Page 401 of 464

Re: Laugh, it's Friday

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:33 am
by warthog1
Thoglette wrote:Laugh it's Friday
Sorry didn't find it funny.
When you get all the mamils, lycra wannabes, mid life crisis etc etc cliches thrown repeatedly from the general public it wears thin.
To hear it from those within the cycling community is just annoying. It only serves to cause seperation.
The point about not being judgemental about ones choice to wear or not, a helmet, could have been made more effectively without the mockery.
Would perjorative terms about utilitarian cyclists have been funny to you?
It just serves to make us a more divided rabble than we are already.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:25 pm
by outnabike
statistical analysis of helmet efficacy in UCI races.

All I see is on the front page,is a bloke holding a poor tortoise by the tail...ought to be stopped. :)

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:36 pm
by human909
warthog1 wrote: You yourself have previously argued bunch cycling increases collision risk H909.
If it is going to increase collision risk surely it is prudent to protect one's noggin.
No argument from me for individual choice. I'd choose a helmet too. But I'd also respect other peoples' choices
warthog1 wrote: Stupid article that uses divisive language and doesn't advance any cause imo.
Come on. Be comfortable in the skin you choose. The tribes exist and ignoring them is head in the sand stuff. Recognising them with a smile is better than trying to pretend they don't exist.

There is always going to be some friendly banter between sub groups. No different with snowboarders and skiers (or countless other I could list).

Re: Laugh, it's Friday

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:42 pm
by human909
warthog1 wrote: Would perjorative terms about utilitarian cyclists have been funny to you?
Yeah pretty much. Go nuts.

Recognise the common ground and laugh about the differences. Watch me in my jeans leave you in my dust once the lights go green, don't worry you'll have your shoes clipped in shortly and I'll soon be seeing you disappear into the distance once you get up to speed and I run of of breath in 100m.
warthog1 wrote: When you get all the mamils, lycra wannabes, mid life crisis etc etc cliches thrown repeatedly from the general public it wears thin.
To hear it from those within the cycling community is just annoying. It only serves to cause seperation.
Does it? Does it really?

They are stereotypes for a reason. Have a laugh and embrace the separation and differences that do exist. I know I do.

I've cycled with and enjoyed being virtually every stereotype you could imagine. I've slipped into rides with people on the otherside of the world. All you need is a smile.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:23 pm
by warthog1
The author criticised "roadies" for making judgement calls about helmets or the lack thereof.
He then went on to make judgement calls about said "roadies" choices of equipment and motivations for same.

Then was nothing new or fresh about any of it. It was just a tired old rehash of the same cliches and categorisations.
I found it peurile.

Just sick of it I guess.
I'd rather unifying topics and language.
As I said we are a divided rabble.
Emphasizing difference doesn't serve to address the division.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:00 pm
by human909
warthog1 wrote:The author criticised "roadies" for making judgement calls about helmets or the lack thereof.
Yes.
warthog1 wrote:He then went on to make judgement calls about said "roadies" choices of equipment and motivations for same.
I don't see him criticising or judging 'roadies' as an entire group. I'm sure Eben would happily categorise himself as a roadie at times too.
Seriously have a look at the line between humour, satire and the real discussion.

In the words of the author:

"While I love cycling and embrace it in all its forms, I'm also extremely critical. So I present to you my venting for your amusement and betterment. No offense meant to the critiqued. Always keep riding!"

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:17 pm
by warthog1
human909 wrote:
warthog1 wrote:The author criticised "roadies" for making judgement calls about helmets or the lack thereof.
Yes.
warthog1 wrote:He then went on to make judgement calls about said "roadies" choices of equipment and motivations for same.
I don't see him criticising or judging 'roadies' as an entire group. I'm sure Eben would happily categorise himself as a roadie at times too.
Seriously have a look at the line between humour, satire and the real discussion.

In the words of the author:

"While I love cycling and embrace it in all its forms, I'm also extremely critical. So I present to you my venting for your amusement and betterment. No offense meant to the critiqued. Always keep riding!"
I am repeating myself.
It was not amusing.
It wasn't fresh.
It wasn't new.
It wasn't intelligent
It was tired, old and clichéd.
There was no betterment.

