jules21 wrote:assuming it wasn't from the university of rangoon
that's quite a racial slur. this ain't that kind of bar stranger.
Fourteen posts and you are making judgement calls on others? Jules is a credible forum member; "stranger" (nor inferring that he is a racist) is not a term I would apply to him . Maybe you should take a little time get to know people better first before throwing your weight around the bar .
Aushiker wrote:given Human909's history here which clearly some of us know better than you, it maybe argued that Jules' call is a valid one.
i'm not interested in human909's history. what i saw was someone employing accusatory tactics and racism in an attempt to "win" a discussion. i disagree with those tactics and i disagree with the racism and i'll say so whenever i see it.
Aushiker wrote:But it doesn't say that Human909 isn't either .... given Human909's history here which clearly some of us know better than you, it maybe argued that Jules' call is a valid one.
Andrew
Argue the subject not the man Andrew.
My history here? I hold differing opinions to some others and I am happy to attempt to argue them in an intelligent and rational manner. Just because I disagree with you or others doesn't make me obtuse.
In this particular case the other poster was incorrectly using 'logic' based on unstated and false assumptions to make claims that I have said something which I clearly did not. Forget the debate about helmets, if your argument is based on false logic then the argument is quite clearly INVALID. I don't see how me pointing out an invalid argument makes me obtuse.
It doesn't matter how TRUE your conclusion is, if it is based on false logic then the argument is INVALID. I could state that Cadel Evans is a male because he rides a bike. The conclusion is true but the argument is INVALID. In this case jule's argument about what I was claiming was both UNTRUE and INVALID.
Aushiker wrote:Fourteen posts and you are making judgement calls on others?
sorry about that. so help me out here: just how many posts do i have to make before i'm allowed to pull someone up on racism? am i too allowed to be racist once i reach a certain number of posts? it's not outlined in the terms and conditions.
Aushiker wrote:Fourteen posts and you are making judgement calls on others?
sorry about that. so help me out here: just how many posts do i have to make before i'm allowed to pull someone up on racism? am i too allowed to be racist once i reach a certain number of posts? it's not outlined in the terms and conditions.
actually I said ...
Fourteen posts and you are making judgement calls on others? Jules is a credible forum member; "stranger" (nor inferring that he is a racist) is not a term I would apply to him . Maybe you should take a little time get to know people better first before throwing your weight around the bar .
human909 wrote:Incidentally I do find it humourous that you are trying to teach 'Herald Sun' economics to somebody with a post grad degree in economics.
which only confirms my suspicion that you're being deliberately obtuse. assuming it wasn't from the university of rangoon, you can't possibly have obtained that without understanding the logic behind taxing consumption.
ok, ok. let's clear this up hey? could you please explain what you meant about the university of rangoon?
in the cannonball run, which is the greatest movie ever made, burt reynolds tasks dom deloise with procuring a doctor for their fake ambulance. the idea is that cops won't stop a speeding ambulance and having a doctor on board would add to their credibility. but dom deloise can only find a vet who was trained at the university of rangoon. makes sense now?
jules21 wrote:in the cannonball run, which is the greatest movie ever made, burt reynolds tasks dom deloise with procuring a doctor for their fake ambulance. the idea is that cops won't stop a speeding ambulance and having a doctor on board would add to their credibility. but dom deloise can only find a vet who was trained at the university of rangoon. makes sense now?
The comment about Andrew Bolt is hilarious - the guy is clearly a conservative, politically, and is in favour of small government. It ties in perfectly with the argument against mandatory helmet laws, which are about small government/libertarian views in principle. At some point you must draw the line between an authoritarian regime and a free nation. Government control of your life and wealth is never a good thing.
After reading through another long winded helmet thread there is little doubt that there is a lot of support for doing away with the compulsory wearing of helmets.
If so many people feel so strongly about this issue, how about someone organising a well publicised Ride Without a Helmet Day Australia wide?
greyhoundtom wrote:After reading through another long winded helmet thread there is little doubt that there is a lot of support for doing away with the compulsory wearing of helmets.
If so many people feel so strongly about this issue, how about someone organising a well publicised Ride Without a Helmet Day Australia wide?
