbing back in when/if you stack.
Sure, in a city where the speed is low and drivers are educated to drive well and amongst other road users that respect each other, I too would commute without a helmet for short distances.
I have personally seen lives saved by helmets and will now always wear one.
Its a bit like folks that smoke, and than wonder why the heck they get cancer or sick.
PS. I know of many family and friends that have/do smoke and are sick,dead or have cancer so no need to flame out.
Wear a helmet to save your "Walnut" its that simple. Yes
The problem is that "no cyclist is an island'. If you fall off and get hurt you cost the taxpayer. Maybe a lot if there is extensive rehabilitation involved or you never walk again etc.
Looked at from the other point of view you can argue that MHLs stop people cycling which means the roads are more dangerous so more accidents for cyclists and more taxpayers money used up. And MHLs also means a lower level of general fitness, higher average weight, so more people sick so more taxpayers money used up.
I've been here long enough to argue either I think :-)
>i don't know why people get so funny about this ridiculous debate. Take your helmets off, fools, and crack your skulls. It's your head.
Oh maybe it's because some people think it is within their rights to call people fools just for riding around on a bicycle. Snide, rude and hysterical remarks, my what a clever fellow you are. Maybe you can go somewhere like Amsterdam and tell a few Dutch chaps what fools they are and see how well you and your comments stand up. I'm so glad I spend most of my time in places where riding a bicycle is viewed as a normal activity and not a sport.
Interesting thing I have noticed about Dutch students that have stayed in the establishment where I work, they are invariably heavy drinkers, far more so and far more frequantly than any other nationality. I've wondered if it's due to the bar culture in Hollands major cities and do they (or when do they) grow out of it. Could it be that they drink more heavily because so many don't have the responsibility of car ownership.
i'm very sorry, but if you fall off a bike and crack your skull because you're not wearing a helmet, you're a fool. That's my opinion. I'm a liberal - I really, truly believe that if you want to test your anti-helmet theory in practice, you really should. It's your brain. I intend to put my brain inside a hard shell when I'm riding my bike.
I don't know about Amsterdam, but I KNOW very keen road cyclists in Europe, and irrespective of the helmet laws, they wear a helmet. I'm very sorry to offend you, but my personal opinion is that anyone who thinks he doesn't need a helmet on a bike probably doesn't have much of a brain to protect. That's my opinion and I'm not going to apologise if you are offended.
On the other hand, I rode my bike every day when I was a kid, and only started to wear a helmet when the gov't demanded that I wear one of those appalling 'stack hats'. Funny how an issue is sometimes not an issue until someone makes it an issue. Also, I sometimes take my little girls (4 and 7) for a bike ride on a dedicated pedestrian/bike path, and I don't make them wear their helmets if they don't want. I'm not going to analyse too deeply why it's different when they ride around the block -- although it's probably due to the proximity of idiots driving enormous metal killing machines. And the fact that a helmet possibly saved my life when struck by one of these idiots.
I recall a guy who cycled in the UK some years back who refused to wear a helmet, and eventually succumbed to the peer pressure of his cycling group.
I was knocked off my bike by a car in the CBD a few years ago, striking my head on the road and knocking me out. I don't need a scientific study to tell me that the helmet possibly/probably saved my life. I had another tumble earlier this year, marking my helmet. I'd rather mark my helmet than my cranium.
But, hey, I stand by my comment. Fools should take off their helmets. I am not making a commentary about the laws - I'm a liberal, and laws that restrict personal freedoms, I don't like. There MAY be a case for public health spending (ie. the laws save taxpayers money), but I have no idea if there is any concrete data. I actually doubt it. I don't care what the law is -- I'll be wearing a helmet. I actually quietly wish it was not compulsory, then I could protect my skull, and other people (didn't use the nasty word this time) can do whatever the hell they want.
Pretty much sums it up?
Yep, wear a frigging helmet!!!
Don't be sorry to me - labeling the tens if not hundreds of millions of people in the world who ride bikes everyday without helmets as fools whose death would help the gene pool says more about you than anything else.
But let me get this straight? You let your children indulge in an activity which the government deems so dangerous as to be a criminal offence and which you yourself label as the preserve of fools whose deaths would be of benefit to the wider community? Do you find any sort of inconsistency there? Oh and the old "it's different" excuse doesn't bear scrutiny - that is why the law exists - that 88% reduction in brain injuries which gets trotted out from the Thompson, Rivara and Thompson study is from a case control which focused on children riding in parks!
As to my allusion to Amsterdam - I was just suggesting that it was a place where you could easily find many people to whom you could suggest that they were fools with defective genes and see how it works out for you.
how about we leave it at that? You think I'm inconsistent, I think you're a fool. That's fine with me.