arabsandals Posted September 23, 2016 Posted September 23, 2016 It's Friday. Take that you mudddle-headed neoliberal neckbeards:http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/06/ije.dyw153.abstract
arabsandals Posted September 23, 2016 Author Posted September 23, 2016 If you can't be bothered to read it, it's an analysis of a large body of studies which finds that helmet use is associated with the reduction of head injury and supports helmet wearing.
johannrissik Posted September 23, 2016 Posted September 23, 2016 One for all you fascist helment police.....http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.co.za/2016/09/helmets-oh-yeah-were-going-there.html Raises a number of valid points, our Snobby. .....................................
arabsandals Posted September 23, 2016 Author Posted September 23, 2016 One for all you fascist helment police.....http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.co.za/2016/09/helmets-oh-yeah-were-going-there.html Raises a number of valid points, our Snobby. ..................................... That guy is a retard. Strawman arguments etc. If I met him in a bar and had an argument with him it would end up with me glassing him for not sticking to the point and for being a muddle headed neoliberal neckbeard. Basically, he's saying the study can't be trusted because it happens to come from a region of Australia which is hostile to cyclists, no attribution or support for this though. Then he says the study is flawed because it's conclusion isn't that conditions should be made safer for cyclists. That's like saying seatbelts aren't necessary because roads should rather be made safer. I would like to see how many of you would support that particular gem.
Hairy Posted September 23, 2016 Posted September 23, 2016 well my helmets, over the years, have certainly done what they advertise on the box !!
Pulse Posted September 23, 2016 Posted September 23, 2016 well my helmets, over the years, have certainly done what they advertise on the box !!Gave you helmet hair..?
johannrissik Posted September 23, 2016 Posted September 23, 2016 Someone has been doping the drinking water.....not even a serious attempt at baiting helped.
DJR Posted September 23, 2016 Posted September 23, 2016 Someone has been doping the drinking water.....not even a serious attempt at baiting helped.After reading the "weed & cycling" thread, Hubbers went all relaaaaxed.
Christie Posted September 23, 2016 Posted September 23, 2016 Imo wearing a helmet should not be compulsory... because the earth is over populated and we should not prevent Darwin's theory from working.
johannrissik Posted September 23, 2016 Posted September 23, 2016 That guy is a retard. Strawman arguments etc. If I met him in a bar and had an argument with him it would end up with me glassing him for not sticking to the point and for being a muddle headed neoliberal neckbeard. Basically, he's saying the study can't be trusted because it happens to come from a region of Australia which is hostile to cyclists, no attribution or support for this though. Then he says the study is flawed because it's conclusion isn't that conditions should be made safer for cyclists. That's like saying seatbelts aren't necessary because roads should rather be made safer. I would like to see how many of you would support that particular gem.I see your ploy and raise you with this: How about making all those who travel in motor vehicles wear helments? That would put Darwin's Army out of business. It is Friday after all.....
Eppie Posted September 23, 2016 Posted September 23, 2016 I had a fall tonight. Hit the side of my head on the tar. Man was I glad I had my helmet on. Some bruising to my arm, shoulder and hip but my head is all good.
V12man Posted September 23, 2016 Posted September 23, 2016 I had a fall tonight. Hit the side of my head on the tar. Man was I glad I had my helmet on. Some bruising to my arm, shoulder and hip but my head is all good.Concussion is not always so obvious- take it easy for a day or two and report to your doc if you have headache, nausea, dizziness etc
Pah Bear Posted September 23, 2016 Posted September 23, 2016 My helmets not been put to the test yet, and have no wish to test any theories Darwinian or otherwise. So for the foreseeable forever, I will be donning my Giro and live with the suntan streaks.
openmind Posted September 23, 2016 Posted September 23, 2016 That guy is a retard. Strawman arguments etc. If I met him in a bar and had an argument with him it would end up with me glassing him for not sticking to the point and for being a muddle headed neoliberal neckbeard. Basically, he's saying the study can't be trusted because it happens to come from a region of Australia which is hostile to cyclists, no attribution or support for this though. Then he says the study is flawed because it's conclusion isn't that conditions should be made safer for cyclists. That's like saying seatbelts aren't necessary because roads should rather be made safer. I would like to see how many of you would support that particular gem.He did not say helmets are not necessary, he said they should not be compulsory for commuters. See Holland, Denmark etc. Also, helmets on commuters are far less effective than seatbelts on drivers. Careful not to be the strawman pot calling the kettle black.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.