Tom
There was one of these in Melbourne the other month. A small protest of helmetless riders. Police came along and issue a few fines.
greyhoundtom wrote:If so many people feel so strongly about this issue, how about someone organising a well publicised Ride Without a Helmet Day Australia wide?
the average australian believes that the mandatory helmet law is necessary. "unlearning" that isn't easy. seeing a group of people riding around thumbing their collective noses at the law might be counter-productive, not to mention bloody expensive in fines.
i believe the most effective thing we can do is argue the point online, post, post, post. don't be bullied from asking questions. make sure you've got statistics to back up your claims. back down when you're wrong whatever your stance. if you want anything cleared up, just ask. there ain't such a thing as a stupid question. this is a forum for debate. let no stone remain unturned and all that sort of thing.
search engines love forums. google already tells the truth on the subject, so lets keep contributing and keep it that way.
also: the spectacular failure of the melbourne bike share scheme and the subsequent contortions to avoid the helmet issue may come under more scrutiny with the recent change in government. the scheme has failed and it's just sitting there dormant yet with so much potential: it could transform our city as it has for those with no mandatory helmet laws.
i honestly believe that this issue will become the make-or-break case for the mandatory helmet law. either the law goes or the bike share scheme goes, the writing is on the wall and I for one can't wait to see which will win. ignorance or education. for us cyclists: it's bloody like godzilla vs king kong. GRAAAAR.
it's been posted before and i'll post it again. bravo mike rubbo. i can't get enough of his videos, be sure to watch his other videos:
actually, the government could also choose to do nothing and just keep the scheme as a token green bit of fluff to show off to important visitors.
I agree that the Melbourne bike share is the strongest influence on reconsideration of helmet laws. However those in charge believe they will face potential liability if an exception is made for blue bikes. Maybe make the exception for all bikes hey?
But we are so paranoid about safety I'm not too hopeful.
yes, this is another example that brings the safety issue into stark relief.
no one wants children injured or dying under any circumstances. what do we do? what should we do?
do we wait for these accidents to occur in our own country and act upon the data?
do we look abroad and see if/how other countries have minimised the risk?
do we take measures to reduce the likelihood of accidents occurring?
do we ban the carriers before an accident occurs?
tristen wrote:yes, this is another example that brings the safety issue into stark relief.
no one wants children injured or dying under any circumstances. what do we do? what should we do?
do we wait for these accidents to occur in our own country and act upon the data?
do we look abroad and see if/how other countries have minimised the risk?
do we take measures to reduce the likelihood of accidents occurring?
do we ban the carriers before an accident occurs?
Thing is, getting them used to a life of riding could well be the best way to ensure they grow into healthy adults.
greyhoundtom wrote:If so many people feel so strongly about this issue, how about someone organising a well publicised Ride Without a Helmet Day Australia wide?
Tom
There was one of these in Melbourne the other month. A small protest of helmetless riders. Police came along and issue a few fines.
Threatened to issue fines IIRC. I don't think anyone was actually ticketed for an offence.
Such an action would be very worthwhile if
a) there was a large group of people who pursued it (thousands?)
b) it was carried on over a lengthy period of time (regular riding, weekly protest ride), and
c) people carry it right through to getting ticketed and defending themselves in court (a la Franklin Dam blockade)
Strength in numbers, a law that is not obeyed is not a law and all that stuff. I'm not holdin my breath, but it wouldn't take too much for me to step forward on this.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
il padrone wrote:Strength in numbers, a law that is not obeyed is not a law and all that stuff. I'm not holdin my breath, but it wouldn't take too much for me to step forward on this.
Agreed. Judging by the howls of protests on this forums getting the numbers would be difficult.
there was a more recent protest by naked bike riders in melbourne. the cops wanted to fine them as well but the protestors cunningly got off on a technicality by proving that they were in fact donning helmets.
Comedian wrote:Thing is, getting them used to a life of riding could well be the best way to ensure they grow into healthy adults.
aye, it would certainly help:
The actual risk of cycling is tiny: there is one cyclist death per 33 million kilometres of cycling.
Being sedentary presents a greater risk: over 50,000 people die in the UK each year due to
coronary heart disease related to insufficient physical activity, compared to around 100
cyclists killed on the road.
Source: Cycling England - 2010
how's that? if you're cycling in the UK, you can statistically expect to ride for 33 freaking million kilometres before dying! if i redouble my efforts I should achieve that by the time i'm, er, wait, let's see...3053 years old. wait no, i'm in australia, better round that down to about 50 years old