Given I am repeating myself, that'll do from me.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:42 pm
by human909
warthog1 wrote: It wasn't fresh.
It wasn't new.
It wasn't intelligent
It was tired, old and clichéd.
There was no betterment.
Yeah, when on going issues stay ongoing we should start ignoring them because they aren't fresh and new. They get old tired and clichéd. We should move on and ignore it. :roll:

The issue of cyclists dying on the roads is no longer fresh and new. I say we move on from that too.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:54 pm
by warthog1
human909 wrote:
warthog1 wrote: It wasn't fresh.
It wasn't new.
It wasn't intelligent
It was tired, old and clichéd.
There was no betterment.
Yeah, when on going issues stay ongoing we should start ignoring them because they aren't fresh and new. They get old tired and clichéd. We should move on and ignore it. :roll:

The issue of cyclists dying on the roads is no longer fresh and new. I say we move on from that too.

Ffs
Context.
In order to qualify as even remotely amusing it needs to have at least one of those characteristics.
From my perspective that piece did not
Ergo it was not in the slightest amusing.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:18 pm
by fat and old
human909 wrote:
In the words of the author:

"While I love cycling and embrace it in all its forms, I'm also extremely critical. So I present to you my venting for your amusement and betterment. No offense meant to the critiqued. Always keep riding!"
I’m very respectful of women, I just don’t understand why they dress so provocatively.

Some of my best friends are Aboriginals and they agree with me that ATSIC.....

Just because they walk around in large groups doesn’t mean they’re a gang

Of course she’s entitled to live safely. Why provoke him though?

No offense meant. Keep scrolling.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:18 pm
by Thoglette
warthog1 wrote: In order to qualify as even remotely amusing it needs to have at least one of those characteristics.
From my perspective that piece did not
Ergo it was not in the slightest amusing.
Which is fine. For me it resonated with a number of my own behaviours so tickled the funny bone.

Eben's style is, well, a particular snarking, self focused style which I associate with NYC in that it has similarities to people from Woody Allen to Anthony Bourdain. I don't include Seinfeld because, despite probably being similar _I_ rarely found him funny.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:40 pm
by LateStarter
Was cleaning up some old favourites and rediscovered this one (you have probably seen it), makes we want to cry,

The fall of bike share https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADoy7GgnF_s

The Lime Bikes seem to be doing well but many of them I see have had their nice looking helmets borrowed and not returned.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:57 am
by g-boaf
warthog1 wrote: Ffs
Context.
In order to qualify as even remotely amusing it needs to have at least one of those characteristics.
From my perspective that piece did not
Ergo it was not in the slightest amusing.
Just ride heaps, then you'll not have the time to worry about what other people write. Let the utility riding advocates spend all their days online typing away while you actually go somewhere on your bike. I bet I do more commuting/utility kinds of riding than they do.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:28 pm
by human909
g-boaf wrote:
warthog1 wrote: Ffs
Context.
In order to qualify as even remotely amusing it needs to have at least one of those characteristics.
From my perspective that piece did not
Ergo it was not in the slightest amusing.
Just ride heaps, then you'll not have the time to worry about what other people write. Let the utility riding advocates spend all their days online typing away while you actually go somewhere on your bike. I bet I do more commuting/utility kinds of riding than they do.
:( :(

Why? Why? Why?

Discussion about MHLs has already been confined to one thread. What drives you to bring the negativity here?When, has it become a competition about much riding a forum member has does? Even if you do feel like it is a competition, that's you, not everybody else.

Seriously. Drop the elitism and competitive attitude. It does do the cycling community any favours.

Re: unsubstantiated safety claims again

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:42 pm
by warthog1
https://theconversation.com/heres-why-d ... lia-109430


The rigid and inflexible attitudes of current policy-makers contrast dramatically with the innovative approaches to public health policy for which Australia was once renowned. Since the 1970s many highly successful campaigns have improved road safety, increased immunisation rates in children and helped prevent the spread of blood-borne virus infections.
The wearing of seatbelts was made compulsory throughout Australia in the early 1970s. Randomised breath testing and the wearing of helmets by bike riders were introduced in the 1980s. These measures alone have saved many thousands of lives.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:39 pm
by fat and old
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:55 pm
by human909
Authors:
Martyn Lloyd ... is an addiction specialist working in Melbourne and the President of the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, Royal Australasian College of Physicians.
Professor Paul Komesaroff is a practising physician and President of Adult Medicine in the Royal Australian College of Physicians.


