[email protected] wrote:
> No tizzy. I'm quite calm. I just give comparative numbers.
No, you don't just give comparative numbers (doing some extra
attributing here, thanks google):
(FK):
In 1988, who wore bike helmets? The guys who rode mountain bikes off
8-foot drops did. I'd characterize them as risk takers who were
greatly exceeding the helmet's protective spec. IOW, they were
severely risk compensating.
(me):
Or they had a helmet sponsorship. I'd guess they were thinking about
landing on their wheels, failing which, head injuries would be a lesser
consideration than the usual clavicle, arm breaks, injured backs that
would impinge on their fun and/or income-producing abilities.
(FK):
Beyond those groups, it would have been only the most cautious
individuals who wore them, or made their kids wear them, for Just
Riding Along on bike paths or city streets. The kind of people who
would say "Sorry, Johnnie, you're not allowed to cross the street until
you're sixteen."
(me):
Tizzy of aspersions. "Picking up the ball and running with it". Helmet
hatred. Continues:
(FK):
ISTM that these would be the people who would rush Johnnie to the ER
when he fell and scraped his knee ("Flesh eating bacteria!!!"). And
these would be the people that the Thompson & Rivara team examined and
said "Hmm: He wore a helmet, and his injuries were only minor.
Obviously, the helmet protected him."
(snipped, continues with FK, MOS):
Those people were the lab rats that allowed T&R to say "85% reduction
in head injuries!!!" while carefully deemphasizing that almost all the
"head injuries" were minor scratches and such. Of course, they also
carefully omitted the equally justifiable "75% reduction in broken
legs."
(me):
Yup, all part of the Great Helmet Conspiracy: "helmet people" = rats,
complicit with The Deceivers.
Credit given for occasional lapses into mere exaggeration:
(FK):
And of course, that "85%" statement got MHLs instituted in many places.
(me):
Must have contributed, but there were certainly other forces at work.
For instance: insurance companies, state/local gov't, "public opinion"
as agents of social control ("let's cover that purple mohawk with a
helmet"), and the usual scapegoating of cyclists.
Then there's always the time you vented your helmet-hating spleen on me
to tell me my daughter wouldn't leave the house before she was forty
since I made her wear a bike helmet. What do you call that, Frank?
Where are the comparative numbers in that? Frank? You made a scurrilous
and totally uncalled-for remark. Are you ever going to respond directly
on this point?
And, more recently (no surprise, either!), when I pointed out that
she's become a strong intermediate-level horse rider in the years since
you tizzied about the helmet and knee/elbow pads, you pasted me with
"weird" because I "let" her (strongly supported, encouraged)
participate in an activity that you assumed to be "really" risky, with
no regard to any "numbers" on horse accidents/hour. Well, who cares
about any of that _reality_, as long as you had a chance to jab someone
who doesn't agree with you. Right, Mr. Tizzy?
Reviewing: Let's see, something I did or said doesn't square with your
"understanding", so there's something wrong with *me*. And tizzy tizzy,
here we go: my kids are gonna be social cripples if I have a bike
helmet rule, and I'm weird and cowardly ("overprotective", "womanly")
because I provided knee/elbow pads for my kids while they were first
learning to ride on two wheels.
Like I said, "full of ****". Helmet hatred, snarling. --TP
See what I mean about spleen? Good grief - calm down!
