That was a bit inconvenient wasn't itRonK wrote: Did you not notice that the article was dated April 1 ?
Or the comment at the end of it?
This thread has some good laughs along with the heavy dose of BS
Postby warthog1 » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:15 am
That was a bit inconvenient wasn't itRonK wrote: Did you not notice that the article was dated April 1 ?
Or the comment at the end of it?
Postby citywomble » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:09 am
Postby il padrone » Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:25 am
Drat, missed those finer details, I didn't read the second last paragraph.RonK wrote:Did you not notice that the article was dated April 1 ?
Or the comment at the end of it?
LOVE it Might need to get in early and order one for riding my vintage single-speed.It was hoped by the Yorkshire organisers that some teams may consider wearing flat caps instead of helmets, to help inspire a generation to get back on their bikes. One company has even specially designed ‘flatter’ cap, with enhanced aerodynamics, but retaining the sun and rain repelling peak which may be so necessary if July 2014’s weather goes the way of previous years.
Postby warthog1 » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:08 am
Kudosil padrone wrote:Drat, missed those finer details, I didn't read the second last paragraph.RonK wrote:Did you not notice that the article was dated April 1 ?
Or the comment at the end of it?
Darned April Fool's Day web-pages, catching you out loooong after the event
LOVE it Might need to get in early and order one for riding my vintage single-speed.It was hoped by the Yorkshire organisers that some teams may consider wearing flat caps instead of helmets, to help inspire a generation to get back on their bikes. One company has even specially designed ‘flatter’ cap, with enhanced aerodynamics, but retaining the sun and rain repelling peak which may be so necessary if July 2014’s weather goes the way of previous years.
Postby citywomble » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:55 am
I suspect that is the reason why so many of your posts are annoying in that there is a disconnect from what you are commenting about. If you are going to be so 'authoritative' about what you read then at least be proficient about it and not selective.Drat, missed those finer details, I didn't read the second last paragraph.
Postby il padrone » Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:40 pm
Now you're annoying mecitywomble wrote:Il Padrone,
It's funny that now your back posting I am more inclined to post replies.
You said:I suspect that is the reason why so many of your posts are annoying in that there is a disconnect from what you are commenting about. If you are going to be so 'authoritative' about what you read then at least be proficient about it and not selective.Drat, missed those finer details, I didn't read the second last paragraph.
Perhaps you too are suffering from Confirmation Bias, it can be cured - the antidote is due diligence.
Postby lycraless » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:48 pm
Postby traveldreamer » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:50 am
Interesting may we have a link to this ?lycraless wrote:"It is very telling that up to 2004 that’s 14 years after 1990 when it was made mandatory to wear a bike helmet in Victoria, that they were racing without helmets.
So I would say if they are not compelled to wear a helmet in a high risk-racing environment then why am I compelled to wear one to just ride down the street?"
Its even stranger.
The only transcript of parliamentary proceedings available on the subject I have found so far has been the ACT's "debate" that brought in MHL there and they actually put in provision for exemptions for competitions.
Postby Summernight » Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:54 pm
Postby human909 » Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:48 pm
Postby Xplora » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:13 pm
Postby high_tea » Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:26 pm
This argument is spectacularly bad. It doesn't get any better each time someone repeats it either.Xplora wrote:Helmets for peds and car passengers if you aren't allowed to decide. A lot more people with braindeath on foot or in a car than on bikes (as a raw number). Cycling is not a magically dangerous activity versus everything else.
Postby human909 » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:33 pm
Which premise of the argument do you dispute?high_tea wrote:This argument is spectacularly bad. It doesn't get any better each time someone repeats it either.
Postby high_tea » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:58 pm
More to the point, why do you believe the sort of pedestrian regulation being mooted is remotely acceptable?human909 wrote:Which premise of the argument do you dispute?high_tea wrote:This argument is spectacularly bad. It doesn't get any better each time someone repeats it either.
That the risk of those activities aren't comparable?
Or that laws should be consistent?
Or that helmets wouldn't improve safety of pedestrians and motorists?
Please inform us why this is argument is so "spectacularly bad".
(Or do you believe that minority activities should be held to different standards from mainstream activities? Or do should the risk of cycling be considered higher simply because some types of cycling are higher risk?)
Postby il padrone » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:45 pm
But don't you see, that is exactly the point. No-one here is seriously arguing for pedestrian helmets, just like we are not supportive of MHL for cyclists.high_tea wrote:More to the point, why do you believe the sort of pedestrian regulation being mooted is remotely acceptable?human909 wrote:Which premise of the argument do you dispute?................high_tea wrote:This argument is spectacularly bad. It doesn't get any better each time someone repeats it either.
Postby high_tea » Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:14 pm
[/quote]il padrone wrote: But don't you see, that is exactly the point. No-one here is seriously arguing for pedestrian helmets, just like we are not supportive of MHL for cyclists.
Postby human909 » Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:34 pm
Yes. Silly us. Nor is motoring, horse riding, skiing, rock climbing or wake boarding. But cycling of course that needs compulsory helmets.high_tea wrote:The two aren't remotely equivalent.
Postby il padrone » Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:07 pm
Strange then how they seemed to be very equivalent in the frequent 'zone pedale' of Italian towns' ??high_tea wrote:The two aren't remotely equivalent.il padrone wrote: But don't you see, that is exactly the point. No-one here is seriously arguing for pedestrian helmets, just like we are not supportive of MHL for cyclists.
Postby il padrone » Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:44 pm
Out here it was a conspiracy of control. The elites (RACS, RACV, MUARC, politicians) lobbied for it, to get "those renegade bike riders under control". They used spurious data which ignored any considerations (raised at the time by BV) that there would be a negative impact upon a sustainable, low-impact transport mode.human909 wrote:Also what is so unique about Australia that mean that they are required? Why does cycling need to be coddled?
Postby high_tea » Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:03 pm
Dunno, you'd better ask whoever said that. I don't recall saying anything about horse climbing or water boarding or any other such thing.human909 wrote:Yes. Silly us. Nor is motoring, horse riding, skiing, rock climbing or wake boarding. But cycling of course that needs compulsory helmets.high_tea wrote:The two aren't remotely equivalent.
Please explain to us high tea why cycling is so unique that it requires Mandatory Helmet Laws? Also what is so unique about Australia that mean that they are required? Why does cycling need to be coddled?
Postby Percrime » Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Postby high_tea » Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:55 pm
Yeah, that was a play on words. Although, when I've tried wakeboarding it amounts to being dragged facefirst through the water behind a powerboat. So it's closer to waterboarding than might at first appear. If you do it all wrong, anyway.Percrime wrote:Water boarding is different to wake boarding. If you require a demonstration let me know.
Postby Percrime » Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:09 pm
Postby il padrone » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:46 pm
Silly goat !!high_tea wrote:PS: I'm glad you left horse climbing alone. I'm not sure what it means and I'm not sure I want to find out...
Postby human909 » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:58 pm
The cry of "why not make pedestrians wear helmets" is MEANT to be ridiculous! The hyperbole is used to display the ridiculousness of the MHLs for cyclists. But of course you completely ignore that.high_tea wrote:EDIT: I do contend that regulating pedestrians is a much bigger deal than regulating cyclists. In light of this, I find the repeated cries of "why not make pedestrians wear helmets" ridiculous and tiresome.
So you don't believe Australia should have MHLs? Great! Otherwise stop being evasive.high_tea wrote:Not quite as tiresome as demands to defend things I never said, but still.
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.