gasoline/petrol company promoting helmet use

[Fritz M]

The fuel company Jet/ConocoPhillips has launched "Safe & Smile," a
campaign to promote bike helmet use.

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5813

Can anybody say "conspiracy"? I knew you could. Because of the
correlation between increased helmet use requirements and decreased
cycling, it's in ConocoPhillips' best interests to promote helmet use.

RFM
http://www.masoner.net/bike/

 

[C]

In article <[email protected]>,
Fritz M <[email protected]> wrote:
>Can anybody say "conspiracy"? I knew you could. Because of the
>correlation between increased helmet use requirements and decreased
>cycling, it's in ConocoPhillips' best interests to promote helmet use.

Also, that anti-bike organization knowns as the "Tour de France" is now
requiring helmets for all of the racers. They are trying to destroy
cycling as we know it.

 

[what does THIS button do?]

Fritz M wrote:
> The fuel company Jet/ConocoPhillips has launched "Safe & Smile," a
> campaign to promote bike helmet use.
>
> http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5813
>
> Can anybody say "conspiracy"? I knew you could. Because of the
> correlation between increased helmet use requirements and decreased
> cycling, it's in ConocoPhillips' best interests to promote helmet use.
>
> RFM
> http://www.masoner.net/bike/

I SAID, YOU'RE SMOKING THE WRONG END!!

..max

 

[The Wogster]

Fritz M wrote:
> The fuel company Jet/ConocoPhillips has launched "Safe & Smile," a
> campaign to promote bike helmet use.
>
> http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5813
>
> Can anybody say "conspiracy"? I knew you could. Because of the
> correlation between increased helmet use requirements and decreased
> cycling, it's in ConocoPhillips' best interests to promote helmet use.

Helmets don't reduce cycling, the perceived danger in cycling that it is
dangerous enough to require a helmet does......

Now to be realistic for a moment, ordinary road cycling,touring and
commuting really don't need helmets, your chances of a serious spill are
pretty low. Now for racing, mountain biking and other areas of sport
where your riding style increases the risk of a crash, then they are a
good idea, even though you have increased the risk of a serious spill or
crash from .0001% to .001%

W

 

[Paul R]

"The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fritz M wrote:
> > The fuel company Jet/ConocoPhillips has launched "Safe & Smile," a
> > campaign to promote bike helmet use.
> >
> > http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5813
> >
> > Can anybody say "conspiracy"? I knew you could. Because of the
> > correlation between increased helmet use requirements and decreased
> > cycling, it's in ConocoPhillips' best interests to promote helmet use.
>
> Helmets don't reduce cycling, the perceived danger in cycling that it is
> dangerous enough to require a helmet does......

I'll just add to that to say that mandatory helmet laws have worked to
significantly reduce the number of cyclists wherever they've been
introduced - making the streets more dangerous for those cyclists remaining.

> Now to be realistic for a moment, ordinary road cycling,touring and
> commuting really don't need helmets, your chances of a serious spill are
> pretty low. Now for racing, mountain biking and other areas of sport
> where your riding style increases the risk of a crash, then they are a
> good idea, even though you have increased the risk of a serious spill or
> crash from .0001% to .001%
>

agreed.

p

 

[Dane Jackson]

what does THIS button do? <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I SAID, YOU'RE SMOKING THE WRONG END!!

The really bad thing is when you do that in front of a really cute MOTAS.
Of course, you're chance of doing that increases dramatically when in the
presence of said MOTAS. The same rule applies for 'clipless' moments and
similar other embarassing situations of course.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
"When all else fails, follow instructions."

 

[Fritz M]

C wrote:

> Also, that anti-bike organization knowns as the "Tour de France" is now
> requiring helmets for all of the racers. They are trying to destroy
> cycling as we know it.

Equating children toodling along to school with racers bumping and
jostling at 30 mph is building a straw man. This is done when you don't
have real facts to stand on.

RFM
http://www.masoner.net/bike/