Wiggo, you T0sser (and I never thought I'd say that)!

dubcat

If you dont want to wear a helmet on your head so be it - if your head survives the fall that is. I saw a guy without a helmet today. He was a grown man who made a choice. Why he would want to take that risk I don't know but hey plenty of people smoke too which is equally insane (I am 3 months smoke free and am at that annoying holier than though stage). Surely there are better things to argue about?

MattC59

Dubcat wrote:

Surely there are better things to argue about?

WD40 ?

dubcat

I think my thread about whether it's ok to have white shoes when you have a black bike was a better use of this forums time.

BoydD

MattC59 wrote:

Dubcat wrote:

Surely there are better things to argue about?

WD40 ?

Wiggle??

chris_bass

BoydD wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Dubcat wrote:

Surely there are better things to argue about?

WD40 ?

Wiggle??

didn't Wiggins also say that he rides through traffic lights when they are red?!

dubcat

Only on days he slaughters bunny rabbits as a good luck sacrifice.

thescouselander

Dubcat wrote:

Only on days he slaughters bunny rabbits as a good luck sacrifice.

Seriously, there's probably a lot of reason to believe that ritual sacrifice prevents injury better than cycle helmets - its all a matter of belief on both counts.

dubcat

I agree with you. I do not ride near the edge of the world so I am unlikely to fall off the edge and therefore I do not need a helmet. Now if I lived on a planet that was a sphere rather than being flat, then I would definitely wear a helmet. We all know that those round earth proponents are hippies though don't we. While we are on the subject - seats belts are so idiotic. I know of a guy who was held in place by a seat belt which resulted in him getting decapitated. If he had not been wearing that belt.. Well he would not have got decapitated. They should not have made seat belts the law.

Ok sure he would have died anyway but at least he wouldn't have lost his head eh.

TheEnglishman

Actually, Wiggo's not that much of a tosser if he can put Piers Morgan in his place

slowbike

TheEnglishman wrote:

Actually, Wiggo's not that much of a tosser if he can put Piers Morgan in his place

Except that it isn't Wiggo's response ..

simon_masterson

Mikey23 wrote:

Hmm ... Calling people retarded or idiots in order to reinforce your arguments.

This.

Aside from the fact that any educated human being is likely to be aware of the fact that using the term 'retarded' derogatorily strips their arguments of any credibility that otherwise they might have had...

How can it be 'retarded' (in any sense) to not wear a helmet? For someone to claim that based on their experience it would be foolish to cycle without a helmet is one thing, but even then it is no different to other claims of the sort that would be routinely dismissed. People injure themselves whilst putting on their trousers but that doesn't mean that everybody does.

Serious cycling accidents (not necessarily fatal) are relatively uncommon (compared to serious motoring accidents), and serious cycling accidents that - beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever - rely on a cycle helmet to protect the cyclist and therefore would be considerably more severe were the cyclist not wearing a helmet, are even less common. If they were rife, nobody would cycle without a helmet, and some people would probably not cycle at all.

Therefore, if the individual has elected to not wear a helmet and ends up with a critical head injury that could have been prevented by a helmet (disregarding the likelihood of this happening), it could be claimed that they were wrong, but the quality of one's opinion and one's competence should be judged separately. What would be 'retarded' (quite literally) would be for that person to act not on their own judgment but under peer pressure.

But I remain ignorant of one thing: The reasons for the acrimony that will follow the very mention of this issue. Who on Earth cares about the headgear choices of other cyclists anyway? I don't. It's not as if there's any sort of underlying compassion - as if the helmet wearers engaging in these quarrels are really intent on preserving the lives of the unbelievers - so we might as well debate the means by which the cyclist should protect himself from looking ungainly when riding to his favourite coffee shop.

dubcat

Or whether white shoes are ok with a black bike...

Rigged

Bozman wrote:

tonyrockyhorror wrote:

Bozman wrote:

I want the freedom of choice rather than some leftie do gooder telling me what's good for me.

Presumably like the leftie do-gooder Thatcher who introduced the compulsory seat belts in 1983, and the tory government who introduced compulsory motorcycle helmets in 1973, then.

Bloody lefties.

I knew some moaning leftie would pick up on me moaning about lefties, so called do-gooders are generally lefties that have good intention but end up f**cking everything up, hence the state of the country.

You really don't have a clue. Tonyrockyhorror rightfully points out that perhaps the 2 biggest examples of legislation introduced to protect people were both done under a right-wing party and you still persist with your bigoted opinion. Jog on back to the Daily Mail, unfortunately for the rest of us there's plenty more of your kind there!