The Australian medical profession is largely willfully ignorant on the topic of the benefits of mandatory helmets. Decades of indoctrination.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:31 am
by brumby33
Thoglette wrote:
warthog1 wrote: In order to qualify as even remotely amusing it needs to have at least one of those characteristics.
From my perspective that piece did not
Ergo it was not in the slightest amusing.
Which is fine. For me it resonated with a number of my own behaviours so tickled the funny bone.

Eben's style is, well, a particular snarking, self focused style which I associate with NYC in that it has similarities to people from Woody Allen to Anthony Bourdain. I don't include Seinfeld because, despite probably being similar _I_ rarely found him funny.
Here I was thinking it was just me who didn't find Seinfeld funny...or that Kramer bloke(esp. when he came to Australia..he was a total DH....the one that made that show was the short fat baldy fella who couldn't get a date. :lol: :lol:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:48 am
by fat and old
human909 wrote:Authors:
Martyn Lloyd ... is an addiction specialist working in Melbourne and the President of the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, Royal Australasian College of Physicians.
Professor Paul Komesaroff is a practising physician and President of Adult Medicine in the Royal Australian College of Physicians.


The Australian medical profession is largely willfully ignorant on the topic of the benefits of mandatory helmets. Decades of indoctrination.
Have either of them been discredited for using false data?

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:41 pm
by human909
fat and old wrote:Have either of them been discredited for using false data?
Well apart from the previously referenced unsubstantiated, doubtful and misleading claim?

I'm not sure I have no reason to trawl their entire lifetime of claims. But I would say that pretty much everybody has been "discredited for using false data" a some point in their life.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:52 am
by DavidS
I'm currently on holiday in Perth. Wow, can we have your police force? The number of people riding around without helmets is astounding, wonderful to see that it appears to have lax enforcement here. So many people just riding their bikes around without having to overheat their heads in the warm weather, what a great encouragement to cycling.

DS

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:26 am
by uart
DavidS wrote:I'm currently on holiday in Perth. Wow, can we have your police force? The number of people riding around without helmets is astounding
Yes, the regional enforcement of MHL is very patchy isn't it. Similarly, I've been to some quiet northern NSW towns where MHL enforcement was basically non existent (at least at the time I was there).

There is definitely something not quite right about a law that is seemingly just enforced (or not) on a whim. Call me a cynic, but I believe that MHL is basically an anti-cyclist law. The more anti-cyclist the sentiment then the more rigorously MHL is enforced.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:28 pm
by Scott_C
DavidS wrote:I'm currently on holiday in Perth. Wow, can we have your police force? The number of people riding around without helmets is astounding, wonderful to see that it appears to have lax enforcement here. So many people just riding their bikes around without having to overheat their heads in the warm weather, what a great encouragement to cycling.

DS
In WA the fine for failing to wear a helmet is just $50 so, for the most part, people who prefer to not wear a helmet are willing to risk the small fine in the event that they come across a cop who can be bothered enforcing the requirement. I have lived in WA all my life and can't recall seeing anybody stopped by a cop for not wearing a helmet despite seeing numerous helmetless people cycle past police vehicles.

In my experience on-road cyclists still tend to get the general neglect/hostility that you get from cops elsewhere in Australia but path cyclists and almost entirely ignored (which may come down to the WA Road Rules apparently not being enforceable on paths that aren't in a road reserve and the cops being unwilling to act not knowing if they actually have authority).

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:47 pm
by human909
And at the opposite end of the spectrum you have Victoria which, from much understanding, has been a pretty strong enforcer of helmet laws state wide for decades. A fair bit of this is probably due to Victoria leading Australia, and often the world, on many road safety issues. MHLs fall in the same category, even if we are still waiting on any evidence of the efficacy. :lol:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:53 pm
by fat and old
human909 wrote:
fat and old wrote:Have either of them been discredited for using false data?
Well apart from the previously referenced unsubstantiated, doubtful and misleading claim?
Yeah, but they didn't use dodgy data or methods of interpreting said data to support their claims did they? Honest q? I know Thoglette points out Oliviers (sp?) dodginess, wondered if these two were the same or just garden variety spruikers. Although this sentence is close
Safety measures on the roads did not cause car drivers and bike riders to behave more recklessly
I'm sure there's data to support the assertion that helmets lead to greater "risk" taking.